Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 October 10

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 Return to Castle Wolfenstein. I created a disambiguation page to deal with the possible other uses. Yomangani^talk 18:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wilhelm Strasse

Minor character that only appears in one game. Not even worth merging into parent article. Virogtheconq 00:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Merge to Return to Castle Wolfenstein. --- RockMFR 02:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge Arbusto 03:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• #REDIRECT Karl-Liebknecht-Strasse, commonly used in the past. Pavel Vozenilek 13:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Agree with Pavel. Olessi 17:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per User:Pavel Vozenilek seems totally appropriate. I'd be bold and do it myself, but don't want to step on the toes of the editors voting to merge. ergot 14:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge - this article is not about the street in Berlin, or the former Kaiser-Wilhelm-Strasse now called Karl-Liebknecht-Strasse, also in Berlin; it's about the character in Return to Castle Wolfenstein, and appears extraneous. --Davecampbell 21:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: the extraneous-ness (is that even a word?) of the character is why I nominated it for deletion in the first place. So redirecting it to one of the real locations (perhaps a dab instead?) would be appropriate - the current content of the article doesn't matter. I have no opinion on if it should be redirected to those locations or not. Virogtheconq 00:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Those suggesting redirect are pointing to something (a street in Berlin) that has nothing to do with this-here (a character in RTCW). That's what I was trying to explain. --Davecampbell 19:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I realise that. It just seems a lot more likely that people entering "Wilhelm Strasse" into the search box would be looking for Wilhelmstraße than the game character. ergot 13:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Merge to Return to Castle Wolfenstein. Per all above. --Marriedtofilm 23:35, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per all of the above and close this afd. People Powered 14:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• DO NOT MERGE or DELETE, LEAVE IT ALONE - Strasse is one of the two main villains of the Return to Castle Wolfenstein game. He plays too much of a major role in the game, creating and operating the machine-based enemies as well as constructing Operation Ubersoldat. He's far too important not to have a page of his own. In fact, the other main villain, Heinrich, should also be given a page and it should be expanded upon. - Zarbon
• Delete per Virogtheconq. Akanksha 04:38, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 09:04, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trolltalk

Horribly fails WP:NOR and WP:V, among other policies. Article subject (a single story on Slashdot) is not notable. --- RockMFR 00:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

This is the 2nd (or 3rd time?) this has been nominated for deletion. The previous discussion (NO CONSENSUS) can be found here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trolltalk

Numerous other Slashdot-related articles are currently up for deletion, for reference:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Recurring jokes on Slashdot

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slashdot trolling phenomena

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slashdot subculture (2nd nomination)

• Delete getting ill with all this /. crap Danny Lilithborne 00:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete basically a subforum of Slashdot, unknown even to most regulars. This is the fourth awful Slashdot-related article in as many days, and frankly it's getting tiresome writing reasoning for them all, so let's be brief: Fails WP:WEB, fails WP:V, no reliable sources, etc. etc. etc. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless reliable third-party sources are provided. — TKD::Talk 01:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Arbusto 03:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as above. Vectro 03:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete We all know this will never be sourced. It's disappointing that a previous AFD was successfully defeated by a mass sockpuppet attack. SubSeven 03:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all above. Resolute 04:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable, etc. Choess 05:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Not notable. Wikipedia is not a Slashdot encyclopedia. May deserve a brief mention at Slashdot. Delete, or redirect at a pinch, fascinating though it is to read about the contributions of nonnotable people to a nonnotable forum. Vizjim 06:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom and above. Ok as a mention in the main slashdot article if reliable sources are found. Bwithh 15:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:V, WP:WEB, and the myriad of good reasons above. I love /., but this is so unimportant it is nearly ridiculous.--Isotope23 16:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Almost worthy of a mention in the main /. article, but there is no reason for a seperate article. --Maelnuneb (Talk) 17:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete While interesting to read (to me, at least), the lack of verifiability means thumbs-down. --Neo 06:03, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Just in the past 14 days, trolltalk has received over 3500 comments, making it among the most active discussion forums on the Internet. Though posts are deleted after 14 days, it's received probably half a million total posts in its lifetime, many orders of magnitude more than any other Slashdot story past present or future. 4.253.47.43 11:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Uh... the thing is, we can't just take your word on it. We could if Slashdot would have a complete archive and automated statistics system, and someone would have done extensive chronicling of the place. By purging the history automatically, it kind of digs its own grave on the verifiability department; what we have is "current" situation. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 15:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Okay, I admit it, I clicked on the link you provided. As far as I can tell, all the content is just copy-pasted text from public domain sources (the bible, old dictionaries, etc), all presumably posted by a bot or some posting script, and given the lack of variety, more than likely all posted by the same bot. So if all the posts are generated by bots, with no actual discussion going on, who cares whether it gets a thousand "posts" a week, or a million, or a trillion? They aren't even actual posts, and without any discussion going on, it isn't even really a forum. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:45, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
    • As mentioned in the article, Trolltalk has been attack almost constantly since May 2005 by a sophisticated crapflood script that renders it practically unusable. Generally, nobody posts during the crapflood because their post would get buried, despite the efforts of the Trolltalk Digest (which FAILS IT miserably). Sometimes the crapflood crashes for a few days, and human activity will return until the crapflood is fixed and restarted. Some people still skim through Trolltalk even during crapfloods looking for other human posts, but it's usually an exercise in futility. Surprisingly, however, Trolltalk got more posts before the crapflood: the number of genuine human posts in the past two weeks was often well above 5000. Most of the former users have been driven away by the crapflood so Trolltalk probably would never return to its former glory even if the crapflood were stopped for good. In fact, the crapflood was stopped for about two days in order to announce these AfDs, but nobody seemed to care. Because of that two days without posts, the Trolltalk post count is actually about 500 less right now than it would be if the crapflood had continued during that time. 4.253.43.96 20:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Also, the crapflood does not use "copy-pasted text from public domain sources". The crapflood uses a number of different process threads that operate in different manners. One is a crapflood uptime report. Three use the Unix Fortune (program) including the standard databases and a number of collected & customized databases. Four use Markov chains to generate random but sensible-looking text based on four different sets of input text. One of these replies to existing comments in order to fuck up the anti-crapflooding efforts of the Trolltalk Digest. Then there are others but you get the idea.
    • p.s. I'm not the Trolltalk Crapflooder; I'm going off of public information here & analysis of the crapflood over the past 1.5 years in an attempt to track down the Trolltalk Crapflooder's identity. I am in no way connected to the Trolltalk Crapflood; in fact it's widely believed that the Trolltalk Crapflooder doesn't even read Trolltalk anymore. 4.253.43.96 20:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Even though Wikipedia doesn't consider the number of posts as a measure of notability, it would be good to point out that ~500 posts/day is fairly good evidence that a forum/website is FAR from being large enough to be notable. Realize that places like GameFAQs have HUNDREDS of individual boards with that amount of activity per day, and they certainly don't have their own articles here. --- RockMFR 23:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete A mention of the thing is material for main Slashdot article; the rest is just uncalled for. Not really any more remarkable than any other feature of the site; subforums must be really really exceptional. It's not a good sign if the article has to drop down to "we've had this sort of discussions before" level. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 15:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC), Slashdot user WWWWolf (#2428), "Oh, we have this sort of thing too? Yeah, I have vaguely heard of it..."

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. - Mailer Diablo 15:36, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gurgen Askaryan

Notability appears to be questionable. Referred to in papers, but appeared to have published in a very limited manner, if at all. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 00:48, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. I see nothing non-notable about him on first glance. Give it some time to develop. --- RockMFR 01:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep notable physicist, originator of the Askaryan effect. - CrazyRussian talk/email 01:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Reluctant Keep he appears to be notable due to his discoveries but there are only a few references to him, even fewer if he wasn't a poet aswell. James086 02:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Everything checks off...just give the article some time to grow. Sr13 02:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep if sourced. If not sourced to meet WP:V then delete. Arbusto 03:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Somewhat Keep Doesn't look very important, but does merit an entry, I think. -- P.B. Pilhet / Talk 16:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless sourced to meet WP:V --Maelnuneb (Talk) 17:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per the above comments. RFerreira 00:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• Askaryan was indeed the inventor of the light self-focusing, reference now given in the Article. This is well-known and widely accepted in the scientific community. Apart from that he was the inventor of what is now called the Askaryan effect. To emphasize the broad range of interests and topics investigated by Askaryan, I included a list of 50 selected publications from 1954 all the way to 1997. Note that most of the papers have been published in Soviet times in domestic journals, which limits the access somehow for the general public. All the publications can be found at www.isiknowledge.com To show the importance of the light self-focusing in fundamental science (particularly non-linear optics) as well as in its later applications in laser optics I will soon provide more references. This has now become a classical textbook material in optics. In fact, this can easily be found simply searching in google. As a person belonging to the laser optics and laser spectroscopy community, I will try to mainly contribute about Askaryan's works in optics, but I am sure much can be said about his contribution in plasma physics/chemistry and high-energy physics. This will be done too. Vahan Senekerimyan 09:00, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per Sr13. Vectro 16:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect just redirecting but people interested can merge any appropriate content. W.marsh 22:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Error Code Purple

This is an article about a non-notable computer problem that may have an impact on a number of computers made by one manufacturer if certain things happen. In response to the notability template, the creator acknowledged the questionable notability but indicated that people would think it is notable if it was happening to them, suggesting that this should be here for those looking for troubleshooting information (check talk to verify my interpretation). That isn't what Wikipedia is for. 18 search engine hits verify the very limited scope of this issue and provide no reliable coverage. Erechtheus 00:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - not notable, no reliable sources, and the information can be found elsewhere anyway (so I'm not swayed by the lifesaving argument). Yomangani^talk 01:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. — TKD::Talk 01:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Copy protection. Seems to be a good example about how extreme copy protection measures end up screwing over customers. --- RockMFR 01:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • A merge would be okay if reliable sources for this can be found. — TKD::Talk 01:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Delete WP:NOT a how-to guide. Besides, if you're suffering from Code Purple, how are you gonna get to Wikipedia in the first place??? (P.S. I'm joking But not on the Delete.) --Roninbk _{t c e #} 02:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Oops, I meant merge and condense, such that only a brief mention remained, not a how-to on resolving the issue. Regardless, the point is academic if there aren't any reliable sources. :) — TKD::Talk 07:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment from creator: I created this as the sort of thing a reader of this top-12 website would want to see. It's borderline, but it's the sort of computer information I look up in Wikipedia myself as a reader daily - i.e., look up some obscure thing and find what info there is. Regarding "reliable sources", print would probably be the least reliable source for stuff like this - WP:RS is a guideline, not a magic touchstone of source reliability in all conceivable circumstances. Merge and redirect to Copy protection is fine by me. Heck, delete is fine by me. I suppose we could wait for a class action suit, c.f. E18 error - David Gerard 07:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, I don't think this is notable. JIP | Talk 14:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I personally dont see how this article is notable. --Maelnuneb (Talk) 17:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Copy protection. Not significant as its own article, but could be a valuable tidbit of info for techs/users. --Neo 05:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I would like to say, even though this is not notable, that the information could be genuinly useful to somebody. HighInBC 18:37, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Wiki is not Google. - Corporal Tunnel 20:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 with and Redirect to List of Star Wars companies. -- Satori Son 13:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Taim & Bak

Star Wars fancruft. The article even comes out and admits it's "relatively small". Crystallina 00:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect to List of Star Wars companies. — TKD::Talk 01:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect per TKD. --- RockMFR 01:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect per above. Ultra-Loser ^{Talk | BT sites} 01:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment, I'm not a starwars fan so I don't know but is this verifiable? It shouldn't be merged into the List of Star Wars companies if it's unverifiable. James086 02:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC) I checked and there are numerous sites referencing it, the first few being wiki's but there is a lot (of fan sites as far as I can tell) so I'm presuming it must be legit. James086 02:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect. This company is too small to have its own article. Sr13 02:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect The content here is less than most companies included in List of Star Wars companies. Maybe in the future George Lucas will make Star Wars Episode 7: Taim & Bak, and it will deserve it's own article. But for now, redirect. --Marriedtofilm 02:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Cuddle withdrawn. El_C 07:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cuddle party and Cuddlebuddy

Same rationale as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cuddle puddle - CrazyRussian talk/email 01:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Withdraw Cuddle Party - CrazyRussian talk/email 02:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete cuddlecruft? Opabinia regalis 01:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Cuddle party, speedy delete A7 Cuddlebuddy. I have duly tagged Cuddlebuddy for not asserting any reason to exist at all. Cuddle parties do exist, or at least have in the past; I've read articles about them. But as written, the article is spam, and I don't think this short-term fad deserves an article anyway. --Aaron 01:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. The closing admin of the Cuddle puddle AfD said not to use that as precedent to delete others about the same topic. Cuddle party seems referenced and notable. It may need to be cleaned up, but it seems fine to me. Cuddlebuddy could be deleted, but I'm also wondering if it can be merged with Cuddle party. - Lex 01:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Nor am I using it as binding precendent. IMO, these could go as that did. - CrazyRussian talk/email 02:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep for Cuddle party. I'm still deciding on the other one. - Lex 01:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep certainly seems verifiable, based on all the media attention. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep for Cuddle Party. They're a bit passe', but they were a notable phenomena. - Richfife 01:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Cuddle party, per media coverage. Merge Cuddlebuddy into Cuddle party. And a group hug was had by all...--Roninbk _{t c e #} 02:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Cuddle party, merge and redirect cuddlebuddy to cuddle party. --- RockMFR 02:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep passed N. Arbusto 03:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Cuddle party, had quite some media attention for a short while, Delete/merge/redirect/dowhateveryouwantwithit the other. --Conti|✉ 05:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete both unencyclopedic and unnotable; media coverage does not confer notability. Eusebeus 15:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep 'Cuddle party' per Richfife --Richmeister 18:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Cuddle party, Merge and redirect cuddlebuddy. JubalHarshaw 20:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep cuddle party; request nominator withdraw both and relist cuddlebuddy on its own. JDoorjam Talk 00:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Completely unnecessary, two is quite few and the subjects are certainly congruent. - CrazyRussian talk/email 02:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Delete Cuddlebuddy; closing admin, please note that all these keep votes are for "Cuddle party." JDoorjam Talk 05:57, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Well now hold on a sec. We've got Merge votes for Cuddlebuddy, which is very different from Delete under the GFDL. Don't mis-characterize the debate... --Roninbk _{t c e #} 09:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, this is plainly a notable and citable topic. I'm OK with merge as a compromise, however. Vectro 17:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Sr13 01:44, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cobbers

I can't find any evidence on Google or Lexis-Nexis that a gang called "The Cobbers" exists in Virginia (or in Anne Arundel, see page history). Prod removed by author. Pan Dan 01:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete unverifiable. I can find no eveidence of this gang, the external links have nothing to do with the content, and even if the gang exists it is not notable. Yomangani^talk 01:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Gangcruft LOL. --- RockMFR 01:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I could not find this gang anywhere, and the article doesn't assert the subject's notability. Ultra-Loser ^{Talk | BT sites} 01:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Arbusto 03:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Nehwyn 12:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn gang with no results on Google. -- P.B. Pilhet / Talk 16:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Maelnuneb (Talk) 17:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Indo-Aryans from Poland and Norway? Sounds like bollocks to me. Delete as unverifiable. ergot 14:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Please note that 'delete or merge' is self-contradictory. 'Merge' means 'keep', first so the material can be merged, then so the article can be converted to a redirect (with edit history preserved for the GFDL). AfD does not govern merges anyway. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 14:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Personas of The Undertaker

Wikipedia isn't a guide to everything wrestling. An article for personas is pure fancruft. From the looks of it, Undertaker is the only one that has a personas article (for now at least). Useful information should be added to his page, and this article should be removed. RobJ1981 01:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect to The Undertaker as pure fancruft. Be frugal. Ultra-Loser ^{Talk | BT sites} 01:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per Ultra-Loser. The Hybrid Lives 05:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per above. Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 11:53, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge Per above--Unopeneddoor 19:00, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or merge per above. JIP | Talk 14:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete & Merge per nom. -- P.B. Pilhet / Talk 16:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge, the article might fall under original research and it certainly doesn't merit its own article. Don't keep too much detail in Mark Calaway though - the article on Calaway does a decent job of summing up the personalities as it is. --Jtalledo (talk) 19:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Possibly Irrelevant Comment. If sources are needed for the personas after the merger, I can provide them. THL 04:37, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect Good info, wrong place - not worthy of it's own article. Kingfisherswift 15:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect DXRAW 11:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 both per A7 and G11. Luna Santin 03:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ms. Divine's Tee Hee Heure

I don't believe a public access show is notable enough for Wikipedia. Joyous! | Talk 01:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. 79 ghits and an alexa ranking of 5,498,588. Non-notable. Maybe consider deleting Ms Divine as well, per this google search: [1]. Ultra-Loser ^{Talk | BT sites} 01:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable. I hope it's better than it looks. - Richfife 01:48, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and also delete Ms Divine. So incredibly non-notable... -- Kicking222 02:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 09:05, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Danica Heller

Delete. Google searches for Danica Heller, "Danica Heller", Heller murder baltimore and Danica Heller 1976 yield no search results relevant to this topic (the second only yields two search results overall). If this murder is as notable as the article claims, there would certainly be ample material available outside wikipedia, but since this appears not to be the case I am led to conclude that it is a hoax. Vectro 01:26, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Whether a hoax or not, it's a 100% WP:V violation. --Aaron 01:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Looks like a hoax. --- RockMFR 01:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. This story seems too good to be true and sounds like a short horror tale. The name should be on the Internet but two sources (with the same database) show irrelevant results. I am certain that this is a hoax. I'm not suprised there aren't any sources for this information... Sr13 02:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Pretty good for a hoax, but still a hoax. - Richfife 01:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete it's not really believable, let alone verifiable. "Police officers were struck by her beauty". James086 02:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as probable hoax. Some details are suspiciously similar to the real-life case of the Black Dahlia. Others are typical of Halloween horror-fairytales. The story is so hugely bizarre that it would certainly have made local if not national news, so it ought to be on the Web -- or at least in the archives of the Baltimore Sun. But it ain't on the Web and I'll bet you a $2 bill it's not in the Sun's archives, either. Alba 04:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete I am a born and raised resident of Baltimore, and I can say with all confidence this is as clear of a hoax as I have EVER seen, hon. Wildthing61476 14:27, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and Wildthing61476. -- P.B. Pilhet / Talk 16:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oh... Yeah, I'm actually from Alabama, but I have cousins in Baltimore who told me about it. If it's not real, it wasn't be intention. They seem to believe it. I'll search for sources. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nanaszczebrzeszyn (talk • contribs) 12:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: Nanaszczebrzeszyn is the original creator of the article in question. Vectro 18:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Great story, but I am positive that it isn't true. --Maelnuneb (Talk) 18:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete every indication of a hoax, and no sources to boot. I just wonder if we can WP:SNOW this one?-- danntm ^T _C 19:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Yes I wasn't trying to hide the fact that I am the author of the article. I was just saying that I didn't intentionally post something I knew wasn't true.
• Delete, more hoaxery from the person who kept recreating Asstree, Alabama. NawlinWiki 20:27, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not even non-net literary refernces (real or otherwise) are cited. As far as I cant tell right now, it's fiction. --Marriedtofilm 23:28, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. - Mailer Diablo 16:08, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rene Clausen

I don't think Clausen is all that notable. Also, the creator of this article has repeatedly removed the notability tags I have inserted without expanding the article or demonstrating that Clausen is notable. MatthewUND^(talk) 01:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep and Move to René Clausen Google and Yahoo provide many results asserting his notability, such as this or this. --Húsönd 01:42, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Husond - Richfife 01:45, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Article's author was given numerous opportunities to verify claims of notability, but chose not to, instead getting into an endless revert war (basically adding a "Special note" that the subject is notable in itself so no proof needs to be provided). This seems indicative that the author cannot prove claims. Wavy G 02:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment I believe that the article should not be punished for its creator's misconduct.--Húsönd 02:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

True. All I meant was the author's actions seem to indicate that he/she is unable to provide a reason to keep, but wants to keep the article despite this. Wavy G 02:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Could be. But for what I found I believe that the author just didn't want to bother. If this person's notability is asserted, then there's no need to delete an article that someone else is likely to create.--Húsönd 02:53, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. Also, if the subject is a notable composer, how come no compositions are listed? Anyone can make arrangements - I would expect any music teacher to do that - but that should not be a qualification for putting every music teacher in an encyclopaedia. Emeraude 12:45, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment I would like to call to your attention that René Clause clearly meets WP:MUSIC, a Google search clearly confirms that. Please do not be tempted to delete the article just because its creator didn't do a good work with it. Expand instead.--Húsönd 15:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as nn music teacher; clearly fails WP:BIO. Eusebeus 15:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep A valid music composer, as Husond says. -- P.B. Pilhet / Talk 16:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep This book (Strimple, Nick (2005). Choral Music in the Twentieth Century. Amadeus Press. p.261. ISBN 1574671227) says, "Prominent educational composers at century's end included ... Rene Clausen (b.1953), who mastered a lush impressionistic style...." Also, an Amazon search found 20 discs containing his compositions, 11 of which are currently available, 2 of which are kept in stock at Amazon. Those are facts I can quickly produce. BTW, I know of him only as a composer, whose music I've performed on a number of occasions. The fact he's possibly a non-notable educator is irrelevant. I'm no expert, and won't think of including my opinion in the article, but I believe he is unquestionably a notable 20th century sacred choral music composer. I'm confident that a little more digging could document this better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quintote (talk • contribs) 15:09, 11 October 2006
• Keep per Quintote. Vectro 17:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Husond and Quintote. - Lex 17:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - Passes WP:MUSIC, notable composer. Torinir _{( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options )} 18:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable composer. Keep and expand. Sr13 05:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and develop.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 09:05, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Prepare to Live

The article reads as an advertisement. Swpb 01:42, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Not only that, but unless Eranthomson is the author of the Prepare to Live website or received permission from the author, s/he is violating WP:COPYVIO. The first paragraph is exactly the same as the first paragraph of the Prepare to Live site. Sr13 02:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Advertisement for a non-notable organization (for-profit, non-profit, doesn't matter). No Alexa rank for the web site, which gets just 15 unique Google hits. -- Kicking222 02:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete It's an ad. Could turn into more, but so far not worthy of inclusion. Emeraude 12:47, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. - Mailer Diablo 16:12, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Organisation of Young Free Algerians

At least one of the claims in this article was unverifiable and the subject of the claim complained about it (apparently), so I removed it. The other claims don't seem verifiable either. I found very few references to an organization with this name even existing through web searching. Someone de-proded because the article is also on the French wikipedia, however, that article is just a translation of this one (including all the dubious claims). If someone can find reliable sources then we can abort this AFD. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-10-10 01:58Z

• Delete A google search proves inconclusive evidence of the group's existence. Moreover, most of the links in this google search has similar content as the one in this article. I believe, these sites are mirrors of Wikipedia and if they are not, the article here is a clear copyright violation (correct me if I am wrong with this analysis). Even if this is not the case, the article is unverifiable at the present. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 02:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC) Changed my opinion to Abstain after considering all the facts presented by the other users, especially the counter comments made by Quarl. But I wish to add that this article is properly being referenced currently, a major improvement over the past few days. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 20:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I agree with Siva that the article is unverifiable at present. The article is also on the French Wikipedia, but as Quarl observes (above) it was translated from the English original! Later commenters in either language seem to have improved the style (and removed one of the incidents) but not injected any new information from printed sources. Unless someone wants to read some French or Algerian newspapers or histories to get more info, I think we should delete. Otherwise we're just propagating an unconfirmable rumor.. Changing my vote to Keep. See the article from Humanité found by Emeraude (below) and the UNHCR article. *Plus* see the web site www.algeria-watch.com. Although this site has a POV they are full of pointers to actual books and articles in the regular French press. See a bunch of info that I added to the article.

IF someone can use this info to write an NPOV article then I'd say we should Keep but not otherwise. I rewrote about half the article, using references. Please improve it further if you can. EdJohnston 18:20, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• Probably keep A search on google.fr for "Organisation des jeunes Algériens libres" and restricting to web pages in French only returns 65 hits (including the wikipedia article). Browsing the first half dozen suggests that the organisation did exist and was/is notable. For example: [[2]] and [[3]] both from the website of the French newspaper l'Humanité. I don't know enough about the issue to say for certain whether OJAL should be deleted or not, but on balance would suggest it is not until someone with more knowledge than I can check out some more of the references from Google.fr. Emeraude 13:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Also found this, from the UNHCR website in French [[4]]:The OJAL is a militant group that supported the army in its battle against the Islamists and which perpetrated attacks against the Islamic communities. It was founded in 1993. (My translation).Emeraude 13:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• • Okay, the organization probably exists, but that doesn't address the other unverifiability concerns. So far we'd have an article with the text "OJAL probably exists." —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-10-10 20:17Z

• Keep per Emeraude Cynical 14:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep but Change Subject is worthy of an article, but at present the article is a copyright violation (text taken directly from answers.com). -- P.B. Pilhet / Talk 16:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Answers.com, as well as many other sites, are copies of Wikipedia (usually legitimately), not the other way around. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-10-10 20:12Z

• Keep. Evidence in the French translation of the group. Sr13 06:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  •  ?! what evidence? —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-10-12 06:47Z
    • Facts presented in French by Emeraude. Sr13 03:25, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

• The new evidence found is even more disturbing. We have one source which says the group exists, founded 1993, etc.; another says that it did not exist and was invented by the Algerian secret service as a cover-up. So now we know the organization was claimed to exist but not whether it really existed. Also the article had many unverifiable indirect claims ("OJAL killed foo who was bar", but we can't verify that foo was bar). If this article is to exist, someone will have to completely rewrite the article, spend time doing serious research, and making sure the article doesn't imply any of the claims/hypotheses are facts. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-10-12 06:57Z

Comment I agreed with your original nomination of the article for deletion, due to lack of verifiability. Now that we have relatively good sources, and don't leave our readers stuck without any resources to click on, I think we've done our job. If the quoted people, like Samraoui, disagree with one another, we can't help that. But so long as we trust that Samraoui was quoted correctly, I think we're OK. Let our readers decide from the evidence we collected what is most likely to be the truth. A diligent person could probably collect more references just by Googling on the people's names in the current article, but this may be enough. (Another option is to search Le Monde whose archives seem to be open). I encourage the reviewers who have found more references to add them to the article. EdJohnston 22:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep there is only one gnews archive result, from L'Humanité 31-Mar-94, but there is information here, abstracted from the Journal of Arabic, Islamic and Middle Eastern Studies, and more here (Canadian Govt: Immigration and Refugee Board). I think that the JAIMES and the Canadian Govt can be considered reliable sources. The facts of the matter may be uncertain, but cleanup and referencing can fix that. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:35, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete as patent nonsense. Turnstep 13:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Giantenemycrab

Original Research, Not notable, and unverifiable. Vectro 01:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom or Speedy delete under G1.--Húsönd 02:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete, this article is uninformative aswell as what Vectro said. James086 02:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete under Patent nonsense (or G1). Moreover, a google search shows no evidence of this term. This article is also clearly original reseach. The article (or content) here has not been previously published by any reliable source. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 02:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • It is listed on List of Internet phenomena, but the description there doesn't sound anything like the content of this article. Also, it's entry links to Genji: Dawn of the Samurai, which appears to be a video game. If there is a corrolation, it isn't clear. Wavy G 02:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Huh? Non-notable, unverifiable, and doesn't even make any sense. Wavy G 02:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete. Pertains to the information about "Giant enemy crab" that is detailed on Genji: Days of the Blade, but giantenemycrab is obviously not even worthy of a redirect. --- RockMFR 02:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete. db-nonsense --ArmadilloFromHell 03:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete sounds like nonsense to me --plange 03:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. So tagged. MER-C 03:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Unimformative. Unsourced. Sr13 04:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Dear adminstrators: why has this not yet been speedily deleted as G1??? Alba 04:34, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete Patent nonsense. TJ Spyke 05:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 09:06, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vemo

This article seems completely bogus. No sources are cited to substantiate anything in the article. I can't find any evidence that this asserted category of music exists. Wookipedian 02:26, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. No sources. No verifiability. Sr13 02:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I found some references to bands being labeled "vemo" with google searching "vemo music" but there were only a few. Non notable and really not worthy of it's own article. James086 02:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Reply to remark above: Funny, I tried that and I can't find any such references. I found a person whose nickname is Vemo, with no explanation of the what the nickname means, but that's about it. —Wookipedian 19:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per common sense. Cynical 14:26, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn --Maelnuneb (Talk) 18:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator, not verifiable or notable. RFerreira 00:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, nn, et al. --Neo 06:08, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment, no vote Is there any reason why someone would make this up? Pedia-I ^{Project St.Theresa} 18:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Reply to comment: Take a look at the User Talk page and edit history of the user who created the article (User talk:D4rk0). This person seems to be a persistent vandal. I wonder if they are trying to promote the term just to see if they can get other people to use it. Perhaps they plan to start adding the term to other pages with links to this page. Note that seven months ago the person was scolded there with the remark "Please stop adding your own inventions to Wikipedia". Or perhaps "Vemo" is just a term used by this person and a small group of their friends, but not a widespread and noteworthy accepted thing. I also wonder about the choice of bands that are listed as examples of the alleged genre — for example, considering the description of the term, does Seether really fit? Also note that the only "supportive" edit to the article made after its initial creation was by an anon IP address that is associated with similar vandalism (User talk:203.114.137.10). —Wookipedian 19:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 uhhhhhhh...no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 16:14, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Niles McKinley High School

• Keep. The school's football program is illustrious, as well as their speech team. Plus if someone wants to make a page for their school why should it matter to you guys. If it bothers you then just ignore it.

Not notable per WP:Schools. Vectro 02:34, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Ditto. Wikipedia is not a scoreboard. Sr13 02:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Thanks, TruthbringerToronto, for informing me of the change. There needs to be work done on this article, but this article is acceptable. Sr13 01:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above.--Húsönd 02:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. WP:SCHOOLS is not policy. - Lex 03:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Cleanup would be my first choice, as schools do tend to be notable. But if nobody is up to the task, delete as having no real content. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Struck vote, it has been expanded slightly. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:34, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as stub. Someone can always find something to say about a high school. Gazpacho 03:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Notability of high schools has long been a contentious subject. I reside in the camp that believes they are not inherently notable. It's clear here (insofar as I can see) that there is nothing that sets this school apart from all others. -- tariqabjotu 03:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless something other than the record of the football team can actually be said about this school. Resolute 04:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I couldn't find an official site for the school itself, but I added some text and two references. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 05:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep While this article needs a thorough editing and expansion, we have come to near-complete agreement that high schools are inherently notable. Alansohn 05:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per my belief that secondary schools are inherently notable, the article can be expanded. Yamaguchi先生 07:49, 10 October 2006
• So it's a school and it has a football team. Oh, and the mayor went to it. (Surprise, surprise.) Unless every school in the world is entitled to a Wikipedia entry (a view with which I have some sympathy), delete. Emeraude 13:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per the consensus that has emerged every time someone tries to start another 'schools war' - that high schools are inherently notable due to their size. Plus the fact that the strong possibility that a POTUS went there means that (regardless of whether you agree that high schools are notable or not) it is imperative we keep it until this can be verified or disproved. Cynical

Comment: William McKinley, did apparently not go to this High School, so this can be struck (he was born in Niles, but moved at an early age to Poland (the city in Ohio, that is :-) ) [5]. Fram 15:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment Actually, it is never imperative that anything be kept while awaiting verification. That is, in fact, a vioation of one of Wikipedia's core policies. The burden is on the editor to verify what is written before the article is created/edited. Resolute 15:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment There is no consensus that all highschools are notable. Many of these AfDs are closed as no consensus. JoshuaZ 18:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete: I have the (minority) opinion that high schools aren't automatically notable, but I agree that the chance that they are notable is much higher than for primary schools (for starters, there are fewer high schools). If some more interesting info can be found, i would not strongly oppose keeping it. As it stands now, it is still a delete in my book. Fram 15:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per the minority dissent at WP:SCHOOL; viz., another nn school. Eusebeus 15:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, meets all relevant content policies. No problem with merging the article if it remains in its current state. Christopher Parham (talk) 16:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Nothing special about this high school. I guess that I'm part of that minority. --Maelnuneb (Talk) 18:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge up to Niles, Ohio; do not in any event keep. This is what WP:SCHOOLS suggests, and, well, let's start doing it. We don't have an uninformative stub, but we do have a useful pointer and all of the info. I don't see any reason we shouldn't be doing this. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or merge, but do not keep outright per Black. -- Kicking222 21:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep -- William McKinley actually moved out of Niles because his family wanted to be in a community where there was more than an elementary school. His father, William McKinley Sr., by the way, was on the equivalent of the board of education in Niles. WP:SCHOOLS is not a policy as has been said and high schools are inherently important. That crazy poet in Niles apparently grew up there and may have gone to the school, but I couldn't find anything on that on the Web.Noroton 21:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep While this article needs a thorough editing and expansion, we have come to near-complete agreement that high schools are inherently notable. SchmuckyTheCat 22:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment It is a gross overstatement to claim "near-complete agreement" that all high schools deserve their own encyclopedia articles, regardless of how ordinary they are.Edison 15:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep and expand per Yamaguchi and Christopher Parham. RFerreira 00:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, meets content policies. JYolkowski // talk 01:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep --Vsion 02:57, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per schoolwatch flood above --ForbiddenWord 14:18, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment As has already been pointed out to you, organized vote stacking is not a reason to keep. JoshuaZ 18:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• DeleteThe article does not present evidence of notability, although it sounds like an ok school. I do not subscribe to the notion that all high schools are notable, any more than all elementary schools, all churches, all supermarkets, or all post offices are. The information here could just as well be presented in an article about the town. Come back and insert an article when there is an article with important verifiable facts leading us to the conclusion that the school is notable. Edison 15:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per A Man In Black and the reasoning of Edison. Pan Dan 17:00, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, subject is notable (all high schools are) and the article is well on its way. bbx 18:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete The presence of a congressman could be considered some sort of claim of notability but otherwise there is nothing even at all remarkable about this school. JoshuaZ 18:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Xoloz 01:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Travis Van Winkle

Actor who has made single episode appearances in several TV series. BanyanTree 02:45, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. He's a beginning actor; give the article a chance to grow. Sr13 02:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Sr13. Just because the article isn't much now doesn't mean that it can't get better. - Lex 03:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn, minor actor and model. Eusebeus 15:34, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. nn, unsourced. --Aaron 16:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep after having a look at the imdb page. Decent amount of acting work. Enough for an article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep Looks to me like it just merits an article. P.B. Pilhet / Talk 03:12, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Minor actor (though who can forget his stellar work as "Frat Guy" in Dorm Daze 2?). WP is NOT IMDB Lite, and all the minor movie-star-wannabes putting in their (short) CVS is just as bad as non-notable companies and unread webcomics trying to sneak their way into a little free publicity. --Calton | Talk 04:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete He looks like he might be on his way to doing something notable, but he's not done it yet. Best of luck to him in his career and may it one day reach a level of encyclopaedic success. GassyGuy 04:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Lex. --CFIF ☎ ⋐ 15:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete When searching for his name he seems to only show up in directories that include all actors. I could not find any critical reviews or fan clubs. I would say this article is not notable enough for inclusion. HighInBC 18:35, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 09:06, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Encyclopaedia of Turkey

Defunct web project or just spam? --Peta 02:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, sounds like a Turkish copy of wikipedia but it doesn't appear to be functioning and not notable enough to warrant an article, especially not since it stopped (whenever that was), so i say delete. James086 02:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Sounds like an advertisment. Not notable enough. Sr13 02:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Project cancelled for financial problems--Salahana 07:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above --Maelnuneb (Talk) 18:45, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Spam; whoever made this has never heard of Wikia. bibliomaniac15 23:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 09:06, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Heart of Pargon LARP

A live action role-playing clube; no evidence of notability. --Peta 02:53, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Ditto with above. Sr13 03:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. MER-C 03:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Maelnuneb (Talk) 18:45, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Percy Snoodle 12:46, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Concur. Lord Rasputin 18:03, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 09:06, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scottsdale Worship Center

Church, no evidence of notability, delete --Peta 02:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Most individual religious congregations are non-notable. --Metropolitan90 05:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MER-C 06:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Agreed. Delete Emeraude 13:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete there seems to be nothing that seperates this church from every other church. --Maelnuneb (Talk) 18:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• I'm coming to get you! Up the Loop 101, here I come! Going, going, and gone! This better be deleted on non-notability. Better yet, speedy (A7, G11) it! Shin'ou's TTV (Futaba|Masago|Kotobuki) 23:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete No verified claim of notability. Edison 15:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete No sourcing at all, much less use of independent sources. GRBerry 01:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 flagged as copyvio from [6]. Speedy doesn't apply because this article has been here for months. MER-C 07:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Raggademente

Article has been tagged for lacking notability for some time; talk page suggests he dones't meet MUSIC. --Peta 02:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete its a blatant copyright violation. T REX_speak 03:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment - from where? MER-C 03:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Here. T REX_speak 04:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. MER-C 03:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The statements are POV'd up. Sr13 03:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 09:19, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Propylon

No real evidence of notability provided; fails CORP. --Peta 02:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Too small to be considered an article. Sr13 03:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MER-C 03:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 09:19, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] J.M. "Moot" Truluck III

Relatively minor public servant, who I don't think meets WP:BIO. Previous AFD reached no concensus. Delete--Peta 03:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. This person is not of importance or recognition. Sr13 03:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. MER-C 04:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Emeraude 13:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 - consensus is that it violates WP:NOT and while there are arguments to keep, the majority centre around the existence of other similar lists rather than making the case for the continued existence of this one. - Yomangani^talk 10:00, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Brahmins

A list with a extremely broad criterion for inclusion and no context. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection and this is just a list of names, with a few POV issues in the entries. A Category structure would make much more sense for members of this (and other) castes. Nilfanion (talk) 21:50, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and the list is contextless and POV. --Coredesat (talk) 21:51, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep but limit to people whose notability is strongly related to their being a Brahmin.--T. Anthony 11:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. - Ganeshk (talk) 02:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
• Unwilling Keep - only to get rid of the atrocious caste-based cats.Bakaman _Bakatalk 03:09, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete I understand's T Anthony's point but it will be difficult to extablish a boundary. It is one thing being a Brahmin and another to "act as one," ie) become a spiritual Hindu. If it stay, it will be prone to vandalism from anti-caste people. Gizza^{Chat ©} 06:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
• Extreme delete per nom. utcursch | talk 07:15, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
• Why the below articles are not being considered for deletetion ??
  • List_of_Kayasthas
  • Famous_Yadavs
  • Distinguished_Khatris
• There is lot of stuff like this on wikipedia. If you want to delete it, better get rid of all the information related to all castes, rather than deleting some specific articles which would hurt the feelings of some communities.
  • Comment There are no articles on Famous Yadavs or Distinguished Khatris. List of Kayasthas does not contain POV, and has context. Everyone on its list actually has an article on Wikipedia. However, the list is unverifiable, so it may have to be tagged for cleanup later. --Coredesat (talk) 19:15, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
    • See Yadava#Famous_Yadavs and Khatri#Distinguished_Khatris. Uncle G 08:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep If POV and context are the only issues, then it seems we could clean it up rather than delete, though I appreciate Gizza's point about drawing a line. Tewfik^Talk 00:58, 10 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, Avi 03:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Are we going to have an endless number of notable Brahmins? It's hard to draw a line on what a "Notable Brahmin" is, so it's better to delete. Sr13 03:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I'd think it be the same kind of standard for say List of famous families or List of deaf people. It should be limited to people who are notable for being Brahmin or who contributed to the history of Brahmins in some way.--T. Anthony 03:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete poorly defined. --Peta 03:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete per Telugu Brahmins AfD Kevin 03:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I do agree with the majority of the delete sentiment above. However, I would like to point out that we have List of Muslims (and the numerous related [[List of Muslim [insert profession here]s]]). We have List of Jews, List of Christians etc., etc. This List of Brahmins lists seems rather tame in comparison. -- tariqabjotu 04:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Mereda 07:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete And following Tariqabjotu's comment above, those lists ought to go as well. Emeraude 13:27, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I had very little idea what they were supposed to be, so a definition in the introduction would be helpful. I have added a one sentence definition from the Brahmin article, so readers who are not followers of the Hindu religion will have a clue. (When I saw the name of the article, I thought of rodeos.) If a number of them are notable enough to have articles on their own merits, there is utility in having a list, a category, or other means for linking the articles. The Brahmin article says they are at least 2% of the popuation of India, which would be 20,000,000. If the most important present 1% of them were listed, it would amount to a list of 200,000 individuals, leaving off those who lived in the past. What criteria can be used to include or exclude individuals? Edison 15:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as indiscriminate collection of information, per WP:NOT. Sandstein 17:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete There is not an adequate criteria for inclusion to prevent it being an indiscriminate collection of information, violating WP:NOT. GRBerry 01:56, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment If we delete this article then articles such as List of Christians should also be deleted.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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, barely avoids being a G11 speedy nowadays. Xoloz 01:51, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Snap survey software

Fails to assert notability. Contested prod. MER-C 03:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - it is a professional, 25 years old software company, its products are used by universities and research companies. I think that it is notable enough. --Ioannes Pragensis 07:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- Mereda 07:27, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete; the article makes no assertion of notability and reads like an advertisement. Vectro 17:18, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete After searching for references to this software on google I found 2 types of references. The first type was direct reference from the company. The second type was a member of that company posting on forums how good his software is. At no point did I find any refence by a third party to this software. HighInBC 18:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 Disambiguate (and I would warn against any WP:POINT nominations of other surnames as this doesn't set a precedent). Yomangani^talk 12:15, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Parekh

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}}

Non-notable surname. Wikipedia is not a geneology guide. Contested prod. MER-C 03:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Ditto. Sr13 03:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Very common last name among Gujarati people . Bakaman _Bakatalk 03:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. Bakaman _Bakatalk 03:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Article may also have issues with OR. --Peta 03:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - OR isnt a reason to delete, its a reason to make the article better.Bakaman _Bakatalk 03:27, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment- “Parekh” is a brilliant article. Under no circumstances should it be removed. Goes to great depths. Parekh is a notable. There are also many other surnames listed at Wiki-Should we remove all? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Anuradha shastri (talk • contribs) 00:17, 10 October, 2006 (UTC).
    • This is the user's only edit so far --SigPig 06:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Dont delete,I agree. Excellent article-and many more indian surnames like 'gupta' at wiki-cant delete all, they are all notable in own respects.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Spirituallyincline (talk • contribs) 00:21, 10 October, 2006 (UTC). --SigPig 06:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - if you delete this, then there are many more surnames, will have to delete all. i saw wiki on 'patel', very much like parekh at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patel. this was excellent. dont delete please.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Spirituallyincline (talk • contribs) 00:42, 10 October, 2006 (UTC).
    • This and the previous are this user's only edit so far --SigPig 06:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Yes, wiki on 'Patel' also exists. Patel and Parekh both are gujarati. Anyways this article is splendid, and gives lot of info. Has all our hero parekhs, Bhikhu/Asha/Nikhil. Please keep it.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Positivebrains (talk • contribs) 00:45, 10 October, 2006 (UTC).
    • This is the user's only edit so far, and includes changing the status of another (?) user's entry from "Keep" to "Comment". --SigPig 06:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. It must be kept at least because it will be also a disambiguation page in the future - there are three notable persons of this name listed there.--Ioannes Pragensis 07:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I saw many surnames listed here like 'shah', 'patel', 'gupta', 'jain' all wiki articles. all great treatises, and this one on parekh is a beautiful encylco article. please keep. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Anuradha shastri (talk • contribs) 00:17, 10 October, 2006 (UTC).
  • This is the user's only edit so far. --SigPig 07:47, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep--the sheer depth and brilliance prompts to keep this article. many in-depth facts brought to light here. keep article for sharing 'parekh' glory. — Possible single purpose account: Butterflyeyes9 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
• Keep at least as a disambiguation page for the notable Parekhs listed. Does need some editing and wikification Fitzaubrey 08:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - the article seems to be original research, doesnt need verification. Saw the names and research here at many world web search. all well authenticated. Jubilantbest 08:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Jubilantbest (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
• Keep - the facts here are pretty established. dont feel that this article is raw. it seems pretty deep and insightful. i agree in keeping it because of its great encyclopedic worth.Maverick991 09:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Maverick991 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
• Strong delete. Ignoring the numerous sockpuppets infesting this debate, I would point people towards previous debates on the Awasthi [7] and Patel [8] surnames. I am completely unconvinced by the arguments given in those previous debates: you could make exactly the same points about most Western surnames, in that they originally denoted trade, religion, place of birth and so forth. Just because the clan name we are discussing is not Western, and involves areas of discussion such as caste, there is no reason to throw aside the principle that Wikipedia is not a genealogy database. To claim that the name Parekh inevitably means someone is of particular clan or status is less and less meaningful as emigration and reimmigration continue to throw categories into doubt. This should be on one of the numerous Wiki genealogy projects, but it is not an encyclopedic article. Vizjim 09:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Changing vote to disambig as per arguments below. Vizjim 17:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep -I feel its one of the most efficacious Wikipedia articles with authentic sources and corroborations to the same, being found out easily when one coducts a few simple internet searches. The point of deliberation shouldnt be as to whether it qualifies for here or not, but about the authenticity of this great article on Parekhs. If Wikipedia were to delete it from here, then same should be the case for all surnames listed Wikipedia.org . There are "Parekhs", "Gupta", "Jain", "Shah", "Patel" some Indian surnames and countless other English surnames too which are currently enjoying an encyclopedic status at Wikipedia, where the roots of these surnames have been traced, and notable people with them have been included at their respective pages. So what's wrong with "Parekh" . If, in particular, Gujarati Surnames, "Shah", "Patel", and the likes can enjoy wiki status and encyclopedic articles on them which have existed since long without deletion, then why not "Parekh". Its just another surname like the hundreds listed here at Wiki, with accurate informations and notable people having the same. Its a remarkable research filled article on Parekh, I mean that's the way I see it and therefore see no point or end to this bit of debate. Neither is the article Licentious/profane/abusive/sexually perverse or anything that Wikipedia abhors, bans. It is perfectly within the standards of Wikipedia. Perhaps, it might need a little brushing over again, but that doesnt qualify it to be deleted completely. That'd be sad. And if that were to be, then I'd propose deletion of all other wiki articles on each other surname listed here. There are by the hundreds, each tracing roots of that particular surname and listing notable people with it, as in case of "Parekh". This is not a small issue. Calling for deletion of this article, calls for immediate deletion of each wiki article which defines a surname and traces its roots. I could say the same for "Patel" or "Gupta" or "Shah" here at Wiki. They too are mere surnames , and again not fit as encyclopedic articles, if the debate were to expound further. A little refurbishing is all that needs to be done . And definitely this article should remain, in lieu of other hundreds of such articles on topics of 'surnames', if this were to go, rightly should the others follow suit too. Lastly, I believe its Wikipedia's policy to ban or warn such members here who abuse or deem others inferior in public, such as user "Vizjim" has done in his last post, calling others here as "sock puppets". This behavior is severely banned in open places/forums of Wikipedia .I would also like to call upon the attention of the administrators to immediately seek apologies from Vizjim of having open castigated other fellow Wikipedian's who've commented on this article.

Coolkeg908 11:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Coolkeg908 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.

• Erm, I denigrated nobody by name. If the cap fits... Also, you say The point of deliberation shouldnt be as to whether it qualifies for here or not: our survey says "Wrong! That is exactly the point of deliberation here at articles for deletion!" Finally, I agree that numerous other articles are problematic and should be nominated for deletion. That has no bearing on whether this particular article should exist in Wikipedia or not. I think that that is all the arguments above covered. Vizjim 11:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Incidentally, you might want to look at this page - WP:NOT. It is the official policy of Wikipedia that it is not a genealogical database (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_directory). Vizjim 11:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• That's the point. If this article were to be deleted, then so should hundred others which have references to; or are encyclopedic articles on surnames. They are by the hundreds here, as I keep searching wiki's index. They are "Parekh", "Gupta", "Shah", "Reed", "Straley" and a whole exhaustive bunch of them. All surnames, which have encyclopedic pages dedicated to them, which are huge. And ending with famous/notable names with that particular surname as in Parekh. Parekh, I reiterate again, is a wonderful article. And in anycase, it makes no sense deleting such a well researched, well polished article--for again, if that were to be, then I'd be sorry to see hundreds of other articles,only on "surnames" go from here. Rules are rules. Rules applicable to one article should be stringently followed for the other. The Bottomline,if "Parekh" is deleted, then so should hundreds of other articles here at Wikipedia.org which list only 'surnames/end names' of people of virtually every origin.

And Vizjim, no that does take away your abusing people and fellow wikipedians here. Your calling them 'sock puppets' doesnt make you the leader of the lot. They are all important people here in this argument, leaving their valuable time and comments on this particular article as I see. Did wikipedia give you the right to call them 'sock puppets' and clearly deem them inferior doing the same. Wikipedia needs to take serious action against this particular comment of yours on other worthy wikipedians here in this discussion, as you've called them 'sock puppets'. Atleast a humble apology from your end to all users here would suffice, before Wikipedia intervenes.Coolkeg908 11:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• I humbly apologise to all people here who are not sockpuppets or meatpuppets for, erm, not calling you anything. You may wish to read WP:FAITH. Vizjim 12:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• In a more serious vein, I promise you that if Parekh is deleted, thus setting a precedent, I will nominate for deletion every other "surname" article that you have mentioned, plus any others you care to suggest (I won't do it before this particular discussion is finished because of WP:POINT, but once the precedent is established then we can go ahead and get rid of the rest of the genealogical entries). Vizjim 12:53, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep Unless we are going to delete off wikipedia every list i.e people who's names are Bob, the article for Bob itself, or people who came from Timbuktu, or countries that breed marmots, (exaggerated examples) which I would be happy with, then IMHO there is no option but to keep it. Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 11:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Disambig as per comments below. Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 16:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep until Khukri you are right. I have also deliberated upon this in discussions above. Unless each article containing 'surname'or personal 'name'isnt deleted at Wikipedia, it would be wrong to delete "Parekh". If "Parekh" is deleted, then what about those hundreds and thousands of other 'surnames' which have encyclopedic articles written about them here at wikipedia. Should wiki delete them all. Who would point them all out to wiki in the first case. They are just too many. We could at the most point out to a 100 more of them existing and see to their deletion. But even still, thousands would remain in wiki's database, unnoticed and it would be unfair that whilst a few 'surname' articles are deleted-thousands more would remain. Unless, Wikipedia itself doesnt define a clear cut policy for this 'surname' article issue, that would imply to all 'surnames' here, there's no point deleting "Parekh". The moment "Parekh" is deleted (which'd be really sad , as its a fantastic article and a beautiful research on the word), it should in fair sense imply, that every other 'surname' here at wikipedia is deleted, without our having to point the same out to wikipedia-or without our having to research in great inexhaustible detail as to which other 'surnames' are prevailing here. Wikipedia itself should take action against every article with 'surname' itself, and remove all these thousands from its database. Which I think would be sad, because of the rich depth and content of these articles, compounded with the several hours of legitimate research that might have gone into creating these articles.

A final conclusion to this mighty discussion. That in fair sense, "parekh" should remain, and be brushed up a little, if it doesnt meet the perfectionist wiki standards. We can all unite to brush and polish it. But in no circumstances, should it be removed, as that would lead to a mass 'exodus' or virtually every other 'surname' and 'name' being deleted from here. A great loss that to the spirit of wikipedia and these great articles created. Let "Parekh" live, the bottom line. And Vizjim thanks for the apologies to all, in future I hope you restrict yourself to open abuse of words such as 'sock puppets' in open forums and other places. They only show your airiness and your deeming of other users here as inappropriate and belittling their views.Coolkeg908 13:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment: user has already voted. MER-C 14:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• All surname entries are against the WP:NOT guidelines. This specific entry is against the WP:NOT guidelines. A surprising number of contributions to this discussion are from people making their first contributions to Wikipedia, which makes it highly likely that some or all of these are sockpuppets. My vote remains to delete. Vizjim 13:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete And for what it's worth, I would support deleting ALL surname/name entries as well. Emeraude 13:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Vizjim, you are again resorting to open public abuse by addressing all other users as 'sock puppets'. Your behavior is really absurd. On one hand you apologize as above and now again you are on the ranting and condemning other users. So what if they're a first time. Perhaps, they are trying to enter other discussions as well here at wiki. And even if they're first timers, who gives you the right to condemn them or abuse them or belittle them for that matter. This is serious. I must report this to Wikipedia immediately. They should be taking action. Emeraude, yes you are right and as I'm also saying above, if this 'Parekh' is delete , then alongwith it every 'surname'/'name' wiki article should be deleted. And that should happen instantaneously from the database of wikipedia. It shouldnt be that "Parekh" is deleted first and then time/months pass before other 'surname' articles are deleted. If the deletion of this article has to happen, then on a fair basis, every other wiki article with 'surname'/'name' should be deleted simultaneously. If that isnt done and only this one is given the stick, I feel it would be highly unjust. And we users would never be able to reach out to every 'surname' article here at wiki and inform wikipedia about the same, b'cause there are thousands of them out here , which we'd never be able to tap. Also if they arent deleted simultaneously, all of them with 'surname' , then I dont think justice would prevail. Anyways, in the end, I would leave it to Wikipedia to give its final verdict, all that I would finally like to iterate again is that "Parekh" is a brilliant article in all respects. It should be given its credit for the countless hours of research that must have gone in building the page up.

If it calls for deletion, then so do the thousands of other 'surnames' and 'names' here at wikipedia.org , and that too simultaneous deletion of all these thousands of articles, not that this one goes first, and then the rest take ages to go, just b'cause we users would be virtually unable to point out to them.Coolkeg908 14:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment: user has already voted. MER-C 14:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• If you want to report me for abusing you by calling you an obvious sockpuppet (or indeed for other imagined crimes such as saying that you are deliberately giving long replies so as to put other editors off from voting) then there are various place you can go, e.g. the Personal attack intervention noticeboard. Feel free. Vizjim 14:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Disambig: remove all (genealogic) info from the page, and turn it into a disambig page for the few notable people named Parekh. I would normally vote delete, but having a disambig is the usual way to go in cases where there are famous name-bearers. Fram 15:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Disambig and remove genealogy per above and per WP:NOT a genealogy database. Zunaid 15:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Disambig per above. Good idea. Eusebeus 15:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Disambig- Agree with you Disambig. Because of 'noteworthy' people and name-bearers involved, let the page remain, dont delete it. But turn it into a 'disambig' page. The page shouldnt be deleted at any cost, b'cause that gives birth to many more controversies, invoking the immediate deletion of thousands of other pages of 'surnames'/'names' for a fair basis. So I feel, this option works out best and avoids the deletion of several thousands of other related pages. 220.224.21.251 17:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Disambig I think Fram has the best plan. The disambig page might also help prevent future inclusion of genealogic information. --Maelnuneb (Talk) 18:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment-Since this page was proposed for deletion on Oct 9, I feel that by Oct 14, ie. 5 days later, a final decision would be taken regards its deletion, as there's a time frame of 5 days involved, in which wiki listens to debates. As far as this one goes, well its pretty obvious then that the page would stay and wouldnt be deleted. Good for the Parekh's notable ones, involved here and the very brilliant depth of this article. We'll soon come to know within 2 days or so if I'm not mistaken, about the final status of this page. I'm sure now after all these debates as above that it'd stay. Sadly, if deleted, it'd invoke thousands of other pages to be deleted as well containing 'names' and 'surnames' which are wiki encyclo articles currently. Coolkeg908 18:10, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Reply: not assuming to know the way the closing admin will see this, but the current consensus among the regular editors seems to be to get rid of the current article and to replace it by one that says: "Parekh may refer to: -Link to name1 -Link to name2 - Link to name3." Please don't expect that because most people don't support deletion, this will mean that the article will just stay as it is. It will look something like Farquhar or Hannon, probably. Fram 19:28, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment- Well if that is so, that if this page were to be replaced by something as you suggest, with just links to the notable people, with the other stuff being removed, that be it. But then, Wiki should do that on a fair basis for thousands of other pages here with 'names'/'surnames'. It shouldnt be one-sided and only for this page. This has been discussed above. That should be fair enough then. If this were to be converted into the way you are implying, then so should countless others be, similar to this. So I feel, that Wiki would let the article remain, rather than changing thousands of other articles . Coolkeg908 05:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Just to be quite clear, the logic employed here would lead to the deletion or radical pruning of the following articles: Smith (surname), Clan MacKay, Li (surname), among many others. I'm quite happy with that and will clean up those articles or delete them if the precedent is set here. Vizjim 08:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

No problem with the removal of most of the material on Smith (surname). The Clan is more of a political / sociological entry, similar to a tribe (no offense intended towards either tribes or cottish people), so I think that an AfD there may justifiably give a different result. I have nominated for deletion a lot of Indian clans (ghotra's) as well, but reached no consensus. If a name is clearly more than just who was your father and what was the occupation of some greatgreatgrandfather, but indicates a "tribe" (for want of a better word), with political, geographical, ... implications, then more people will be willing to keep the article. This is of course a fuzzy boundary, and it won't be clear on every article in which category it falls (see Habsburg for an extreme example on the "keep" side). I don't feel that this article (Parekh) has enough reason to keep it, and furthermore has a complete lack of sources (thus failing WP:V). Fram 10:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• I think we've come back to squre 1. Its not just about the deletion of surname 'Smith' or another particular surname. The question here is about the deletion of all 'surnames' and 'names' irrespective. That is, if "Parekh" is deleted, so should thousands of them others , particularly 'surnames' should be deleted from Wiki on a fair basis. So, lets not argue on a particular deletion of a 'surname'/'name' alongwith deletion of "Parekh". Lets conclude in a generalized statement, that if "Parekh" is deleted, then on a very fair basis, Wiki should immediately delete all other 'surnames' wiki articles alongwith the same. That's why I've been reiterating that let "Parekh" remain. If there's problems, lets work at updating it or refurbishing it according to Wiki standards. But the bottomline, let "Parekh" remain, in order to avoid the immediate deletion of not just one particular other name/surname, but in order to avoid deletion of thousands of other articles with 'surnames'. Because each Wiki article with surname is like "Parekh" , in conjunction with "Parekh". So you have to be fair in deleting all of them, if the question is about deletion of "Parekh". A surname is a surname. There's nothing special about any surname. They are just encyclopedic articles on each one of them, like the article on "Parekh". Also, the whole absurdity of the situation here is, that whereas someone suggested "Parekh" for deletion in the first case, that someone didnt care about this aspect of several thousands of other surnames being here at WIKI and their simultaneous deletion with "Parekh". If that someone had thought of the same, then he/she wouldnt have suggested or nominated this particular article for deletion. Or whilst nominating this particular article for deletion, would have definitely on an ethical and fair terms, also suggested the deletion of thousands of other 'surname' articles, doing a thorough research on them, and pointing out to them individually by their names. I feel I have nothing more to talk about this. What's fair is fair. Lets adhere to that. That if this goes, so should thousands of other 'surnames'.

Coolkeg908 08:32, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 09:20, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Del Rancho

Small resturant chain, fails WP:CORP. --Peta 03:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Sounds like an advertisment. Small chain- not big enough. Sr13 03:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MER-C 07:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 12:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable. Nwwaew(My talk page) 12:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Agree with previous comments. Delete Emeraude 13:34, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Maelnuneb (Talk) 19:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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#G11. While the company and its products may be notable, the article is too full of PR-speak and thus would require a substantial re-write to bring it close to a neutral point of view. -- Merope ^Talk 18:45, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spyrus

Appears tohave been written by the company; no independent claims of notability. --Peta 03:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, in addition to blatant POV. -Amarkov ^babble 04:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per nom. Typical spam. So tagged. MER-C 07:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete sounds like it was copied out of a brochure. as everyone else says, delete it. James086 13:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as above.
• Delete ADVERT. QuiteUnusual 14:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete as advertising. It uses first-person voice. JIP | Talk 14:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 snowball keep after expansion. No hard feelings towards nominator. The initial draft was indeed suspicious for the Western world. `'mikka (t) 00:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sukhomlinsky

A bizzare biography that fails to demonstrate how or why the subject was notable, delete -Peta 03:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Sounds more like a school essay about a teacher. Sr13 03:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. It's an essay. MER-C 07:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as above. No sources, no evidence of notability. Emeraude 13:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, but re-write. Sukhomlinsky was a very notable educator, one of the minds behind theory and practice of Soviet humanistic pedagogics. The article in its present form doesn't do any justice to this person. I added what I know and could find—hopefully this is sufficient to keep the article.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:V and WP:BIO. Eusebeus 15:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

  Did you get a chance to review the materials I added before voting? Sukhomlinsky was awarded a high-profile Soviet title and wrote a book which was awarded a State Prize. That alone should be sufficient to satisfy WP:BIO criteria.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment (this began as a weak keep, but I'm now sufficiently perplexed as to be unable to draw a conclusive conclusion) I've long argued that, where a subject is notable but where there is little salvagable encyclopedic content in the article apropos of him/her/them/it, stubbification or deletion (with, concomitantly, a listing on WP:RA) is in order, but there appears here to be sufficient content, especially in view of Ëzhiki's additions, that the concerns as to the bizarre, essayistic quality of the article ought to be allayed; there remains, to be sure, much culling to be done, there is a not insignificant amount of text that might be kept or substantially reworked. As to WP:BIO, whilst I'm not at all certain that one's receiving a Hero of Socialist Labor or the State Prize of the Ukrainian SSR confers notability, I think it likelier than not that Sukhomlinsky is notable in view of his prominence as a pedagogic(al) philosopher, which prominence is evidenced, I suppose, by his having been the exclusive subject of one book (and a referenced subject in fourteen more, as may perhaps be sufficient per WP:PROFTEST) that is, AFAICT, the subject of at least one independent, non-trivial review (so as to suggest that the book, at least, is perhaps notable); whether as an author the subject is notable is a closer question. I was prepared to suggest that reliable sources exist toward his notability, but I don't think the single book to suffice [notwithstanding its having been written by a professor at a notable institution; the professor seems wholly non-notable), especially insofar as (further complicating things), it appears from the August 2004 HD archives that the much of the text for the article was contributed by the book's author), and I can't find much beyond this article in a reliable if non-notable source and this article given as a teaching resource by the Russian, Eastern European, and Central Asian Studies Department at Harvard. It appears that all of the other relevant Ghits are from mirrors and forks. For those who disfavor WP:NN in favor exclusively of WP:V, keep would likely be in order, but I'm not amongst the former number, so I remain altogether conflicted, most significantly in view of the concerns raised by those supra w/r/to the verifiability of that which would confer notability. Joe 17:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

  To add to this, Great Soviet Encyclopedia does have an article about Sukhomlinsky (in Russian, of course).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep, but re-write. A known Soviet educator, recipient of numerous prestigious (even though Soviet) awards. He is mentioned in the Great Soviet Encyclopedia and contemporary Russian encyclopedias. Indeed, the article looks like an essay, but it doesn't mean he is not notable. And guys, if you never heard of a person, it doesn't mean he is not notable. E.g., I saw a DYK article the other day called Raising the flag over Iwo Jima (sorry for possible mispelling), which CLAIMS that this is the most recognizable image in the world. I've never seen this image in my life until I visited the US. How's that for not notable?? KNewman 17:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep, close the vote and get to work on the article. The person is certainly notable. --Irpen 18:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep per above. An award is an award. The fact that it was given in the Soviet Union does not make it less of an award today. As to notability, how many other educators have (English) a commemorative coin with their face on it?. Vasyl Sukhomlynskyi is a keep.--Riurik ^(discuss) 19:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Others have adduced much better sources than those I found, and they of course make plain that the subject is notable. I'd intended to ask an editor able to read Russian to weigh in, as I imagined that many more references were available solely in the Russian language, such that a simple Googling wouldn't be dispositive as to notability, but several editors seem already to have taken up that task, for which they are to be commended. As to the awards, btw, I didn't mean to suggest that the fact of their being conferred by the Soviet Union and the Ukrainian SSR thereof ought to be understood to diminish their significance; rather, as I've expressed elsewhere, I look somewhat dimly on our considering as necessarily notable those who have received similar state decorations (even those that are particularly exclusive, such as the Bharat Ratna), but I've come, in any case, to rethink that view. Joe 20:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and rewrite - he was a notable theoretician and book author abakharev 00:41, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 09:28, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Madison Kane

A winding unverified vanity piece; delete --Peta 03:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, borders on speedy delete A7 as vanity article, unreferenced, status under WP:BIO unclear at best. How do things like this survive nine months on Wikipedia? Alba 04:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MER-C 07:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Too much fat and little meat in the steak (lots of writing, but not enough key info on Kane). Sr13 08:27, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:VAIN. Eusebeus 15:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 09:28, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tim Brennan

Artist and academic; notabilty not demonstrate din either field. Delete --Peta 03:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable. Sorry, old chum; ring us again when you've done something worth noticing. Alba 04:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. MER-C 07:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Eusebeus 15:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Maelnuneb (Talk) 19:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom until further notice. RFerreira 00:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 under G4, A7, G11. I won't salt for now, but have no objections if someone chooses to. Luna Santin 04:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] King Entertainment

This article has been recreated by Mr.andrew porter after deletion following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/King Entertainment. Tagged for speedy under G4 but tag removed by King Chavez who was the creator of the previous version of this spam/vanity/hoax article. King Chavez is likely the same person as Mr.andrew porter or a meat puppet. I suggest speedy delete under G4 and protect against recreation. Húsönd 03:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete per nom. So tagged. MER-C 03:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep it's a real record company, and has more information than other pages like Cashis, plus has real CD's
• Speedy delete per nom. Sr13 03:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. —Cryptic 00:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RAW Family Reunion

This is purely fancruft. The event was just the season premiere of Raw (which happens every year). This isn't a wrestling wiki that needs to list every season premiere and/or 3 hour edition of Raw. It also should be noted: the results of this are already at WWE Homecoming, since this is the 2nd year a Raw event like this has happened. There is no need for redundant pages. RobJ1981 03:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Wikipedia is not a TV listing. Sr13 03:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This is still a supercard in the sense that it combined the three brands together. If this was a special three-hour edition with all-Raw talent, then it wouldn't be too notable. kelvSYC 03:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - This is just an episode of Raw, despite feature wrestlers from SmackDown and ECW. It does not need it's own article. -- DiegoTehMexican 03:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep-This show has debuted the new theme for raw, its kicked off the Champion of Champions storyline, and it presented a new look for RAW. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Killswitch Engage (talk • contribs)
• Delete Every new episode with a new name does not need a article. If it was an annual occurrence it would be worth the mention, but it's not. Mention it on the WWE RAW article and forget about it. — Moe 04:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect to WWE Homecoming, as the content of this page is redundant, but the name is possible as a search term. Alba 04:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I wouldn't merge it with WWE Homecoming as all Homecoming was was the 2005 season premiere, not the general name for all of RAW's season premiere's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dubhagan (talk • contribs) 22:51, 9 October 2006

• Delete Anything notable coming out of this show belongs on the RAW page. It's not enough for it's own page. Personally, someone should put WWE Homecoming up for deletion too, as it should basically be a note on WWE RAW too. James Duggan 05:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Additional comment Why should each special edition of RAW have it's own article when each edition of SNME doesn't. Heck, even with PPV's, the 2006 edition of Backlash is part of a larger Backlash article. --James Duggan 19:38, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to WWE Homecoming. --- RockMFR 05:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. TJ Spyke 05:53, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete; markcruft. - Chadbryant 07:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete we already have three times more wrestlecruft than any sane person could want to read. Guy 07:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Guy :-) Really, what is it with wrestling and Wikipedia? Sandstein 07:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, and I'm pretty sure this article was previously deleted under a different name. Cornerbock 13:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Since wrestling is one of a few topics disproportionately represented on Wikipedia to the point of cruft, as opposed to more notable topics like history, and people seem to want to cover wrestling even more than what's already represented, and the system for marking results of matches is cool but also cruft even if it's on WrestleMania III, might I suggest rejuvenating the Pro Wrestling Wikia? Oh wait, that's right, moving cruft off to a Wikia is marginalizing it, when everyone knows the whole world should see it on Wikipedia - never mind that that's precisely why I'm proposing marginalizing it, because no one cares. (This is not a vote, I'm just suggesting what to do with wrestlecruft in general, especially since this debate seems to be leaning delete.) Morgan Wick 16:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I agree with the notion that pro wrestling is extremely disproportionately represented on Wikipedia, especially considering its fictional nature. 19:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. There's no assertion of notability - it's just another overhyped wrestling event. --Jtalledo (talk) 19:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Wrestling isn't even a real sport anymore.--HalfShadow 19:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete There is a WWE Raw article for a reason and that is things related to RAW, like this. --Maelnuneb (Talk) 19:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep As you can see on WWE PPV, all SuperCards have their own articles.
  • Comment, yeah, but, with the exception of Homecoming and this article, none of them are associated with a specific brand. James Duggan 03:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Technically, that is not correct. WWE New Year's Revolution, Backlash, Vengeance, Unforgiven, and WWE Cyber Sunday are specific to RAW. No Way Out, Judgment Day, The Great American Bash, No Mercy, and Armageddon are specific to SmackDown!. One Night Stand and December to Dismember are specific to ECW. --Roninbk _{t c e #} 11:32, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment Those are PPV's, not actual episodes of RAW, SD, or ECW. There's a difference. James Duggan 01:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
        • You said "none of them are associated with a specific brand". Now you are defining "them" to be episodes of RAW, SD, or ECW. Since Family Reunion, which included wrestlers from all three brands, does not fall under your definition (so "association with a single brand" is not defined by what wrestlers are included), it seems to me that your definition is structured to either render your point always true or to confuse people. How can "they" be episodes of RAW, SD, or ECW, and not be associated with a specific brand (or show, as it now seems you meant here)? Care to clarify the point you were trying to make? Because I don't see the difference between Family Reunion and the Guerrero tributes or other very special episodes of RAW. (If you had said "cable/broadcast television shows" it would be a lot clearer, though not completely, because Saturday Night's Main Event isn't an "actual episode of RAW, SD, or ECW" either.) Morgan Wick 23:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
        • PPVs are considered Supercards. The assertion was that all Supercards have articles. You countered that Supercards are not associated with a specific brand. I proved that statement to be false. Unless that was not your assertion, in which case you should clarify, as Morgan Wick indicated. --Roninbk _{t c e #} 06:32, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
          • Sorry, not thinking clearly. All this show was was a season premiere of RAW that just happened to feature wrestlers from the other brands. It was more a special edition of RAW than a supercard. Supercards are basically specials like SNME that occur once in a while. But even then, not each SNME episode has it's own article, it's all in one SNME article, same with the non-major PPV's. Each edition of Backlash doesn't have it's own article, they are all in one Backlash article. So why should special episodes of RAW have their own articles when the last SNME isn't by itself or the 2006 Backlash PPV doesn't have it's own article? James Duggan 19:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
            • Last year's one was called WWE Homecoming. This year's is called RAW Family Reunion. They are two different names, so they get different articles. See WWE Cyber Sunday and Taboo Tuesday for a PPV example. Morgan Wick 00:51, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Arbusto 00:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Get to work on the deletion of the Eddie Guerrero Tribute Page, WWE Homecoming, and Tribute to the Troops if you delete this page.

• Comment Homecoming is up for deletion as well, and I'm contemplating putting the others up for deletion, though the Tribute to the Troops has been an annual occurrence. James Duggan 03:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Keep this, it seems that it is going to be an annual thing, like Tribute to the troops, I also agree with the keep above me, if you delete this...then delete the Eddie Tribute, WWE Homecoming, and Tribute to the Troops... I vote Keep because it was a point in history in Professional Wrestling and the WWE....Starting the Champion of Champions Storyline.
  • Comment RAW X, RAW is Owen and Homecoming are up for deletion as well. The Eddie Tribute is actually part of a larger article. Tribute to the Troops I will probably put up for deletion as well once I figure out how it should be divided. They are all mostly results, which is really pointless. James Duggan 21:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -- fhb3 08:20, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Leor Natanov 14:32, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Although listing all results of weekly wrestling TV shows is overboard, major cards and unique events like this one, WWE Homecoming, the Eddie Guerrero tributes and RAW is Owen ought to have their own articles. --Kitch ^{(Talk : Contrib)} 15:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree, this is obviously going to be an annual event, and should therefore be kept like all the others. Merge it with WWE Homecoming and update it every year, or get rid of the Troops show and any other special show. --72.74.18.111 20:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete This episode may be a little different than a usual ep of RAW, but it is not notable enough for its own article. And you know what, delete all the crufty ones like the tribute shows and troops shows too, they can easily be condensed as footnotes in a RAW article. Tony fanta 18:18, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -- bulletproof ^3:16 23:57, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Just as reputable as other special editions of RAW. ABricker 00:16, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and contain the spread of wrestlecruft. -Kubigula (ave) 15:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Pretty notable, could do with keeping it. Kingfisherswift 15:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Aaru Bui ^DII 10:06, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This is an important supercard in RAW and the WWE. Rhys 49 11:23, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • It's not a supercard, it's just RAW. A supercard is something like Clash of the Champions or Saturday Night's Main Event. Yes it is a little different, but it's not enought to warrent an article. TJ Spyke 00:03, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: I would not merge, as precedent suggests that the name reigns supreme. WWE Cyber Sunday is basically a continuation of the Taboo Tuesday concept, but it has a separate article. I'm sure, if pressed, there would be others. Morgan Wick 09:02, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I should also point out that the article for WWE Homecoming was deleted just recently, so I think by that precedent, this should go be default. Tony fanta 18:06, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or Merge - Annual event and Homecoming has an article. Clay4president 19:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Um, Homecoming has been deleted. --James Duggan 22:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 16:18, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Louise Harrison

Actress who does not meet notability guidelines. IMDB shows most of her work is uncredited, and does not provide a photo either. Neither of the pages for shows she was in reference her. Vectro 03:36, 10 October 2006 (UT)

• Delete per nom. Sr13 03:42, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. MER-C 07:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Maelnuneb (Talk) 19:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. WP:SNOW not withstanding, this nom appears to have been made by a single purpose account unfamiliar with our notability standards. RFerreira 01:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Maxi Mounds

Was listed on Speedy Delete then removed. Requires discussion. Individual does not meet Wikipedia notability standards, is a minor pornographic star with little presence outside of personal internet site and mirrors. Recent activity may indicate article created as vanity by Maxi Mounds herself. Popular target for Josh Whedon vandals linking to Wonder Woman (film) KingCobra666 03:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC) — KingCobra666 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Re-speedy A7, G11, salt the earth against re-creation. Draw a line in the sand. Alba 04:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - That picture is from maximounds.com and is from a section in her site about Wonder Woman movie, e-mail porn stat yourself
  • The above comment is from User:Maximounds. Alba 05:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I can't believe I'm participating in this, or voting to Keep, but a Guinness record would seem to be a "rather explicit" claim of notability. Alansohn 05:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep-Not another one of these! Colt 45, Chelsea Charms now Maxi Mounds? All these pages look alright and are viable
• Keep as a Guinness World Record holder, albeit in a category she pretty much seems to have convinced them to have specifically for the purposes. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep..... unfortunately. Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 12:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep notable, even if people would rather she wasn't. But then again, that is why we have those policies. --Maelnuneb (Talk) 19:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, Guinness records holder = third party reliable sources. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. She is a notable adult entertainer. -- Freemarket 23:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. —Cryptic 00:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fiend Club

Non-notable fanclub that only existed for four years in the 1980s, would have been a possible A7 but it was founded by a notable person, the lead singer of The Misfits, and it's been around for a while. I don't think a merge is valid as the misfits article is very long already Delete-- Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 03:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• A merge is still appropriate; the issue of whether to break The Misfits up into multiple articles is a separate one (though I agree, it is too long and needs editing down or breaking into sub-articles). Alba 04:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Eusebeus 15:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - These AfDs are getting more and more ridiculous. PT ^(s-s-s-s) 17:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I take umbrage slightly with this dismissive and borderline uncivil attitude. What, exactly about the Misfit's fan club warrants its own separate entry as opposed to deleting this and letting it be included at the Misfits? Does every fan club warrant an entry? Why is this one so particularly notable that it warrants a fork from the band's page? I am sure you can provide good and possibly compelling reasons for your decision to keep, but citing WP:OSTRICH seems in this case outside the Point. Eusebeus 17:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Definitely dismissive, certainly incivil. Nothing personal against you, but there has been a crop of bad, bad AfDs lately, and I think this is one of them. I think there are just some people out there who don't like music, aren't fans of music, and don't want to see music articles on Wikipedia, so they're putting up as much as possible for AfD. There was recently a bunch of food articles speedily deleted by a misguided editor, and that demonstrates the point I'm trying to make - why should someone have to argue for an article on Nilla Wafers to be kept? Many of us know what they are, do we really need to take the time to argue about it? Similarly, Fiend Club is pretty well known, and if some misguided editor hasn't heard of it, guess what... there is an article there for them to learn! Unless, of course, they delete it before reading it. PT ^(s-s-s-s) 17:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Article contains no assertions of notability, and provides no credible, third-party sources. --Satori Son 00:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 09:29, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jellopy

Item in an MMORPG, delete --Peta 04:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Delete as fancrufty, or transwiki to gaming if one can be found. I can't imagine how this could be notable enough for a general-purpose encyclopedia. Alba 04:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete or transwiki per Alba, Wikipedia is not a game guide. MER-C 07:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Not game guide. Sr13 08:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, Wikipedia is not a game guide. JIP | Talk 15:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above arguments, but not per nom. MMORPGs aren't automatically non-notable. Percy Snoodle 12:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This is fancruft. Transwiki if possible. Lord Rasputin 18:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, transwiki to somewhere appropriate if possible. Mmm, crufty. Voretus the Benevolent 17:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Redirect to Kennedy assassination theories. I have left a message on the talk page requesting anything from the original article be merged to that article. Yomangani^talk 12:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] James Files

Disputed prod. Author removed the unsourced tag as well. Article of conspiracy cruft about a living person based almost entirely on a single website with no mainstream reliable sources. Delete. Gamaliel 04:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Falsely accused of lack of resources and dispute over neutrality. References section has been in place since day one. Made clear that information posted has come from subjects statements or from researchers, and not of my own opinion. Made clear that article is not to please majority, but to collect statements from subject and researchers. Accusations of conspiracy is conclusion of accusers, and has been the sole purpose of deletion. Tried to edit any sections that did not have a neutral POV, or lack of reference, and have yet to find one. Challenged accusation on neutrality, challenged accusation that subjects story is minority view, and challenged accusation that govt. doesn't believe story, with ANY REFERENCES. Have yet to see any. Author believes that accusers are unhappy that I did not shadow article with doubt. I believe that would be dishonest to my readers. This article stays. Goldwings 04:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • User's only edits are to this page and to talk pages. Alba 05:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Grab the links, as well as anything with verifiabiility, and add to Kennedy assassination theories. Then delete and redirect there. Alba 04:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect per what Alba said. Also, here's an interesting page disputing the confession [9] --- RockMFR 05:53, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Per nom & Alba, merge and redirect; looks like there's not much to merge once WP:V kicks in though. Eusebeus 15:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Added link to the references section. I've tried the best I could to find any mainstream sources, and I've only found one. I WILL NOT be deleting and redirecting, because this page is about James Files as the subject, not scrutiny over his claims. Everyone has attacked the article thinking I'm trying to shove a big conspiracy down the readers throats. This is not the case. That is exactly why I put "Files states...." or "Files claims...." in all sections. Because thats exactly what they are, they are claims and statements. Some of the statements came from the DVD "Files on JFK", which must be purchased. I'm going to come out and say, maybe he's lying, maybe he's telling the truth. I do not know, that is for the readers to decide. I am using the work of several respected researchers, primarily Mr. Wim Dankbaar and Mr. Bob Vernon (but not exclusively), because they've done the hard research, as opposed to others that, say, may have read an article and sprinkle their opinions in a commentary or something. The best I could do was google some more websites to add to the references section. Goldwings 06:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• The simple fact of the matter is that the vast majority of "respected [JFK] researchers", even those who are conspiracy-oriented, consider James E. Files to have all the credibility of Wile E. Coyote. Wim Dankbaar's website is close to being the sole reference point for this article and is cited no fewer than twenty times. The article is riddled with pro-Files bias, in spite of the author's claims, and ought to be deleted forthwith; at the very least, it ought to be merged into the JFK Conspiracy Theories section and should not be allowed to stand alone. RogueStates 11:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete and merge as there is no showing of notability, article by itself violates WP:BIO as even among conspiracy buffs, Files is a minor player. Ramsquire 21:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Merge (anything reliable) or Delete. DO NOT KEEP. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. —Cryptic 00:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] VisualKore, OpenKore, and ModKore

Bots for playing Ragnarok Online; no evidence of notability; delete --Peta 04:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Transwiki if a gaming wiki wants it, else delete per above. MER-C 04:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC).
• Delete per nom. Sr13 08:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep the OpenKore article as it is well written and a very common program amongst those who play. Delete ModKore and VisualKore as they are useless. - - 'twsx'talk'cont' 00:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 14:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AEGIS (Ragnarok Online)

MMORPG cruft, no evidence of importance or encyclopedic valuse, delete--Peta 04:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Merge to Ragnarok Online if verifiable -- actually, WP:SOFTWARE used to run a major MMORPG is notable but only in conjunction with the MMORPG itself. It doesn't deserve a separate article -- it's an integral component of the MMORPG itself. The search term is not worth a redirect, but a mention at Aegis (disambiguation) might be in order. Alba 04:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • On checking, that mention already exists, so just merge and redirect. Alba 04:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per above. MER-C 04:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Many other Server emulators also have pages on wikipedia like UOX or RunUO for Ultima Online. The difference with Aegis is that it is not an emulator per se, but the original software. Nevertheless its often (illegaly) used by 3rd parties to run their severs, and therefore is a well known lemma by itself. --Jestix 06:48, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per above. Eusebeus 15:42, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per above. Percy Snoodle 12:54, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Jestix's notation. Lord Rasputin 18:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. If anyone seriously wants to transwiki this, list it for a temporary undelete, but transwikis to non-Wikimedia wikis are outside the scope of afd. —Cryptic 00:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sage (Ragnarok character class)

Guide to a MMORPG character class; WP is not GameFAQs, delete --Peta 04:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Transwiki to gaming if possible; else delete; WP:NOT a game guide but this is a lot of material to just zap if someone else can use it Alba 04:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki if a gaming wiki wants it, else delete per above. MER-C 04:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki per the tag I added two months ago. However, if nobody is going to do that, just delete it per WP:NOT an instruction manual. -- ReyBrujo 16:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki and delete Percy Snoodle 12:54, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• Just keep it:/ its not that big of a deal. Nothing to cry about, the more information on WP I see the better. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.11.82.90 (talk • contribs) .

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

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 16:20, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bitter:sweet

Non-notable band, has only released one album to date. No reliable sources. Contested prod. MER-C 04:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Having released only one album does not necessarily detract from the notability of a band. Take for example, the Australian band Wolfmother. --Felixir 04:26, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Can we get any citations that are not images from the band's own web page? I can't find any news articles on the web, but the People mention and the MSN network plug would be enough to make them a keeper if we had reliable sources. The appearance on the Devil Wears Prada soundtrack is almost enough on its own, but it'd be nice to have more. bikeable (talk) 05:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. There is enough to pass WP:MUSIC. Easily. --- RockMFR 05:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above, but tag for sources. --Masamage 22:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Definately passes WP:MUSIC. Though I'd like to see it cleaned-up (especially the sources). - Lex 18:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep See reasons above Puchu 04:18, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Although Acaosr asserts without contradiction that they might be notable, right now in the article there is only a couple of sentences here and the tracklisting of a compilation album (which doesn't really belong), so if there might be enough outside coverage and other notable bands to write a real article on them, then surely someone can do so. As he says, this deletion doesn't prejudice such an article. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 15:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Big Scary Monsters Recording Company

Independent record label that appears to have only made one release; fails CORP. Delete --Peta 04:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. MER-C 07:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment They have released loads of records. I dont know what to vote either way here but fyi, they are one of the medium to bigger UK independent labels and have limited distribution to record stores. their ex act, Get Cape Wear Cape Fly was signed to Atlantic this year and another of thier acts, Yndi Halda is probably notable enough for inclusion. They are pretty well known amongst uk indie music. (can't sign on as I'm at work, username is User:amists
• I'm giving this a Weak keep. I don't think giving Get Cape Wear Cape Fly his first releases is enough of itself but they're home to two or three full-time international touring acts and some of their recent releases have enjoyed the attentions of the BBC and The Guardian. A record label can only ever be as notable as its artists and this label is a borderline case but just (and only just) on the right side of the border for my cash. Ac@osr 17:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Keep this page! The label has released many great bands, not just Get Cape. Wear Cape. Fly. See www.bsmrocks.com for evidence of that. An important UK indie label. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.5.170.203 (talk • contribs) 10:36, 12 October 2006 — 82.5.170.203 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Comment - the quality of the music isn't being discussed and isn't relevant. I hate Coldplay but I don't deny their notability. There are plenty of bands/labels I love but wouldn't attempt an article for. The question is whether or not the label is, at this time, of encyclopedic value. If it isn't now, it may be in six months time so a delete is not fatal and binding forevermore. Ac@osr 16:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Vectro 00:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 16:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pitboss 2000

No evidence that this group meets MUSIC. --Peta 04:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. MER-C 07:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, doesn't appear to meed WP:MUSIC.--Nilfanion (talk) 16:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 09:30, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sandra Miranda

No evidence that this lady meets BIO or that her business meets CORP; delete --Peta 04:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, borders on speedy G11 as advertising. The link is 404'd. This page is worthless. Alba 04:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. MER-C 07:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Nehwyn 12:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Emeraude 13:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 no assertion of notability Guy 07:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oriel Harwood

No evidence of notability. Delete --Peta 04:26, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete - absolutely no context whatsoever. I'd at least expect the name of a work she did. So tagged. MER-C 05:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --- RockMFR 06:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 Grandmasterka. MER-C 08:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fat mudflap girl

No evidence of notability. Delete --Peta 04:26, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Posted as speedy delete G11 Alba 05:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as spam. MER-C 05:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 09:30, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Jersey Citizens for Constitutional Reform

This article was written the day the article was launched. Prod tag was removed by original/only author. I see no reason why this group is any more notable than any other group of "concerned citizens". Not notable and not verified by outside sources. - Che Nuevara 04:48, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, I am pretty up on NJ state politics, and having never heard of these guys, they seemed suspicious. No Google search results, and no mentions in local papers in a Nexis search. Andrew Levine 04:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I had seen fragmented links to this article from some NJ politicans, but this doen't seem to have much of a future as an article. As an NJ resident, I have never heard of the organization, and a search of Google for web references and news shows nothing. So unless someone knows more about this organization, it's delete. Alansohn 05:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable. yandman 11:45, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete self-promoing of nn group. Eusebeus 15:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect to Variant Magic: The Gathering formats. Mangojuice^talk 18:01, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reject Rare Draft

A non-tournament-sanctioned, casual alternate play format for Magic: The Gathering. I have actually played it before, but it is simply too non-notable even within the game's fan base to have an article. Andrew Levine 04:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. If it's not even that notable among Magic play formats... Recury 14:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect to either Mark Gottlieb or an article on Variant Magic Formats. FrozenPurpleCube 15:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I should point out that Gottlieb did not invent RRD; it was played for years at Neutral Ground in New York before he wrote about it (they were playing it there at least since 1999). Andrew Levine 17:26, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Oh, I know, however, he is the one who wrote about it, on the Wizards.com site and as such, brought it some noteriety, at least in reference to himself. It could also fit on the Magic:TG page in the section describing Draft events. FrozenPurpleCube 20:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Percy Snoodle 12:53, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment just giving folks a heads up that I added RRD to the Magic: The Gathering article in the Variants section. FrozenPurpleCube 22:46, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Looks like it's been removed for being too trivial. Andrew Levine 17:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes, I see. I added it back, I don't concur with the grounds for removal. FrozenPurpleCube 14:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Move to Variant Magic: The Gathering Formats as suggested by FrozenPurpleCube above. The current article is probably a little large for a niche format, but just as Magic storylines and Magic rules have split off and made their own article, perhaps a Variant formats article is also appropriate. Obviously, if moved, RRD would become a section, not the entire article. Such an article would probably need to be viligantly watched with "must have a cite before adding a format," but that's doable. Plus, that way the main article can simply have a link to Variant Magic Formats, and niche formats like RRD can be removed from it more easily. SnowFire 15:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Ok, I put together that article. Let's hope folks wait more than an hour before deleting it. :) FrozenPurpleCube 22:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Ehrm. For future reference, C&P moves are generally frowned upon, as they erase the contributor history required by the GFDL; moving the RRD article would probably have been better. Oh, well, not a huge deal. SnowFire 23:01, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The problem with that is that it would give far too much weight to a single format, and that just didn't sit right with me. But heck, the article probably needs a rewrite from the top anyway. With a whole article, we can do at least a paragraph on each notable format, not just a sentence. FrozenPurpleCube 00:57, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 09:29, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] East Valley Bible Church

Church, no evidence of notability; delete --Peta 04:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. MER-C 07:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Says practically nothing about the subject; leads with doctrines of Calvinism, which, I assume, are covered elsewhere anyway. Emeraude 13:45, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete just another church --Maelnuneb (Talk) 19:42, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Hopefully an editor will stop back to clean this up and address the notability concerns. Lord Rasputin 18:19, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete No use of independent sources to establish notability. And no, having thousands of members is not an adequate claim to notability anyway. GRBerry 01:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 16:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hershel Dennis

Do College footballers meet WP:BIO? --Peta 05:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - no. WP:BIO requires "third party verification from a reliable source outside of publications by sponsors of the sport or activity should be provided to demonstrate that the subject is widely recognized as performing at the highest level." This is not provided. MER-C 05:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, NN. --Nehwyn 12:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, highest level of amateur play for football players, plus he's playing for USC, arguably one of the top football schools in the nation. Playing alongside Lendale White and Reggie Bush says a lot. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. No evidence of notability: Not a single source; only edited by one person. —Centrx→talk • 18:15, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 09:40, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Peace Child International

Ad for a not-for-profit; no evidence of encyclopedic value. --Peta 05:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. May even be a speedy. MER-C 07:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. DesertSky85451 19:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 09:40, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Caitlin Campbell

Insignificant media coverage for incorrect spelling of you name does not satisfy WP:BIO; delete --Peta 05:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. However, if some editors think this information is essential to Wikipedia, merge it into an article about the 2006 spelling bee rather than making a separate article about this competitor. --Metropolitan90 06:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. MER-C 07:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, other spelling bee contestants on Wikipedias were winners to forestall any comparison comments. ColourBurst 07:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Maelnuneb (Talk) 19:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Mangojuice^talk 18:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Silas Garfield Cool

Delete per WP:Not a memorial. --Peta 05:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Weak delete. The crime itself seems to be fairly notable. --- RockMFR 05:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable person who committed a non-notable crime. TJ Spyke 05:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I can assure you it was not a non-notable crime. The shooting caused a bus to crash off of a well-trafficked bridge and into an apartment building in Seattle. hateless 21:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per TJ Spike. MER-C 07:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Maelnuneb (Talk) 19:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Rename article to be about the crash, not the shooter. The crash has a paragraph in Aurora Bridge and could easily be expanded to an entire article - it was carried by international media and I wouldn't be surprised to find either a psych or sensationalist book about it. SchmuckyTheCat 22:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Rename and expand per Schmucky. --Masamage 22:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 09:30, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Elvis & Stutz

Indecipherable and probably unencyclopedic, delete --Peta 05:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - it's about an auction between celebrities for a car. Boring. MER-C 07:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Unencyclopedic. Sr13 08:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I agree with MER-C, it's not fit for the encyclopedia. -- P.B. Pilhet / Talk 16:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non notable event. QuiteUnusual 19:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Perhaps even speedy as patent nonsense. Resolute 00:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete WP:N--150.203.177.218 05:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 Grandmasterka. MER-C 08:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Konwrath Enterprises

Appears to be an ad, Delete --Peta 05:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as spam. Creator's only contributions are to that article. So tagged. MER-C 07:27, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 16:22, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dancing baloney

Original research and an attempt to create a neologism, delete --Peta 05:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as neologism... though I don't really understand how they hurt Wikipedia. --Garrepi 05:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Seems to have quite a few Google hits and is far from a rare term. --- RockMFR 05:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Google hits are from Wikipedia and mirror sites in the main. Neologisms do not hurt Wikipedia, but they have no place here as by definition a neologism is original research. Vizjim 06:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. We (Wikipedians) have incestuously created the term protologism. Further objections are that they are a form of vanity and attempts to change the language while Wikipedia strives to report the world as it is without changing it. -- RHaworth 07:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • It was actually Wiktionary, not Wikipedia. See wikt:protologism. Uncle G 08:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 09:41, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WWE Homecoming

Pure fancruft like RAW Family Reunion. All it was was RAW's 2005 season premiere. Only thing notable was the fact that it was RAW's return to the USA Network. Anything notable coming from that show isn't deserving of it's own page and should only be with WWE RAW. --James Duggan 05:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete; markcruft. - Chadbryant 07:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -- DiegoTehMexican 11:48, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete maybe could be a footnote in the main RAW article, but that's it. Cornerbock 13:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Nothing notable that deserves it's own article. — Moe 14:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. JIP | Talk 15:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - non-notable, overhyped professional wrestling show. --Jtalledo (talk) 19:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Maelnuneb (Talk) 19:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, fancruft begone. RFerreira 01:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. THL 05:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -- fhb3 08:20, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with RAW Family Reunion. It's an annual event.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.74.18.111 (talk • contribs)
• Delete per nom. -- bulletproof ^3:16 22:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - it did mark a significant point in the history of Raw. Spike TV even tried to bleep out any mention of it when they switched over to showing TNA wrestling, IIRC. kelvSYC 04:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per excellently worded nom. -Kubigula (ave) 15:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Aaru Bui ^DII 10:05, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 Little Einsteins. Mangojuice^talk 18:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Little Einsteins episodes

Partially redundant with content on Little Einsteins, data on this page should be included on that page and episode-specific pages FelineAvenger 05:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Should be a merge, then, rather than a delete.Fitzaubrey 08:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Merge. --Masamage 22:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Wikipedia is not a collection of lists. HighInBC 18:27, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per Fitzaubrey. Vectro 00:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

This is good stuff. Please keep it. Even if you merge it, please list the episodes. My daughter really liked the tulip episode and google pulled up this page. Thanks!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.4.140.2 (talk • contribs) October 18, 2006

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by Grandmasterka. MER-C 08:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CharityFocus

Unexceptional not for profit; delete. --Peta 05:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom--Acebrock 05:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as spam. Creator's only contributions have been to that article and nothing else. So tagged. MER-C 07:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. —Xezbeth 14:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stickman: The Movie

Prod removed be creator; article lacks context and does not explain why this movie is notable enough to appear in an encyclopeida. --Peta 05:42, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete. The only People that own stick comics are David Bastias, his family, Roneal Valmonte and Carlos Corrie. --- RockMFR 05:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as per above. Vizjim 06:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. So tagged. MER-C 07:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Mangojuice^talk 20:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] God: Conservator

Google search for "God the Conservator" comes up only with this page on Wikipedia. This article is written from a specific point of view and most definitely consists of original research. As such it breaks current policy and should be deleted. Vizjim 06:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep and move to "God the Conservator" - it is definitely not an original research but an established theological doctrine. If we have even God and gender, we can have also this one.--Ioannes Pragensis 08:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Can you provide any evidence that it is an established term? Searches on JSTOR and google return nothing. Vizjim 08:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• I have read it in my books about RC theology. I do not know the exact term in English because I studied it in Czech and in German, but this could be solved by moving the article, if the term Conservator is wrong. BTW the article cites its sources, so I thing that it is enough to prove that the idea is well established.--Ioannes Pragensis 09:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• None of the sources cited mention the term. Vizjim 09:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Yes but they describe the concept. I am not sure about the term in English - in Czech it is Udržovatel and I found many www references related not only to the Christian God, but also to Vishnu and other deities. In English I found this, but it does not use the title as well. - What I wish to say is that the title of the article may be wrong, but the concept is established and IMHO encyclopedic. And a bad title of the article is not a deletion reason.--Ioannes Pragensis 10:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Until someone researches the issue and provides a sourced, useable title that's not a seeming neologism, it sounds as thought this article belongs only on the Czech Wiki. Vizjim 11:27, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Please, do not use too much irony against fellow Wikipedians. Wrong title is really not a deletion reason. - Now I found it - the proper English term is Sustainer and not Conservator. Try to google "god creator sustainer" - I've got 250,000+ hits. So I change my vote to "keep and move to God the Sustainer".--Ioannes Pragensis 11:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• No irony intended, I do assure you: there are terms which exist in one language and do not have equivalents in another. A Google search for the exact phrase "God the Sustainer" brings up 182 unique hits [10], divided about 50/50 between Islamic and Christian uses of the phrase, so this looks like a workable article name. Nomination withdrawn on condition of article move. Now, how do I close this debate off? Vizjim 13:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Wait for an admin unless you are one. :-) - The obvious problem of the article is that it is concentrated only on Catholic theology, but the concept of God Sustainer is present also in other Christian denominations, in Islam and other monotheistic religions, and even in Hinduism (Vishnu). It should be broadened. Greetings--Ioannes Pragensis 15:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. WP:OR violation, few or no wikilinks. --Aaron 16:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Not OR (see Google) and the nomination has already been withdrawn by Vizjim.--Ioannes Pragensis 18:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Withdrawn nominations don't matter once the discussion stops being unanimous. And it is WP:OR; the specific Bible quotes are legit, but the opening paragraphs and the cherrypicking of specific Bible passages constitutes original research. (It also makes it an NPOV violation. --Aaron 19:42, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• I have seen discussions which ended for withdrawal without being unanimous. But it does not matter much. The important thing is that this is not OR - you can find the notion about God the Sustainer in many books and articles (e.g. http://www.stnews.org/Commentary-2389.htm). And it is not a NPOV violation, because the article just reproduces the Roman Catholic POV and correctly says it. Of course there are other viewpoints which can (and should) be there, but this is not a reason for deletion.--Ioannes Pragensis 20:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• This looks like a description of the Holy Spirit to me. The Spirit is often described as 'Comforter' or 'Sanctifier'. Certainly not OR, I think, but not something that demands a new article either. I think merge is best. -- Bpmullins 20:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Islam does not believe in Trinity (and Holy Spirit), but still does believe in God the Sustainer. Therefore I think that the article should be kept and broadened, not restricted to the Christianinty only.--Ioannes Pragensis 21:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as original research. The Bible quotes aren't OR, but the selection and melding of them into this theory is. Cynical 11:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7 web. "The website is relatively unknown, but it is gaining popularity very quickly." NawlinWiki 17:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tattiche difettose

Non-notable webcomic. No ghits. Nehwyn 06:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete - fails to assert notability. So tagged. MER-C 07:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 - discussions as to a possible redirect or merge can take place on the talk page. Yomangani^talk 11:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Ventersdorp

Event described is not notable (insignificant civil march not a battle), no pages link to it. Deon Steyn 06:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. No evidence of notability. MER-C 07:34, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This was a significant moment in the transition from apartheid when the AWB were still threatening civil war. Against the in-depth coverage given to various marches in African-American Civil Rights Movement (1955-1968) there's a lot more to be written about what happened in South Africa. Think about systemic bias. --Mereda 11:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletions. -- Mereda 11:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as a non-notable event unless some more verifiable, independent citations can be provided. --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 14:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Dammit! If only I knew my own history...Delete The article itself does not provide evidence of notability, nor is this event inherently notable. Redirect to Eugène Terre'Blanche Afrikaner Weerstandsbeweging as a plausible search term, and per this "related article" Google search. Zunaid 15:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Significant event. The article now includes a citation to back up the claim of notability. It was a significant event in far-right opposition to the ending of apartheid. This and similar events led President FW de Klerk to call a referendum, in order to neutralise the right-wing populist claim that negotiations were not supported by the white electorate. The article can still be improved, of course. Redirecting to Eugene Terreblanche is not appropriate - it was far more than simply an event in Terre'blanche's life. Zaian 09:01, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment – Even if it is notable enough, it doesn't warrant a separate article and it could be redirect/merged to AWB (the organization holding the march) and mentioned there. --Deon Steyn 09:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • If the person who proposed the deletion based on non-notability no longer disputes that this is a notable event, then the original deletion proposal doesn't seem to hold much weight. Not warranting a separate article makes it a candidate for merge, expand, or similar, but not for deletion. See Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Problem articles where deletion may not be needed. Zaian 10:01, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Don't get me wrong, if still say it is non-notable and definitely not worthy of a separate article. Deon Steyn 13:44, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Since the nomination, the article has been heavily extended and improved, adding context, sources, and evidence of notability. Deletion is obviously no longer appropriate, and personally I don't think a merge is appropriate either. Zaian 15:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This was an event which attracted worldwide coverage at the time and its outcome was crucial in the way in which South Africa dismantled Apartheid. A further element of notability is asserted in the article in that it was "the first time white extremist groups had been forcefully opposed by the South African security forces". JASpencer 07:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. —Cryptic 00:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Relative Color Principle

A technique for enabling users to change the colours of a web (or other) page by altering just one "seed" colour. Original research. The phrase was unknown to Google until this article was written and none of the third-party refs and links propose the concept. Secondary objections are: verging towards an how-to guide and just an advert for the author's website at oxomoxo.free.fr/rcp . -- RHaworth 06:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete How to guide to me would be primary objection. Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 12:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, unsourced. Gazpacho 21:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki to WikiHow or delete. WP:NOT a howto guide. Alba 03:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 16:23, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sterling J. Smith

Tagged as db-bio but author asserts the subject is notable. A quick Google turned up very few mentions for Sterling Smith with any relevant finance keyword, but it was only a quick Google. Guy 06:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Reads like a vanity entry and/or a resume. MER-C 07:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Why to people insist on submitting their CVs? yandman 09:34, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Note and Question from Author of the Article: First, it should be noted that he did not write this article. The problem may be with the way in which I wrote the article. I did not mean to simply write a resume but I did not want it to be a commercial either. I wanted it to stick only to the facts of the person and give the general information which people have been interested in finding out about. Granted, unless you are involved in the futures industry, you may not be familiar with who this person is. But, due to his commentary on the subject, he is fairly well-known of in this field. Again, this is most likely my own error. I modeled it after some bio articles I found on here such as that of the new CEO of the Ford motor company, etc., as I imagined those would be properly written. Would anyone here be able to suggest what to do to change it so that it does not simply look like a CV - while at the same time maintaining an unbiased and fact-only content so as to stay in line with the integrity of Wikipedia's purpose? Or is it actually ok in it's current form?

• Delete as non-notable unless some verifiable, independent press coverage can be provided. --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 14:47, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. Here is an example: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/09/20/business/main2025399.shtml?source=RSSattr=Politics_2025399 This is a link to a recent piece of independent press coverage. See caption under picture in bold.

• Delete Vice-president of a brokerage firm, like hundreds (thousands?) of others. Very nice, but hardly makes him exceptionally notable. Fan-1967 22:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep A lot of firms do business with him, so he is definately legit. I also believe he is a webcaster on a futures news program (checking into URL). Could be the start of something much bigger - maybe keep him around?
• Delete Article contains no evidence of meeting WP:BIO standards, much less does it use independent sources to establish meeting those standards. The above linked article isn't about Smith, it just uses a one sentence quote by him. We need coverage about him. Also, the rule is first become notable, then get an encyclopedia article, not the other way around. GRBerry 02:03, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 09:41, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] UOGamers

This is just any Ultima Online-shard, like there are hundreds out there. Also this page is an orphan! just noticed it by random. --Jestix 06:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. MER-C 07:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete article doesn't even make it clear exactly what it even is: "Built and Run by the team that wrote RunUO, UO Gamers is the owner and manager of three online shards." The first part of that makes it sound like a computer, while the last makes it sound like a person. In any case, not notable, no reliable sources, WP:WEB, all the usual stuff. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, it's stylistically pretty shoddy, but let me rephrase what this article tries to say, as I parse it: "UO Gamers is a group of people (?), affiliated with the RunUO [Famous Ultima Online server emulator] authors, who run three unofficial Ultima Online game servers." --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 15:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete --Peta 01:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - due to their nature, probably not notable enough for an article of their own, but due to the size of the servers, they probably deserve a brief mention somewhere though (RunUO?) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 15:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment - No, with a lot of force, bad temper, and even a mediation request it (as well other shards) were finally removed from RunUO. The fact is, it atracts lots of l33t-kid server admins as well adding their shard. With the comment, why may this shard be here and that not. Also rising a lot of bad temper why people counting themself to the runuo development team may add their shards to wikipedia page, while others may not. And I really don't thing we want a comprehensive shard (server) listing on wikipedia.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jestix (talk • contribs) .

Mmm, you're probably right. There was similar issue with Legend of the Green Dragon: People were adding random game servers, so I kind of decreed that only official servers (and heck of a notable otherwise) should be listed, and for the rest, link to LotGDnet was added. And it worked. We're not a server directory, really; Listing official servers in LotGD is alike to saying "there's the UO official shards (here, here, and here), and there's random others too, but we're not listing them because judging their worthiness is difficult." --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 18:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

UOGamers is a 3rd party server, not an "official" UO server. However I don't know, it might be the largest "unofficial" server out there... --Jestix 19:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I meant, as in "UO has official shards run by Origin Systems (or at least what's left of it, these days), run at (locations); there's unofficial shards that are based on things like RunUO, but we can't list them blah blah blah". Sorry if I was unclear. =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete This is an advertising stub for a site of questionable notability. If its notability can be established it should be merged with RunUO. Lord Rasputin 18:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 16:23, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] UOgateway

I know Afd is not cleanup, but this page is at is absolut unacceptable in style, yet it doesn't seem to get any better with time. Might even be better to make a new start one day. If the lemma is notable at all (I don't know) Jestix 07:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - Wikipedia is not a game guide, no evidence of notability. MER-C 07:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Doesn't meet WP:SOFTWARE guidelines for notability. And I don't believe that Wiki should be a place to be promoting game cheating tools. NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 01:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Uh, this isn't a cheating tool. It's a server browser for finding unofficial servers. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 15:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete --Peta 01:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep - Yeah, not a cleanup, but the notability of the software is a bit in question. I was under the impression this was among the few UO freeshard browsers though, so it may have gotten some attention - I'm too lazy to check right now. I wouldn't mind if this would be deleted now and would be started over with better time, resources and sources. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 15:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This might warrant a link in the RunUO article, but doesn't merit its own. Nothing really to merge otherwise. Lord Rasputin 18:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 14:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] John den Dulk

Tagged db-bio but there is at least some assertion of notability. This is a nominee (not even a candidate yet). Is there an article on this particular race to which the article can be merged? Certainly does not appear to meet WP:BIO. Pictured with an elephant - very droll. Guy 07:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - election candidates generally aren't non-notable unless elected. MER-C 07:42, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - doesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:C&E. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 16:48, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment, Guy, you say "this is a nominee (not even a candidate yet)". But a nominee of a major political party (Republican) is possibly further along in the policial process than a mere "candidate". Did you mean to say "not even an elected official yet"? If so, why are candidates for a national political office (assuming reliable sources about their candidacy can be found) inherently non-notable? In this particular case, I could only find one article in a reliable source to support keeping this article, so I abstain from voting here. · j e r s y k o talk · 19:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• jersyko, candidates are generally non-notable because (unless they succeed) nobody would want to know about them in 10 years' time, and sources will not remain available to keep the article up-to-date. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a directory or news source. Also, Delete. Vectro 17:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, so candidates in an election to a national office are inherently (generally) non-notable. What if there are multiple reliable sources (say, newspaper articles, which, despite your comment to the contrary, will be available 10 years from now) that provide enough verifiable information such that an article about the candidate can be written? Additionally, what proof do you have that someone will not want to read about an election and its candidates 10 years from now? (Actually, that's probably the best time to study an election, or even later than that, after the historical picture becomes more clear with time) The whole idea is (1) biased in favor of incumbents and possibly violates NPOV and (2) supported only by subjective perception of what is and is not "notable" with passing reference to WP:NOT. The blanket assertion that political candidates are non-notable is, I posit, an untenable position. I don't meant to single out your arguments only, Vectro, as there are other editors who have argued in the same vein. I suppose all I can do is chalk it up as yet another example of the overuse of notability as a ground for deletion. · j e r s y k o talk · 18:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Not so much biased in favor of incumbents as biased in favor of notable individuals, which happen to include incumbents and some, though not all, of their challengers. I see no violation of NPOV. I just want to add that significant press coverage in reliable, verifiable sources is actually an indication of notability, and is listed as such in WP:BIO, in its discussion of major local political figures. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 18:53, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Titoxd^(?!?) 20:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] John Thrasher (politician)

Another political hopeful. No information form any source other than the man himself. Guy 07:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - election candidates generally aren't non-notable unless elected. MER-C 07:45, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as a non-notable political aspirant. --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 14:45, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep He might be notable while he is running. --Arctic Gnome 14:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - doesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:C&E. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 16:47, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete although "John Thrasher" sounds like the awesomest politician name ever! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Wonkette agrees! · j e r s y k o talk · 19:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unverifiable in reliable sources. Notability should not be used as a justification for deletion when adequate grounds for deletion exist that are based on Wikipedia policy. · j e r s y k o talk · 19:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete at least until he gets elected --Maelnuneb (Talk) 20:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Vectro 03:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 14:36, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] John Kanno

Another political hopeful with no sources outside of his own campaign. Guy 07:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - election candidates generally aren't non-notable unless elected. MER-C 07:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per usual reasons for obscure political candidates' articles. yandman 09:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, doesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:C&E. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 15:53, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Vectro 17:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete not notable at this time --Maelnuneb (Talk) 20:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 14:36, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] John Jones (California politician)

Another political hopeful with no sources outside his own campaign. Guy 07:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - election candidates generally aren't non-notable unless elected. MER-C 07:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per usual reasons for obscure political candidates' articles. yandman 09:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - doesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:C&E. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 16:47, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete not notable at this time --Maelnuneb (Talk) 20:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Schaich. Vectro 03:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 14:36, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Joe Ross (politician)

And another political hopeful with no sources outside his own campaign. Guy 07:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - election candidates generally aren't non-notable unless elected. MER-C 07:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per usual reasons for obscure political candidates' articles. yandman 09:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - he's held elective office before, and he is a major party candidate to the US Congress. Just because the article's a stub doesn't mean it should be deleted. -- Sholom 14:53, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I don't think superindendent of parks or alderman meets the WP:BIO requirements for local political figures (at least not without evidence of significant press coverage). Clearly fails WP:C&E as well (unless there's an election article and major press coverage I can't find). -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 16:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete not notable at this time --Maelnuneb (Talk) 20:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete no convincing evidence of a close race or notability. Arbusto 00:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Schaich. Vectro 03:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Deleted above the law. El_C 07:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Judges above the law

inherently POV and does not relate to any established concept Fitzaubrey 07:27, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• oh yeah Delete per nom --Richard 07:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• I never broke the law! I AM the law! Delete Danny Lilithborne 08:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MER-C 09:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. yandman 09:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• (Rrrrrip!) - That one's repealed. Delete per above. - Smerdis of Tlön 13:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Unsurprisingly, it's a simple paraphrase of the opinion espoused by the web site of the same name. The opinion is on the subject of malfeasance in office. Unsurprisingly, we have an article on that, too. This article is inherently non-neutral. Delete. Uncle G 14:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Such a pity, hoped it was a Judge Dredd article. Delete as NPOV. Vizjim 15:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, POV-pushing. NawlinWiki 17:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nonsense. Gazpacho 18:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete garbage. QuiteUnusual 19:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Vectro 03:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as POV nonsense. - Lex 18:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I was almost hoping for something to put on BJAODN. Lord Rasputin 18:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 14:37, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kendall Logan

Non-notable character that only appeared in one issue of a non-canon comic book story. CovenantD 07:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. MER-C 07:48, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Extremely trivial character. PJM 12:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.--Nilfanion (talk) 16:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.--InShaneee 17:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.--Chris Griswold (☎☓) 20:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Vectro 03:45, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Not required. --Mrph 09:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 14:37, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] D Min

Not notable artist/musician, self-promotion article. Prod deleted by anon. TexMurphy 07:34, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete bass-and-drumcruft. Trash. Next! -KingCobra666 07:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - no evidence of notability. MER-C 07:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Nehwyn 15:48, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Maelnuneb (Talk) 20:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• 'Speedy Delete per WP:BIO and WP:SPEEDY. Vectro 03:45, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 15:08, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SaRenna Lee

SaRenna Lee was nominated for dleetion on 2005-08-16. The result of the prior discussion was "nomination withdrawn". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SaRenna Lee/2006-08-16.

Article lacks ANY verifiable information. Not ONE citation. Subject is a completely unnotable pornographic star with very internet presence other than her own pornographic website (with a completely low Alexa rating), and mirror sites. Only notability seems to be 1. Her extremely large breasts 2. Being one of the few neo-fascist big breast stars 3. Her heroin addiction, none of which qualifies her whatsoever under current AfD rules. Should be speedy deleted but I knew some would complain KingCobra666 07:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC) — KingCobra666 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• delete, non-notable. yandman 09:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable within her genre and also is part of an ongoing WikiProject. Lack of sources is not a criteria for deletion. 23skidoo 14:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable personality. Fact that you've come across this page means that she is valid for wiki. thebaumer 14:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Weak< Keep. She seems to be notable in her genre, meeting WP:PORNBIO. Meanwhile, it's not true that she does not have much of an internet presence, Google returns almost 300000 hits for her name (even though she is retired, per http://www.amontillado.it/sarenna.htm]). This in itself would not be sufficient, but does cast doubt on the nomination itself. So does the nominator's contribution record, which is limited to 10 contributions, all nominating articles for deletion. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Sorry, which criteria in WP:PORNBIO (not a policy, BTW) does she satisfy? Also, Keep, per 23skidoo. Vectro 03:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I meant #6, "Performer has been notable or prolific within a specific genre niche," extremely large enhancements being a very specific genre. She seems to have a very large number of appearances and covers listed in IMDb; "seems" because I'm not an expert in the genre. But if she does have an AVN award, that would be another, and I would strike the "weak" part of my keep. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 12:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per AnonEMouse and 23skidoo, I trust that any remaining verifiability issues will be resolved shortly. RFerreira 01:31, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep numerous appearances in print media. Winner of an AVN award... she passes the majority of the WP:PORNBIO criteria.  ALKIVAR™ 03:57, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Which AVN Award would that be, please? Could we have a reference or link? AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 12:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep if this article already passed a nomination for deletions, why again is nominated?.Kamui99 07:01, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. --Coredesat 20:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wendy Whoppers

No establishment of notoriety. Website has an Alexa rating of below 600,000. Only other notability is the ownership of a MySpace. Major films include "Razor Woman" and "UFO Tracker" both B-grade films with limited releases, prints lost. More big-boobcruft. I hope people can look past their prejudices towards well-endowed women and realize this stuff is completely unnotable and doesnt belong on an encyclopedia. KingCobra666 07:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC) — KingCobra666 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Delete per nom - owning a Myspace isn't an assertion of notability. MER-C 07:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. I'm discovering new crufts every day... yandman 09:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per above. PJM 11:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Model what? as per MER-C. Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 12:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable within her genre and part of an ongoing WikiProject (which I'm not involved in, I might add). 23skidoo 14:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep one of the most notable of her particular group. She meets WP:PORNBIO, not only section 6 ("Performer has been notable or prolific within a specific genre niche" - very many magazine appearances and covers) but section 5 ("Performer has appeared multiple times in notable mainstream media outlets) - including the talk shows of Montel Williams, Danny Bonaduce, and Richard Bey. [11] AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Note that nominator is a new user, with a total of 10 contributions, all for Articles for Deletion nominations. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Yeah, it's porn-cruft but this has notability within porn. SchmuckyTheCat 21:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per AnonEMouse and 23skidoo, possible bad faith nomination by a single purpose account to boot. After reviewing the Wikipedia Top 10 for August 2006, I am a bit bewildered by this anti-big-bust bias! RFerreira 01:24, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, but possibly keep if AnonEMouse's claims can be added to the article. Vectro 03:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Added claims to article. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 21:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
    • And so say keep. Vectro 03:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep one of the most visible actresses of the large breast porn subgenre.  ALKIVAR™ 03:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• keep please she is notable in large breasted porn genre Yuckfoo 07:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Agree the article needs work and sourcing, but it meets WP:PORNBIO. Vic sinclair 17:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Added sourcing to article. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 21:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: The sources adduced so far seem to be limited her own, aside from her list of appearances at IMDB. ¶ More generally, I'm puzzled by the way in which WP seems to treat seriously the biographical claims of this or that porn star(let). My utterly uneducated guess is that these people would draw a line between their professional and private lives, and would take considerable precautions to protect the latter from their ardent (and priapic) fans (who will certainly be represented among WP readers, if not editors). If this guess is correct, then the phrasing would be something like "According to the biography concocted for her, the person marketed as 'Wendy Whoppers' was born on 13 August 1970" blah blah blah. -- Hoary 03:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
      • I'm not sure what the bases for your complaints are. Her own site is an authoritative source on relatively uncontroversial matters per Wikipedia:Verifiability. Things like her film, magazine, and television appearances are uncontroversial unless you find a source that questions them. AFDB lists 95 of her 120 films, IMDB also lists quite a few. Here is a link to a YouTube page with an clip of her on Montel Williams, likely a copyright violation, like so much on YouTube, but it is proof of her appearance. Yes, porn stars lie in their bios, but not nearly as much as the writers, lawyers, businessmen, and politicians, whose claims we also take seriously without claims contrary. Finally, the very first sentence in the article says it's her stage name, without using the unnecessary and loaded words "concocted"and "marketed"; all that is what a stage name is. We don't even do that much in the whole lead section for John Wayne, surely no less of a concocted and marketed persona. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 13:47, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
        • I thought I'd made the bases pretty clear. Yes, I think the IMDB list of her appearances (or perhaps we should say revelations) in films, etc., would be fairly uncontroversial. It's a long list, and I imagine that it meets WP's porn notability criteria, which I have neither read nor claimed to have read (this being one reason why I haven't voted). You say: Yes, porn stars lie in their bios, but not nearly as much as the writers, lawyers, businessmen, and politicians, whose claims we also take seriously without claims contrary. This seems strange. The facts that the two groups want to advertise or obscure are likely to be very different. Politicians' addresses will be known to the mass media, the more prominent among them will get police protection. Porn stars' addresses are a different matter, and the porn cliche that the stars like to pork virtually anyone, any time is likely to inflame the passions of the dimmer readers. I find it hard to imagine that the stars would get police protection, much though they might deserve it. Politicians have to talk truthfully about their origins, academic achievements, etc.; if they don't, the opposition will pounce on the inaccuracies. By talking truthfully about her past, a porn star makes it easier for her more ardent fans to locate her in the present, which is something I imagine she's unlikely to want. Et cetera. So again, I've nothing against porn stars in general or this one in particular, and I am completely certain that this one exists -- but I've no particular reason to think their "biographical details" (other than nationality and very approximate age) are more than fiction. -- Hoary 23:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Aha. I think I see your point. However, given all that, what exactly in the article do you object to? The sentence "...currently resides in Fort Lauderdale..."? I actually can't find that on her bio or other sources. Will strike. That she was born in St Louis 30 years ago? That hardly makes her easy to find now, so I would leave that in. All that said, does that weigh on the article's being deleted completely, which is what this AfD page should be about, or should we move it to the article's talk page, which should be where individual minor facts are discussed? AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 13:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
        • Those are very reasonable comments. I've more to say, but while I haven't decided whether or not to bother to say it (and bore you with it), this probably isn't the right place, so I'll shut up. Aside, that is, from the pithy contribution I'm about to make a short distance below. -- Hoary 10:07, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per the sage words of AnonEMouse. Meets multiple criteria from the relateively strict porn bio guideline. Silensor 19:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
• This athlete has indisputably been revealed in a long list of (cellophane-wrapped) material. Therefore keep. -- Hoary 10:07, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per the comments made above this article meets our proposed WP:PORN BIO criteria. Yamaguchi先生 20:16, 14 October 2006
• Keep per the above. --Myles Long 20:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 14:38, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ZCC

Delete based on lack of notability. Wiki article is only hit on google for Zesmo Commander Codes Antonrojo 07:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. MER-C 09:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• delete, non-notable, blatant advert for a project. yandman 09:26, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, spam. --Nehwyn 10:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete, spam. Vectro 03:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 23:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Denali (band) and Maura Davis

I was about to delete this and Maura Davis but then I noticed a keep in a related AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keeley Davis. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-10-10 08:23Z

• To note, I prodded the article because it fails WP:MUSIC. The band has only two indie-label released albums and has no assertion of other notability. The only other possibility is the membership of Keeley Davis whose article says he "was also briefly in the band Denali," and he's not that notable himself. In ordinary circumstances, redirects are more appropriate for notability-by-association with a notable member. Here, because of the unimportance of Davis to the band itself, a redirect seems inappropriate. Note also that nothing, inculding any potential assertions of notability, is sourced with reliable, verifiable sources. I favor deletion. Dmcdevit·t 08:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Also, I hope I'm not being presumptuous in adding Maura Davis to this nominaion. They are closely connected, and have the same supposed claims to notability. Dmcdevit·t 22:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Well they toured nationally and that's one of the requirements for a band having a wikipedia article also they were on "Jade Tree Records" which is a notable indie label, and that's another requirement, so i say keep the article.69.213.152.159 21:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Not only is there no reliable source for a tour, the article doesn't even say that. Dmcdevit·t 22:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
    • The band's website details U.S. national tours from 2000-2004, and lists their two major releases on Jade Tree Records, which is a major independent label. I think the notoriety of band is not a question. Keep the main article, but a possible redirect for Maura Davis' article may be a good option.Jemather 01:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
      • The band's website is not a "notable and verifiable source." It doesn't fulfill WP:MUSIC. Can you find a notable and verifiable source for a nationwide tour? Dmcdevit·t 03:08, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
        • Allmusic.com has notes about their two releases on Jade Tree and their tours. Also, the band's website is a primary source for information about themselves - it meets WP:RS, and Allmusic corroborates the information.Jemather 14:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable and passes WP:MUSIC. - Lex 18:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Reliable sources establishing notability. Recorded on notable indie labels. Passes WP:MUSIC. --Marriedtofilm 23:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. This is all a bit of a confusing mess of new accounts, unsigned commentary and inter-personal mini-feuding. Nevertheless, the reasoned argumentation that there is leans clearly enough toward deleting. The publications by this author are really pretty minimal also, and so there is none bestowed upon this book by transference. (I would also observe that the article is massively over-detailed and entirely disproportionate to its own needs.) I do not think it met any of the recent castings of G11, however. Someone mentions that an admin can see if it was an AOL IP or not; unfortunately they cannot see the IP underlying a logged-in account. -Splash - tk 23:14, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dreadmire

Bumped from speedy; neutral. There is relevant discussion at Talk:Dreadmire. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-10-10 08:31Z

Also List of Dreadmire Fantasy Animals and List of Fictional Animals in Dreadmire —Percy Snoodle 13:24, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - the speedy reason given was "It is blatant advertising for a company, product, group or service that would require a substantial rewrite in order to become an encyclopedia article" (G11). Yomangani^talk 09:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Weak delete Looking at the EZboard link provided on the talk page it's clear this article is trying to gain publicity for this book. Delete, is because this smacks of advertising. I do not believe Wikipedia should be used as the repository for every single stat or book or episode related to a certain subject. But and this is a big but and the reason for the Weak delete, is that precedent has been set all over Wikipedia, using a term I've noticed recently of fancruft i.e. stats of everysingle WWE wrestler. There are far better resources out on t'interweb for this type of thing. For me it would be better as an external link on maybe the RPG article that links to a comprehensive list of these books. Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 13:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Advertising.--Robbstrd 20:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep If you read the Spellbinder Games EZboard link provided on the talk page you will see there is a discussion with the author and his publisher. Apparently they agree with Khukri about the fancruft (nice word by the way). However, I also agree that precedent has been set on Wikpedia already, including descriptions of lesser known books not even published yet (Savage Tide), and obscure editors/authors/publishers of all types and genres. For example I offer Mystara, Greyhawk, Eberron and Erik Mona, as well as "Category:Dungeons & Dragons campaign settings" and "Category:Dungeons & Dragons books". As to fancruft, Dreadmire certainly is part of that category. But Dreadmire also had noteworthy legal issues, it introduced new paradigm to the fantasy gaming genre, and the author, Randy Richards, has been a well known figure in the gaming industry for over 10 years. --Cryogenesis 01:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment The talk page covers the true issue with Randy, ego. He has no body of work and no fame beyond what any fan would have. Dreadmire has set no records of note. There is no legal status as no legal proceedings were conducted, the book was simply rejected and the project dropped. No new paradigms were introduced, I do have a copy of the book, most of the swamp information was copied from other public sources and no relevant game information was produced. The site is self promotion and spam. Currently Randy has no associations with gamming. He hits the local cons only to shill his book. He rejects all views contrary to his own and lashes out at anyone with a different viewpoint. He is a master at the sockpuppet. Currently Randy owns his book site, the spellbinder site and the message board. He owns the Spellbinder and dreadmire name user names, I believe he is also Cryogenesis as well as I fail to see any person who would want a worship site for him. Deletion is earned just by the need to make this something it is not. Lets wait 5 years and let Randy publish a few more books under his company Spellbinder then we can revisit this.Quode 02:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Its obvious Quode has some sort of vendetta against the author. His words just ooze hatred. Might I suggest we employ "speedy keep", and consider banning the IP of user Quode for abuse of the delete function as per Wikipedia guidelines on such matters.

• Comment I suffered unprovoked attacks for writing a single review. Again, I stand up to bullies. If I must be censured for promoting the truth so be it. But remember, Randy/Cryogenesis, cannot offer a shred of proof for any of his declarations so far and I have offered proof as I can for mine. Quode 02:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment As I said, this is personal for you. That has no place here. You desperately WANT your accusations to be true. You felt slighted and now you seek revenge. Okay, fine, but you should post your accusation on the Spellbinder Games forum, or some other gaming forum. It has nothing to do with the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia, which is primarily "notability". If someone had to be moral or ethical to be a part of Wikipedia, then there would be no articles on Adolph Hitler or David Koresh. Trying to convince us that Randy Richards is crazy or unethical has nothing to do with the notability of the Dreadmire article about his book. It does have to do with any article about Randy Richards -- and ironically such accusations may even increase his notability. Good luck with your vendetta, just please take it off Wikipedia.
• Comment Suggested further reading for Quode: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view; Wikipedia:Verifiability; Wikipedia:Notability. --Cryogenesis 04:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• You first, especially the latter. And throw on WP:Reliable sources while you're indulging in your amateur legal practice. --Calton | Talk 06:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• Agreed. No need to get insulting. There are no lagalities involved here, just subjective Wikipedia Guidelines. Thats why we're having this discussion. --Cryogenesis 07:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• Read this: WP:Wikilawyering. Note the irony of whinging that "[t]here are no lagalities involved here" while trying utilize its techniques. --Calton | Talk 08:10, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. "Dreadmire earned a special place in history as the first D&D book to ever place an entire campaign in a swamp setting"? That's a fairly desperate bid for notability. The author's page (Randy Richards) is even worse. --Calton | Talk 06:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment The above quote is accurate. It may seem trivial, but its a game, and no one is saying its noteworthy beyond that genre. Its certainly no better than the wrestling. You have to intimately know the genre to understand why the book is notable. If the Dreadmire entry is deleted, there are going to be hundreds - maybe thousands - of other deletions of books, campaign settings, TV shows, editors, and authors that must follow. Precedent has already been set in this genre. If its gets deleted I am sure someone else will eventually add it back without realizing it was deleted. No big deal I guess, I just hate to see all my work go to waste and someone else get to enter it. If it needs to be "cleaned up" then clean it up, don't delete it. Suggestions on cleanup are welcome.--Cryogenesis 07:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• The above quote is accurate I never claimed it was false, which is sort of the point: a false claim would have the virtue of being reasonable if it were true. As for "cleaning up", as the New York Times has said, if you wash garbage, you just wind up with clean garbage.All right, actually that was me being quoted by the Times in an article about AFDs. But it's verifiable! And true! And totally trivial! --Calton | Talk 08:10, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I don't know what other ONLINE references I can point to. To prove to you the book is, without a single doubt, notable, I would have to take you to a few dozen conventions to watch and talk to the people playing the game, and talk to industry game designers and companies. I would have to show you the other reviews and articles written in magazines that don't have their content available on the internet (which is rare). I would have to take you to game stores across the U.S. to get the scuttlebutt on the book by gamers. Its not like Wrestlemania where its easy to see on TV. This is something that takes place in real life, in garages and game cons all over the world. The links I provided give some indication to the level of interest about Randy Richards and his published works. Dungeons & Dragons books, even the ones produces by Wizards of the Coast, are not likely to be reviewed on national television or other more established book sources, which is what it seems that you want. The convention circuit is where such books are reviewed - with money and play time, and guest spots for the author. I have provided several of these links to establish a verifiable pattern. Explain to me what more you want and I will try to provide it. --Cryogenesis 07:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Agreeing with Robbstrd, this is fairly blatant advertising. --Idran 21:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Why all the discussion about Ego and advertising? Shouldn't this be about the Product? Has anyone here actually read the book? I have. I own a copy bought with my hard earned cash and the fact is... I like it. Being a Gamer of 24 some odd years, I've seen the Golden Age of Role Playing Games. I have also seen the business side, where corporations try to turn a profit on my favorite hobby. I've seen an assortment of products: some that were fairly absurd and some with stories that gripped me and made my imagination run wild. I would get an idea that would start a campaign that went on for months and gave me many an enjoyable hour sitting with friends. Randy Richards book, "Dreadmire", reminds me a good deal of the wonderful modules and products of the "younger" days of DnD.. It gave me quite a shock of nostalgia when I first thumbed through it and I'm glad I bought it. What about the fact that The Ancient Druids left several mysterious artifacts behind, many of them sunk into the swamp? What about the possible side effects of "Dark Pollen" created by the "Somesuch" and can something be "brought back from the Dark Side"?? Does anyone want to discuss the 'pros and cons' of having Leacon the Ducklord as your Deity of choice? He, Randy, gave us a Great deal of information while keeping some portions ambiguous enough to allow the DM to "run" with an idea he/she might have. Personally, I'm tired of spending a great deal of money for a thin book which Dreadmire certainly is not. It was well worth the money in my opinion and deserving of a mention here for other 'pure gamers' to find. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.230.180.50 (talk • contribs) 01:54, October 12, 2006

Comment The above anonymous IP is a single purpose account.

• Delete To add some clarity there were no nominations made for Randy or Dreadmire at the Gen Con EN World RPG Awards *[12]. This is where the fans speak. No fan nominated or voted for Dreadmire. Granted there will be those who like the product but for the ENnie awards a large fan base is required. At major message boards there are no debates of the merits of the book, the spellbinder site is dead. Compared to Necromancer Games which is alive over the full hobby and its new offerings. Quode 06:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment This was discussed on the message board. ENnie nominations for books that were published in 1995 are nominated at the beginning of 1996. Since the book was published in December of 1995, and worldwide book distribution did not begin until Spring of 1996, there was no chance to nominate Dreadmire. It is my understanding from reading the website, that since it was technically published in 1995 it will never be able to be nominated for an ENnie, even if its the greatest D&D book ever published.--Cryogenesis 07:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Dreadmire was published in December 2005 and the awards cover the time from 2005 to 2006 as the awards are in the summer. Thus Dreadmire was eligible. As an example to avoid confusion we have this winner, Mutants & Masterminds Second Edition *[13] It was released before dreadmire and had won Quode 13:32, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Uhhhh, as I just posted, according to Alliance Games Distribution the worldwide distribution did not begin until Spring of 2006, in mid-May. I would hardly think that is enough time for gamers to play and evaluate the book in time for an ENnie nomination. Seriously, its got 220,000 words. Thats at least 6 months of reading for me, let along playing the game and getting a feel for the campaign setting.

• Delete I cannot see how this article satisfies WP:notability (yet), it also reads like advertising. MidgleyDJ 08:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• A quote from the notability link you just provided, "In order to have a verifiable article, a topic must be notable enough that it will be described by multiple independent reliable sources." The External Links in the article are designed to do this, providing multiple independent predominantly reliable sources.--Cryogenesis 13:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• And as I said before, precedent has been set on Wikpedia already, including descriptions of lesser known books not even published yet (Savage Tide), and obscure editors/authors/publishers of all types and genres, such as Eberron, as well as "Category:Dungeons & Dragons campaign settings" and "Category:Dungeons & Dragons books".--Cryogenesis 13:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• Suggestions on how to improve the article would be helpful. I would prefer these suggestions came from people that didn't hate the author or took sides in the legal issue surrounding the original manuscript.--Cryogenesis 13:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep the most relevant notability guideline would be the proposed WP:BK. Actually, however crufty the article might be, I believe that the book does barely meet the proposed criteria on grounds that it has received multiple reviews so I would (reluctantly) recommend keeping the article. It might however need a very thorough rewrite. Pascal.Tesson 13:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Change my mind to delete I was not careful enough the first time around: there is no indication that the said reviews are non-trivial. Many of those are from open forums and posted by fans or, for all we know, the author himself. Some are just mentions in passing and not actual reviews with any sort of depth and it's questionnable whether these are truly independent. Moreover, the obvious sockpuppetry on this AfD is a very ominous sign and my recent arguing with Cryogenesis (talk · contribs) on the article about the author does lead me to think that he is, if not Randy Richards himself, then certainly someone with close ties to him. Pascal.Tesson 22:12, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Suggestions on which parts to re-write would be appreciated. The only reason I added all the links was because I had to show the book was Notable and Verifiable. If the article remains undeleted, then the external links could be removed. Would that make it seem less like an advertisment? Personally I don't care about any of the External links at all, including the ones to the publisher's website. I was just copying the format of the Eberron article, thinking that was "normal" for a Notable and Verifiable fancruft Wikipedia entry.--Cryogenesis 18:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Delete Obvious advertising, the article clearly doesn't satisfy WP:notability .--Cliveklg

• Keep I bought Dreadmire during the Summer when it first became available in my area at my local hobby store. My original intention was to read the book and knock the wind out of it in an online review. I had high hopes of pointing out all the IP violations. That never happened because 1) there isn't any I could find, and 2) the book was just that darn good. A game is a game, and no one is going to argue (hopefully) that Dreadmire is going to solve world hunger or bring peace to the Middle East. And I know there are a lot of harsh feelings against the author. The book he wrote is unbelievably engaging and detailed. So good in fact that we have a club here locally we call "Dread Gamers" and we get together every week to play in the Dreadmire campaign setting. I can't speak for everyone. Its a popular book in my circle of friends. I know at least 14 gamers that own a copy. If people can separate the book from their bias against the author, you'll see why Dreadmire deserves an article on Wikipedia.--JLsan 22:44, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Probable sock-puppet. This user has never before contributed to WP except for this posting. Fairsing 04:35, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete: It sounds like a hodge podge of half-baked ideas and juvenile scribblings

• No vote :: however, I earnestly request the closing admin to review the contribution history of the vociferous Mr. Quode, who, it would appear, edits Wiki~ solely to pursue a campaign against this article, and that concerning Dreadmire's author, Mr.Richards. He alleges sockpuppetry against Mr.Richards :: I hubly suggest that User:Quode may be a pseudonym for a Wiki~ editor with a grudge. -- Simon Cursitor

• Delete. I would request the closing admin review the contribution history of user Cryogenesis. This user's entire edit history reads like a massive, interlinked set of advertisements for the non-notable author "Randy Richards" and this particular publication. User Cryogenesis has (as of the time of this posting), edited the Dreadmire article (a book written by Randy Richards), uploaded images of said publication, added lists of fictional Dreadmire-specific plants and animals, created an article on Spellbinder Games (the publisher of Dreadmire, and apparently no other works despite the fact that it is claimed Spellbinder has existed since 1975), created a biography of Randy Richards, and made almost no other contributions beyond a few edits on other D&D-related topics. In addition, several of these inter-linked articles have been created since the Dreadmire article was nominated for deletion. It would seem *highly* likely that Cryogeneis is in fact Randy Richards, and that he is in blatant violation of WP:AUTO. In fact, if you examine the edit history for all of these articles, you will find that Cryogenesis has created all of them, and made almost all of the substantive edits to these articles. There's a WP term for this, which escapes me at the moment, but essentially this is a circle-jerk type of phenomenon. Cryogenesis has created and edited a bunch of articles which fail WP:Notability, and made them look interlinked and "sourced," when in fact this is one giant circular, interlinked advertisment for a non-notable publication. The original nomination for speedy under CSD:G11 (a.k.a. WP:SPAM) should have been honored, but an admin was fooled by the interlinked nature of these articles. I hope that the closing admin will not be similarly misled. Fairsing 04:22, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I am not Randy Richards, thankyouverymuch. The external sources are the "proof", not the Wikiepdia interlinks. Another form of proof, as someone else pointed out, is the voluminous interest in this article (number of posts on both sides of the issude). If there was little interest in this book, then the post count would be low (and posts from people not involved in petty grudge match against the author). The high post count proves its notability ad hoc.--Cryogenesis 04:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Just because someone who reads Wikipedia on a regular basis decides in this case to, for the first time, to vote in this debate does not mean they are a sock puppet. The admin can tell by the IP address who is a sock puppet and who is not. The people who voted for deletion are likely meat puppets for Quode (I recognize some of Quode's associates on the delete side of the fence). Quode obviously has some sort of grudge against the author, the book, or both. Meat puppets are commonly used in such cases. As to Dreadmire, the entry is no more an advertisement that the campaim setting examples already given (Eberron, Greyhawk, etc.). The book meets the Wikipedia book WP:BK criteria for Keep, barely, but given the interest on this page I would have say it has wide notability. For that reason I say Keep.--BinksG 13:32, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Most if not all of Randy Richards sock puppet have an AOL e-mail address. As an example we have the reviewer Nick Lee; ChATurrentine@aol.com, and Clawedfrog from EZboard; jackstrade@aol.com. Another e-mail from some of the RPG boards is acererak@aol.com. All of the Spellbinder business e-mails are also AOL and owned by Randy. http://www.dreadmire.com/ contacts. One question is in regard to the IP of any e-mail. Randy answers this on his message board "Not if you are dialing in through AOL, as they either scramble the IP or somehow use the same IP for everyone." This is the same problem Necromancer Games has in keeping Randy and his sock puppets out. http://p105.ezboard.com/fnecromancergamesfrm17.showMessage?topicID=148.topicQuode 16:36, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I am quite sure the Admin can tell whether or not a post is from an AOL IP or not, if that helps. I want the article to stay up, but not if we have to cheat. The article can stand on its own merits and notability without "sock puppets". As to the "meat puppets", have you noticed many of the "delete" voters seem to be associated with Quode and the "Greyawk Wiki Project"? Interesting. As to the stuff about Randy (the author) and Spellbinder Games' e-mails, that is neither here nor there. True or not, it is not relevant to the Wiki article.--Cryogenesis 04:42, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment On the spellbinder message board we have them questioning the overstock statement, "By the way, what's the deal with the "overstock" comment Quode made about sales. I don't have any Dreadmire overstock, do you? We may have to go to a second print run." On Amazon we have the seller Fungusdemon, http://s1.amazon.com/exec/varzea/ts/exchange-glance/Y05Y3471922Y9579266/002-6275774-1532816, which just happens to be Randies nickname on Amazon, http://www.amazon.com/gp/pdp/profile/AC43ZJQCTXP3M/ref=cm_wkid_pdp/002-6275774-1532816.Quode 16:36, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Whether or not your assertions are true or false has nothing to do with the question at hand, except that it shows your continued obsession in furthering your vendetta.--Cryogenesis 04:42, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Credibility suffers when “facts” change while trying to discredit an observation. This discussion is in regards to this article being spam. When first raised we had this argument brought to the table “I would also like to note the article is not meant to be an advertisement for Dreadmire. The book was published several years ago, and I believe its "run" is over (in the gaming industry, book runs are often short-lived). If this article is perceived that it is to be used to sell books, I would think its a little late for that!”. And yet when there was an issue with this article being noteworthy we learn this. “Uhhhh, as I just posted, according to Alliance Games Distribution the worldwide distribution did not begin until spring of 2006, in mid-May. I would hardly think that is enough time for gamers to play and evaluate the book in time for an ENnie nomination.” The same goes when people try to paint me as being one thing or another. My argument and reasons for such are clear along with my motivation, I stand up to bullies. Please do not confuse infamy with notability, endless diatribe with beneficial debate.Quode 02:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Credibility suffers when “facts” change while trying to discredit an observation. The comments about worldwide distribution, ENnie qualification, and the "run" of the book being over, are all accurate. The d20 market is soft. In the 1980's/90's a typical D&D book run was 30,000 books. In 2006, a game company is lucky if it sells 800 books. 1,400 book sales would be a runaway hit. 2,000 would be a blockbuster. Ask any game company, including WotC, Spellbinder Games, and Necromancer Games, if you don't believe me. It doesn't take but a couple of months to sell 800 to 2,000 books. The "run" of the book is over, as would most any game book by this time. Perhaps you should do more industry research before spin doctoring information to fit your version of the world. The only bully here is you, as your consistent hammering has made self-evident.--Cryogenesis 18:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment BTW, infamy is indeed a form of notability.--Cryogenesis 15:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• Weak delete as non-notable. Comment List of Fictional Animals in Dreadmire needs adding to this AfD. Percy Snoodle 09:18, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment List of Dreadmire Fantasy Animals, too. Percy Snoodle 09:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Noting an echo in here -- Simon Cursitor

• Comment: If deleted, all of Abysmal ooze, Aquatic ooze, Blood pudding (Dungeons & Dragons), Jelly curd, Jelly quasit, Jelly wraith, Ooze demon and Oozoid should be deleted as well; I'm not aware of any of these having any existence outside Dreadmire. If kept, they should probably be merged. --Pak21 13:46, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment agreed Percy Snoodle 13:48, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment I wholly agree that these should be deleted. However, it's rather bad practice to add deletion candidates to an ongoing AfD since we can't simply assume that everyone who sounded off on Dreadmire also agrees with these deletions. A separate nomination would be in order for these. Pascal.Tesson 14:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: I'm happy to leave that up to the closing admin. If the only existence of these creatures is in a non-notable book, they my view would say that they are obviously non-notable, and going through an AfD for them is just going to be a waste of everybody's time. Cheers --Pak21 14:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• DELETE This is an advertising and vanity article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.79.120.55 (talk • contribs)

• KEEP ...68.208.71.11 15:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)livytaby@aol.com

• KEEP please. I have my reasons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by IIMMamaP (talk • contribs)

Comment For a long while these three votes were lying atop the page, unsigned. Of course all three are from editors with no other contributions to Wikipedia. 22:32, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 14:39, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Paul Graves

This article was an expanded radio bio stub, in which major inaccuracies were reported, as a means to defame the subject's character. There aren't any factual or verifiable pieces of this biography. This was edited by someone that is trying to libel this subject. Californiawikisooth 08:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Editor's sole contributions to Wikipedia have been to try and remove this article, has been warned for page-blanking it. The other editors involved are serious contributors. Not sure about the notability of the subject, though. yandman 09:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - completely unsourced. No evidence of meeting WP:BIO. MER-C 09:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I recommend also including in this listing the following additional articles related to Paul Graves:

• Dark Saint Entertainment
• Sean Vox

--AbsolutDan ^(talk) 12:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete all as non-notable, failing WP:BIO and WP:CORP. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 12:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unsourced, and of negligible notability. JesseW, the juggling janitor 00:03, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all per AbsoluteDan. Vectro 03:54, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all, unsourced with possible WP:BLP problems. There were complaints about these articles being attack pages, please take those seriously, and everybody feel free to erase anything that's unsourced and possibly derogatory from the article. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:03, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 14:47, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Dawn of Chaos

This is a WarCraft III mod that has yet to be completed. The author is more than welcome to recreate this article when the mod is out and see if it passes muster, but right now it violates WP:NOT. Previously created at Dawn of chaos. Danny Lilithborne 08:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• delete, non-notable. yandman 09:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. All information is an unbiased representation of what already exists within the mod, as seen through the multiple demos the development team has released. No endorsement of its download or the website that hosts it is included, nor is there even currently a link to the website it is hosted by. This violates none of the WP:NOT rules in terms of advertisement. What rule specifically are you referring to? Or do you have any suggestions as to how to expand it over the next day to make it fit the criteria you think it is missing? Also, as for things that are not complete being listed on Wikipedia, you might also want to report Splinter_Cell_4as it will not be released until late October. Johnathan Drake 9:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I have made a lot of updates and corrections over the past few hours. Let me know if that is sufficient, and thanks in advance for taking the time to help me with it. Also, here is another link to an unreleased game: The_Fool_and_His_Money. Perhaps the speculation notice would be sufficient instead of... complete deletion of the topic. Johnathan Drake 12:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The entirety of the references for this article are an interview at a fansite and a bunch of forum links. Since this isn't even done yet and the article was written by the creator, I'm inclined to doubt that there's anything else. This isn't anything like Splinter Cell 4, which has had widespread mainstream press coverage already. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Changing my vote to delete for the reason cited above. Johnathan Drake 23:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, does not show notability. Vectro 03:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above Percy Snoodle 12:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 14:47, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pierre-luc paquet

Non notable, 42 google hits, of which 3 on Wikipedia, and most of the rest aren't about this one. yandman 09:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, per nom. Does not appear to satisfy WP:BIO. PJM 12:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, unknown independent film director. NawlinWiki 17:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per WP:BIO and WP:SPEEDY. Vectro 03:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 evidence has been provided to counter the lack of notability claims made by those advocating deletion. If it is indeed notable the article can be recreated with appropriate references. - Yomangani^talk 11:05, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cross Language Evaluation Forum

ATTENTION! If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether an article is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting heads (or socks). You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing! Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}.

Non-notable event. Contested prod. MER-C 02:44, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Looking over the google hits, I'm not so certain about the notability of this event. Without a guideline at hand, I'm tending to lean in the keep direction. Mitaphane _talk 12:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Obviously the Cross-Language Evaluation Forum is not as notable as FIFA World Cup but within the information retrieval comunity, specially within the European Union this is a really notable event. I wonder if Mitaphane is an expert in Information Retrieval or Natural Language Processing. I vote for the non deletion.

• Comment: I'm not. That's why I've called question to this nomination. We need someone with familarity with the subject to make that call. —Mitaphane _talk 05:21, 7 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, Keitei (talk) 09:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• delete, non-notable, and we're not a directory of press-releases. yandman 09:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep: CLEF has been a major driving force behind much cross-language research, in Europe and beyond. Increasingly, it is also the platform of choice for investigating innovative retrieval scenarios, proposed by research comunity and/or industry. It has given rise to hundreds of scientific publications, and is an excellent venue for new research groups and young researchers to get into the field. Finally, more and more IR and NLP research in Europe needs to be supplemented with explicit task-based evaluation efforts---CLEF provides an evaluation platform for a broad variety of information access tasks, and because of that it (and the many retrieval test sets that it has produced since the start of the century) has become an essential building block in the European research landscape. (As a side issue: CLEF is a collaborative effort, very much organized in a bottom-up fashion, by the research community. The knowledge and resource sharing that goes on in and around CLEF is in the very same spirit as what drives people to cotrnibute to Wikipedia.) Mderijke 13:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Mderijke (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
• Weak Delete - While this group may be notable within a select community, the article doesn't really help explain that. If we could get some verifiable, independent sources explaining how this group has done some notable work, then I would say keep. --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 14:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - CLEF is a very important evaluation campaign for Information Retrieval systems. It has indeed done some notable work by providing a common setting for researchers to perform experiments and thus evaluate their systems. Every year, dozens of participating groups from several countries take part in the event.Vivianeorengo 15:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Vivianeorengo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
• Keep! CLEF has a seven year history and attracts a large and growing number of research groups from around the world. CLEF is the most thoroughly multilingual evaluation workshop in empirical IR/NLP/Computational Linguistics - newspaper IR test sets exist in 12 languages, web IR test sets exist in 25 languages. CLEF is certainly every bit as significant in Europe as TREC is in the U.S. CLEF pioneered evaluation of technologies such as cross-language audio retrieval and multilingual image search that have not been addressed in any other evaluation campaign.--128.244.247.203 16:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: 128.244.247.203 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
• Keep! CLEF is very important for multilingual information retrieval, especially those which do not involve English directly. The page should be updated, thogh — Possible single purpose account: 82.37.18.136 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
• Keep CLEF is s very important event within the Information Retrieval community and is the main forum for evaluating and discussing multilingual research in Europe. If Wikipedia aims to provide comprehensive coverage of its content then a reference to CLEF should be maintained. — Possible single purpose account: 86.129.26.92 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
• Keep; makes cited claims of notability. Vectro 04:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC) (not a sockpuppet account; see my change history.)

• Comment The article does not have cites; all of its links are in the "external links" section, which are not supposed to be references in accordance with WP:CITE. I'd like to see at least one article that's specifically about CLEF; none of the external links point to what CLEF is except the official site. ColourBurst 19:31, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - Doesn't seem to meet WP:V as the links don't meet WP:RS. Wickethewok 21:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep; CLEF is indeed notable within the IR community in Europe (disclaimer: I'm involved with it). --Explendido Rocha 18:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 14:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Christopher Howard

Seems like self-promotion and advertising for this person and his businesses. Note that this is a different Christopher Howard than the subject of the prior AFD. NawlinWiki 14:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. I am disagree in delete this Biography of an author who has in his salary several published books, being one of them considered like a Best-Seller by amazon.com (ISBN 1881233588, edition 14, 2006), which foments the investment in Central America. He has been visionary by more than 20 years in attracting tourism and investment in this region. The criteria for inclusion of biographical articles are our Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion of biographies. --Willymora 22:51, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

— Possible single purpose account: Willymora (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.. yandman 11:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Neutral for now There are two things to consider here: whether or not the article respects the neutrality and verifiability requirements of Wikipedia and whether or not the man is noteworthy enough for an article. The relevant question here is the latter:. Crummy writing and self-promotion are not welcome and should be cut o, but if the subject is kept. Pascal.Tesson 23:54, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, very poorly written and completely unsourced. From what I can tell from this aritcle, his notability is borderline. Regardless, this isn't what he deserves - if he is notable he deserves a much better, NPOV article. If he isn't he doesn't deserve and article at all. Thryduulf 10:06, 10 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, Keitei (talk) 10:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Unsalvagable self-promotion. yandman 11:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete any article that refers to someone as a living legend deserves deletion on sight. Publicity article. Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 12:27, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• The reason that it reads like a publicity article is that it is a publicity article. It's a simple splice of content copied word-for-word from this copyrighted promotional blurb ("Copyright © 2004 Costa Rica Books - All rights reserved"), this copyrighted promotional blurb ("Copyright © 2005 Costa Rica Books - All rights reserved."), and this copyrighted article ("© Copyright 2001, IRED.com, Inc."), which is probably just parroting promotional blurb, by all appearances. This would be speedily deletable, if the speedy deletion criteria didn't include a 48-hour limit. Uncle G 13:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • But Uncle G, doesn't that mean it gets zapped anyway for being a copyvio? Alba 03:53, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Em-jay-es 13:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Alba. Vectro 04:02, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete this would qualify as speediable under the new G11. Pascal.Tesson 13:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 14:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Invest Sign

Non-notable software Nehwyn 10:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete unless editor can show notability. Might not be well known in English speaking countries, but if it's the biggest grossing software in Lithuania then keep, but unlikely. Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 12:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Khukri. Even if it's the biggest grossing software in Lithuania, I'd want to see a source for that, and someone who speaks Lithuanian who can verify it. Mangojuice^talk 19:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable and advertising. Has been speedy deleted for advertising, but db tag removed by creator. — ERcheck (talk) 04:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Redirect - Yomangani^talk 11:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Away from keyboard

• Delete: Little more than dictionary definition - no encyclopedic value (contested prod)  — Tivedshambo (talk) 11:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, slang term and nothing more. PJM 11:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to List_of_Internet_slang_phrases. - TexMurphy 12:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect or Weak delete there is an article for BRB it's certainly used, but enough to warrant it own article, I don't think so. Redirect to Internet Slang, already listed on List of internet slang phrases. Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 12:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. This is just a shorthand, albeit often used, and not an Internet meme. Wikipedia is not a dictionary of internet acronyms.--Fuhghettaboutit 12:27, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - the phrase is completely self-explanatory. - Smerdis of Tlön 13:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of Internet slang phrases. JIP | Talk 15:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect or Weak delete as Khukri above. JubalHarshaw 20:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to the slang list. Certainly a notable phrase, but not notable enough for its own article. -- Kicking222 21:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per above. --Masamage 22:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to the internet slang list, stops it springing up again like an undead mole and will let readers get the info from the list. I'm going AFK for a smoke.. -.- QuagmireDog 22:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of Internet slang phrases. No need for a seperate dictionary defintion for each IRC phrase.-- danntm ^T _C 03:45, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect as above --150.203.177.218 05:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per above. Prolog 07:05, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 14:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Better Markup Language

Of the 100-odd unique Googles, none appear to be reliable sources. If this is a significant enterprise I have yet to see any evidence of it. I don't see much evidence of it replacing PERL, PHP or ASP, which is its intended purpose. Guy 08:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• Weak delete no verified assertion of notability. Destined to be a permanent stub. Cain Mosni 01:33, 5 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, Yomangani^talk 11:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. The article doesn't establish notability, and Google searches don't help. The one thing the article does specifically detail is that this open source software intended for free use is still mostly used only by its creator Danga software. That appears a real world marker of its failure to become established.--Fuhghettaboutit 11:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Not Freshmeat. Notability not shown, the text is not very informative. There are quite few template languages, typically used by creator only. Pavel Vozenilek 13:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete Notable as a rather visible component of LiveJournal (ever wondered why most pages there end with .bml?), but I guess this has not really caught on elsewhere. Yet another Perl+HTML deal. Probably does no harm if it's deleted now and, if notability materialises, is recreated. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 15:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 14:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Todd Stephenson

Non-notable political hack. Possibly autobiographical --Michael Johnson 11:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Basically a resume converted to an article. If someone can show that members of ACT are notable simply by virtue of appointment I'd reconsider. Certainly a Google search shows little online mention [14].--Fuhghettaboutit 12:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Yomangani^talk 12:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable, and per comments by Fuhghettaboutit. --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 14:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete as non-notable group. Turnstep 13:45, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Epicka

Delete. This is a social networking site that "has just started", according to the article. ^{[Check Google hits]} A web search for "Epicka" brings up the site as the first result, as well as a bunch of pages in Czech and Polish. Alexa ranking of "no data". Therefore, does not meet criteria of WP:WEB. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 12:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Infant site attempting to become notable by advertizing here.--Fuhghettaboutit 12:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. --Nehwyn 12:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete - I don't see an assertion of notability. So tagged. MER-C 12:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. "epická" in Czech means "epic". Pavel Vozenilek 13:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 16:25, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Crazy german guy

Seems fairly low in the notability stakes, certainly by internet meme standards (compare ~500 GHits for "Crazy German Guy" video to >1,000,000 for "Numa numa" video" or >400,000 for "Star Wars kid", which I suppose are somewhat comparable internet phenomena). This shrieking, hamming-it-up-for-the-camera kid was of minimal note at best when I first encountered it some months back, and I see nothing to suggest this has caught on in any major way, nor that this will be remembered years from now. ~Matticus ^T_C 12:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep google came up with 5,090,000 results for "crazy german kid" (you tried "guy"). I think it is notable (even though it's terrible acting). The 7th result is "Angry German Kid vs Numa Numa Guy". Anyway, I think that enough people would have heard of this for it to be worth having. James086 13:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• You can't have done an exact phrase search there - "Crazy German Kid" video (note the quotes) gets 13,400. Better than 500, certainly, but still fairly low for a supposedly widespread internet phenomenon. Numa Numa has had mainstream TV coverage, as has Star Wars Kid, while I see no evidence of anything like the same level of penetration into the mainstream from this. ~Matticus ^T_C 15:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. nn, no possibility of expansion, and the title is too vague. --Aaron 14:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete not notable enough. --Richmeister 18:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I've seen the videos, I know a lot of people who have seen the videos, and they keep doing more and more videos of this insane kid. If kept, capitalize "German".--Húsönd 18:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Addendum: Yeah, better move to "Crazy German kid".--Húsönd 18:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Changed my stance to Neutral. The popularity of these videos is likely to be ephemeral.--Húsönd 18:18, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete I've heard of this and even seen it, but Wikipedia is not the place to keep track of silly internet videos. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• I am the author of Crazy german guy's article. While I am starting to understand that maybe this isn't quite notable enough, personally I'd rather not have it deleted. It took me ages to watch a subtitled video of it and copy word for word into the dialog section, and I don't want to have all that work deleted. (PS. If in order to keep it I must change the title to Crazy German kid, how do I do this? I am fairly new to wikipedia and don't know how to change article titles once written.) --Fastzander 8:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• You can just copy the current contents of your article and paste it onto notepad (or equivalent), if you're worried about the article being deleted. If you want to move the article (and I don't recommend you do it until the AfD period is over) then you can use the move button at the tabs on top of the page. But seriously, all of the information comes from the video or from your own keyboard, so it's pretty much original research. ColourBurst 01:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• I should also add that transcribing subtitles directly from another source of which you are not the author is a potential copyright infringement, so would probably have to be removed from the article in any case. If you want to preserve your work however, you could copy it over to Encyclopedia Dramatica, another MediaWiki-based project which thrives on internet memes and the like. ~Matticus ^T_C 07:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete --Peta 01:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as there aren't reliable sources to document this. GassyGuy 04:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, like most Internet ephemera. This one fails WP:NOR and WP:RS to start with, not to say anything about notability, or the lack thereof. Sandstein 17:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, for above reasons. — Tivedshambo (talk) 15:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 - has been improved during AFD process. Yomangani^talk 11:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tamar.com

A tad too notable to be speedily deleted, but it's still close to wikispam and non-notability per WP:CORP. Aecis ^{I'm too busy acting like I'm not naive.} 12:42, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, could you let me know what I need to do with it to stop it being deleted? Lots of our competitors have pages, such as AKQA - I just want us to have one too...? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Henweb (talk • contribs)

I'm sorry I failed to notify you of this AfD. First of all, the question is if you should write an article about your own company in the first place. Articles on wikipedia should be neutral, and it's very hard to remain neutral when you are involved. The important this is whether the company is notable enough for wikipedia. The basic notability guidelines for companies can be found at WP:CORP. That is what articles about companies are judged on. We don't have articles because "competitors also have pages", or because the company would like to have an article. Aecis ^{I'm too busy acting like I'm not naive.} 12:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree it's too notable to be speedily deleted and it could be a reasonable article if the author can change it to a neutral point of view. I'd say it's too heavily focused on promoting the company and listing acheivments instead of providing a user useful, impartial information on the company. AA Milne 12:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I understand that, but I checked the guidelines and it looks fine to me. The guidelines state "The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself" - we are frequently mentioned in the press, we are mentioned in the current issue of Revolution for instance, and Marketing Week. Can you clarify why you think we don't qualify? I can give you some examples if you like? A quick look at our client list should show we are a pretty big player in the UK industry, though I appreciate what you mean about not writing our own entry.

If you could perhaps highlight a few examples of my sales talk, it might help - I thought I got rid of it all! :)

• Comment I think this may be noteworthy enough to keep, based on the limited research I can do at the moment, but the article isn't yet at the point where I'm comfortable with registering a keep "vote." I'd like to see some citations, in particular for "one of the first digital agencies in the UK," "a leading agency," and "the sole proponent of 'search conversion'" -- if these can be verified through independent, reliable sources, I think they'd make a reasonably strong argument for keeping. Shimeru 21:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The company may be notable enough for an article, but the article itself needs to make a substantiated claim to notability, which is missing. Vectro 04:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Response: I'm working on all of this, trying to get some citations and also tone the article down a bit. Henweb 12:17 GMT, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Response: I have added some citations and references, and slightly changed the wording to be less contentious. Am I on the right lines? Henweb 09:32 GMT, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

It's a very good improvement. Another issue is the pr language that sometimes shines through the article, in words like "conversion-focused design". But I suggest withdrawing/suspending this AfD to give Henweb the time and the opportunity to clean this up. Any thoughts on this? Aecis ^{I'm too busy acting like I'm not naive.} 08:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)