Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 October 12

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< October 11 October 13 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Contents
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 AdamBiswanger1 03:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Roedy Green

Not notable per WP:BIO. The only references and claims of notability are on the subject's own website.--Konst.able 09:56, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep, as explained on talk page. --Piet Delport 10:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. --Gray PorpoisePhocoenidae, not Delphinidae 10:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep the article could be better, but i'm convinced the guy is notable. --Moe Aboulkheir 11:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, Roedy Green is a notable progammer and writer. JIP | Talk 13:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Appears to be notable. P.B. Pilhet / Talk 15:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Appears to be marginally notable in a few fields (Programming and LGBT rights activist). Article has potential to grow if his contributions can be expanded upon in these two fields. A google search turns up a sizable number of entries, and just on the first page are SEVERAL biographies that could be used for sources, both of him as an LGBT Activist and as a programmer. --Jayron32 17:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable -- Petri Krohn 18:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable. Hello32020 19:56, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. It appears notable. Never Mystic (tc) 20:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm quite sure Roedy Green would prefer to be referred as "he". JIP | Talk 09:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
      • The article probably doesn't mind what you call it, either way. :) --Piet Delport 12:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
        • Oh tsk, tsk. How could I have been so gender-biased? =P Never Mystic (tc) 21:48, 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 Nomination withdrawn. --Aaron 01:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Link bait

Article fails WP:V - only sources are blogs, none of which are reliable sources. Article itself appears to be a thinly-veiled promotion, as the author included a link to his own blog (seoegghead.com) early on: [1], and . --AbsolutDan (talk) 00:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Update: somehow I missed the final reference to searchenginewatch.com, which may be a WP:RS. I'll leave this open though to see what others think though. --AbsolutDan (talk) 00:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Update 2: Color me embarassed: another source (Matt Cutts) is one of the big guys at Google. Looks like this article just needs a little cleanup. I withdraw my nom. for this article. --AbsolutDan (talk) 00:55, 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 no consensus for now. Yes, I tend to agree the article is mainly a dictionary definition when you remove the wide generalizations. Then again, the article is better referenced than it was before this process. I guess my main problem with the article is that it is such a pedestrian topic that I would never touch it, or care whether or not it gets deleted (which is why I'm your guy to close this, I guess.)

As to the argument between Pan Dan and FrozenPurpleCube (the battle of the funky usernames) I generally think that a "pet peeve" is in the eye of the beholder. To me the term implies a very specific irritation that one person has, which is not likely to piss off many other people. I think Pan Dan thinks something similar, hence his disagreement with the sources' more general usages of the term. The subjective use of the term itself is probably the biggest problem with this article's continuing existence, but the references are the only thing we have to go off of as far as how the term is used. (Is the term used differently regionally? Put that in the article!) For the next debate, the subjective nature of the term itself should be considered more carefully. Grandmasterka 09:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pet peeve

Nomination for deletion Delete as dictionary definition with original research ("road rage is caused by pet peeves" (WP:DICDEF, WP:OR). Transwiki if people feel like it. Bwithh 00:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep there may be things worth removing, though I'm doubtful that the research is as original as you think, but this article is a lot more than a dictionary definition. I am going to add some sources to the page though. FrozenPurpleCube 00:47, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, apparently the American mental health establishment considers road rage to be caused by a serious disorder of the brain. Bwithh 01:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
And apparently road rage is itself a pet peeve. [2] FrozenPurpleCube 01:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - already exists at wikitionary: wikt:pet peeve, and there is currently nothing else in the article that isn't original research. If FrozenPurpleCube can provide sources in the article I'll possibly change my mind. Yomanganitalk 00:56, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually, there were sources there already actually, but I've added some more. FrozenPurpleCube 01:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Whoever's looking for sources, please note that they must come from authoritative sources (none of the ones so far mentioned seem to have this quality. See WP:RS. ) and they must show encyclopedic substance beyond the dictionary definition (none of the sources so far do this either) Bwithh 01:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, just so you know, some of the sources themselves cite the Oxford English Dictionary. I'd prefer to cite that, but as I don't own a copy at home, and I'm not going to pay for access to the site, I've gone as far as I can. FrozenPurpleCube 01:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Nice, but The main point of the nom is that the article is a dictionary definition Bwithh 13:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm unconvinced. Simply saying "Pet Peeve means something that is a personal irritant" would be a straight dicdef. This article goes further than that. Could you please explain exactly what you would need to say "Oh, this is more than a dicdef" ? Otherwise, I frankly don't know how to talk to you about this. (Especially since I don't consider WP:DICDEF a useful description as to policy. FrozenPurpleCube 14:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Solid keep It could be expanded, like those old John Caldwell "Pet Peeves" articles in Mad Magazine where the "peeves" were dragonlike monsters based on some sort of visual pun. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
That's suitable for the Caldwell article but I don't see how it would make this article more substantive. Puns can be made, visually or not, on just about any dictionary definition Bwithh 13:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, potential for expansion. Article is at least more than a dicdef. --Terence Ong (T | C) 01:32, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Once you get rid of the original research from the article, all that's left is a dicdef. Remember that dictionaries talk about the origins of words too. Bwithh 13:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. P.B. Pilhet / Talk 03:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep Article is marginally better than a dicdef, and seems to have the potential to grow into more. --Hyperbole 05:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, article has potential to grow beyond a stub. Verifiable? Yes. Notable? Yes. Potential for growth? Yes. Obvious keep, IMHO. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 10:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, the term is notable, and there is enough material to deserve an article. JIP | Talk 13:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Bwithh has said it all, in his nom and responses. Every sentence in the article is either dicdef material, trivial OR, or unsupported OR. Every reference in the article either is not reliable, or uses "pet peeve" rather than discusses its use, or discusses its etymology--thus making "pet peeve" an excellent candidate for a dictionary entry (which it is) but a poor candidate for an encyclopedia entry. Pan Dan 14:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Um, exactly what's not reliable about The Word Detective? It may not be clear from a quick read, but if you look on his site, he's actually got three published books on Words as well as a syndicated newspaper column. FrozenPurpleCube 14:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
That source falls into the "discusses its etymology" category (see my comment above). It's almost entirely a rather expansive discussion of the meaning and etymology of "peeve" (and we already have articles on etymology in general and back-formation in particular). There's one sentence about when "pet peeve" first appeared in print. All of this is dictionary material. The final sentence speculating about why "pet peeve" became popular--whatever the merits of that explanation--is not substantive enough to justify an encyclopedia entry. Pan Dan 15:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
So, you agree it's a reliable source, right? But honeslty, I'm just not seeing why you have a problem with this entry. Could you explain why etymology isn't useful for Wikipedia? What would you ned to change your vote? FrozenPurpleCube 16:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
First, this isn't a vote. It's not me you have to convince, it's the closing admin! But I suppose if there were reliable non-trivial sources that discuss either pet peeves themselves (like some of the sources for "road rage" at Road rage or some of the articles here), or that discuss the use of the term "pet peeve," then I would change my opinion. As to whether the Word Detective blurb is a reliable source: in my view its content can't justify keeping the article, so there's no point in me committing to an opinion on whether it's reliable. As for your comment on etymology, that's what dictionaries are for. I note that using your reasoning we could have a Wikipedia entry for every single word whose etymology is known. Pan Dan 00:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but I can't talk with an admin who hasn't decided to act yet, but I can interact with you. Which might in turn influence that theoretical admin's action in the future. If you want to ask whether there are some non-trivial sources on pet peeves, well, I looked at scholar.google.com and I found a lot of articles that I would say are about pet peeves. Like [3] which describes a study that set out to find student's pet peeves. (Or the one from an insurance company that's already on the page). Plus this page [4] indicates that the authors of that book did a study on it. And yes, where it is important or interesting, a given phrase or term might well deserve an entry with its etymology. In this case, it is more than just saying "Pet Peeve means a personal irritation" . Check the English-language idioms category for lots more similar articles. FrozenPurpleCube 01:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
The references you link to are about general annoyances, not pet peeves, which by definition are peculiar to individuals. The first ref misapplies the term "pet peeve," and the second doesn't use it at all (at least not in the title, which is all I can see). So the contents of both of these fine sources could not support Pet peeve (but could go into Wikipedia's article on Annoyance once it is shown that they got some peer review to show that they're not trivial or wacko). Now, if some psychologist dude, for example, conducted similar studies or analyses of actual pet peeves (with peer review), then that's the sort of thing you could build an encyclopedia article on. Pan Dan 02:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
The refences I cited specifically said they were looking for pet peeves, for example, the insurance company looked for people's pet peeves about driving, and the APA article also described their study that way. And the author of this [5]]who is actually a Ph. D. in Social Psychology. I don't know if she got any peer review, but it was published by the Yale Press, so I'm inclined to give it the benefit of the doubt. Sure, I'd love more context, but as I don't have the book at home, I'll just have to go with the page that google has, which says among other things "Because my students and I were interested in the actual content of people's pet peeves and because most....we conducted a study on pet peeves in close relationships. Now that you bring up Annoyance though, I don't see how that article is particularly different from this one. I could be convinced that these two should be combined. They don't seem different enough. FrozenPurpleCube 02:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
"The references...specifically said...pet peeves"--My point above was that those folks are misapplying the term. They meant general annoyances, not pet peeves. As to the book you cited, again, I said above that there's no indication that it's about pet peeves. As to Annoyance being problematic, yes, there is some stuff about etymology of the word "annoyance" in the first sentence of that article that perhaps doesn't belong, but most of that article is about the concept of annoyance in psychology--not the word. And it's cited. That material certainly does belong in Wikipedia. Taking a closer look at that article, I see that some of the material there is uncited and possibly OR, which, yes, is a problem. As to combining the two articles: some of Annoyance is encyclopedic, but nothing in Pet peeve is, so there's nothing to combine. Pan Dan 03:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
You claim they are misapplying the term. Well, that's a matter of disagreement, but feel free to make an argument as to why, because I just don't understand what you're talking about. And the book doesn't have to be entirely about pet peeves to indicate that it treated the subject of pet peeves with specificity, as it does on that page which I found through google. It also mentioned some other books on that page. Yes, I suppose you could argue that Pet Peeves is part of the larger subject of annoyances, but even if we did, it is still a specific word with its own origins, which people might well search for. But hey, I could be amenable with treating the subject of pet peeves in the Annoyance article, if that's what you want to propose. But we'd still need to define pet peeve and link back to annoyance, if only because the Piers Anthony book isn't going anywhere, and I really don't feel comfortable with that article not having a disambig. Personally, I think that it should be moved to a different namespace, but that's another issue. FrozenPurpleCube 03:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I have bolded my explanation above of the difference between pet peeves and annoyances. "[D]reary, monotone lecturing" (from your ref #1) and being "teased, nagged, betrayed, or lied to" (ref #2) are things that annoy lots of people--they're not pet peeves. (The authors wanted to use the term "pet peeves," I suppose, because of the nifty alliteration referred to at Word Detective--it gets the reader's attention.) An example of a true pet peeve, by contrast, would be "People who type 'what-up!'" at [6] (a ref in the nominated article). Because pet peeves are peculiar to individuals, something people talk about to shoot the breeze at internet forums, I doubt that anyone of any importance has undertaken a serious study of them. So, again, I don't think there's any non-trivial, non-OR way to "treat the subject of pet peeves in the Annoyance article," as you suggest, or in the article under discussion. Pan Dan 17:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I'm afraid your differentiation isn't quite as solid as you think it is, as it seems to me, that many uses of pet peeve are not making that distiction. Uses that a bit more notable than you, such as an insurance research group and a scholar published by Yale. But if you think the point you make is well-supported by other sources, (or IOW, not OR on your part) it would seem to make for good content to add to the article. Perhaps it might qualify as a pet peeve itself. FrozenPurpleCube 02:55, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
My distinction isn't OR, it's based on the definition of pet peeve. But even assuming that the distinction isn't there, your sources discuss examples of pet peeves, not the overall phenomenon itself, and as such are not particularly strong to build an article on (whether an article on pet peeves or one on annoyances--note that Annoyance mainly discusses the overall psychological phenomenon, not examples of annoyances). Pan Dan 19:20, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
No, it's based on what you feel the meaning of the word is, which may be true, perhaps, but if nobody has written about it, may make it OR. See Decimate and Catachresis for more on that problem. At least some people have written about that. (In fact, it's a common pet peeve). Not as bad as when they use it as a malapropism Still, if people are collating data on examples of pet peeves, writing news paper coloumns and even books on them, and otherwise talking about the issue, I think it makes it notable. Not that I think we should have List of Pet peeves mind you, as I agree, that would be ugly and unmaintainable. But sourcable material, that gets on CNN? Very much worth including. FrozenPurpleCube 00:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete dictdef. Eusebeus 15:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, WP:WINAD, per nom. Sandstein 16:41, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • {{wi}}. Recury 16:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete dictdef DCEdwards1966 19:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • OMG random meme keep The whole idea of pet peeves exceeds a dictionary definition, and I see no debate over how notable it is. Concepts like this, bonked, etc., hold enough water to merit their own article. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 22:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
1) "pet peeves" are not a meme, unless you're using some kind of uselessly so-broad-it-includes-everything definition of meme 2) the "bonked" article you link to is primarily about a physiological condition and the slang sexual dicdef is only mentioned in passing. I don't see how pet peeve is comparable or perhaps you're suggesting a new related medical condition? Bwithh 01:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
The term "pet-peeve" itself may not be a meme, but certain pet-peeves themselves become memes, i.e. the way a person holds a food utensil or the way some sort of clothing is worn. "Bonked" is related to "pet peeves" because it is the same sort of human condition, one that hinders performance. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 01:24, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep notable term, has expanded beyond a simple dictionary definition. Ultra-Loser Talk | BT sites 01:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Bwithh: Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep this is more than a dicdef. There is potential for expansion, such as how the term came about? common pet peeves? Why do people find other people's certain behavior annoying? Explain pet peeves as a social and psychological phenomenon, etc. A google book search turns up 6000+ books that mention pet peeves [7] While some may just be passing mentions, others discuss pet peeves as a phenomenon, in more depth than a dicdef. --Aude (talk) 19:02, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
No-one is denying that the phrase is widely used. The point here is the phrase simply means "a habitual annoyance" and there's not much to say beyond that. If there specific authoritative works discussing pet peeves as a phenomenon with distinct features in-depth, than please point them out. If these turn out to be just studies of "why people are annoyed" or "common annoyances", then a redirect/partial merge to annoyance is in order. Bwithh 01:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • 'Delete or transwiki; although this is comprensive coverage of a notable topic, it's still in the realm of a dictionary definition. There's nothing encyclopedic here. Vectro 04:42, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as a very long, but neverthless, dictdef. SkerHawx 22:38, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete dictdef. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Aude. Markovich292 03:34, 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. Dakota 04:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jay Nordenstrom

Nothing more than advertising for an (at least as of yet) unelected Ottawa city council candidate. Wolfchild 00:44, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom.--Simon Speed 00:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Aaron 01:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, advertising, WP:BIO. --Terence Ong (T | C) 01:32, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, election advertising for nonnotable candidate. NawlinWiki 02:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. P.B. Pilhet / Talk 03:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, WP:NOT for your campaign promises. Should really be speediable under G11 advertising. Deizio talk 09:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --CFIF ☎ ⋐ 15:03, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Kevin 18:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Hello32020 19:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Never Mystic (tc) 20:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, but clean up and make NPOV. All candidates everywhere are notable.People Powered 14:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. ergot 16:17, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - the platform pieces should go and the background on the candidate should stay. macmillanr 15:17, 16 October 2006 (EST)
  • Comment. Deleted the offending "issues" text from the page. macmillanr 15:17, 16 October 2006 (EST)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Dakota 05:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Al King

IMO, hasn't satisfied notability criteria, unless someone can come up with some accomplishments while he was the Republican party chair. Virogtheconq 01:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete non-notable politician. TJ Spyke 01:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, fails WP:BIO criteria. --Terence Ong (T | C) 01:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep Seems to satisfy WP:BIO criteria (despite the comment above), but I could be wrong. P.B. Pilhet / Talk 03:10, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, http://www.google.com/search?num=20&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&c2coff=1&q=%22Al+King%22+oregon&btnG=Search it's a fair amount of results. I'm sure we can expand. --Liface 03:25, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • delete Check out his own website. Even this guy can't come up with his OWN reasons to find himself notable. None of the positions listed that were held by this guy make him a notable politician in any way. In his only run for national office he was crushed in a landslide (2004 senate race, lost by a 2 to 1 margin). --Jayron32 05:23, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Eusebeus 15:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, subject does not meet WP:BIO.--Isotope23 18:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, Terence, and Jayron32 Kevin 18:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above, fails WP:BIO. Hello32020 19:58, 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. Grandmasterka 10:06, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Total Annihilation mods

The article was deleted per WP:PROD without any objections. Just two hours later, it was recreated by a new user, who did a bad copy&paste job of the article. Because the article is quite unreadable like this, and was, as I thought, recreation of deleted content, I put a speedy tag on it. This was removed tho, and I was told that speedy deletion isn't allowed on articles that were deleted through WP:PROD. According to the contesting after deletion section, I undeleted the article and list it here for everyone to decide what to do with it. --Conti|✉ 01:37, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete mods aren't self-sufficiently notable. Danny Lilithborne 02:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep or Merge back into the Total Annihilation article. This article is a bit long, and so I can understand why it was seperated into a daughter article, but if you really don't want it as an article, outright deletion is still not a good idea. FrozenPurpleCube 02:31, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Mitaphane talk 04:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is a glorified linkfarm to mods that likely aren't notable. The handful that are notable should be mentioned in the main article, not this one. GarrettTalk 04:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Pretty much a linkfarm, and I don't see how it could ever realistically not be just a collection of external links. Wickethewok 05:25, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Nothing glorified about it, it is nothing more than a linkfarm. Resolute 05:26, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete While I know Spring achieves notability due it being mentioned more than once in PC Zone magazine, the rest of these don't seem to be notable in the slightest. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate list of information, which this quite clearly is. (I know some people don't like rules and guidelines being thrown around, but you have to concede it's true in this case.) The Kinslayer 08:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn list of external links. Deizio talk 09:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Garrett. Recury 16:44, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Delete it. flipjargendy 16:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge Useful information - does not require it's own page. warfire 00:15, 13 October (UTC)
    • Useful how? Please state HOW this would prove useful to anyone other than the creators of the mods seeking increase public awareness of their work (and therefore falling foul of advertising on wiki.) The Kinslayer 12:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Useful It provides information for users of the game - it may be advertising and bias but any listing is basically advertising. If I wanted to know about Total Annihilation I would read the article - perfectly acceptable. A large part of the experience of playing Total Annihilation IS the mods so having a list of available mods to try is in keeping with the spirit of the article. warfire 16:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, Garret and Kinslayer. JoshuaZ 20:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge the popular mods per Warfire-- I skimmed the TA page and did not see any mention of popular mods there so I'm guessing all that is relevant is here. I disagree that the popular mods would fall under advertising anymore than having TA itself here as an article would count as advertising for Cavedog entertainment. Move the information on popular mods (as judged by the article) to the TA page. Edit: I only found 1 mod mentioned in the TA page. So I vote Merge. Here is my proposal: Move Spring, Uberhack, and anything else considered significant to the TA page as brief mentions in the Extensibility section. -- Solberg 03:10, 14 October 2006 (UTC)Solberg
  • Delete as unmaintainble. While individual mods might be notable, they can have their own articles and links from the main Total Annihilation page. --Alan Au 05:48, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete -- I love TA, but this is just a collection of links, something WP is not. SkerHawx 22:40, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Kinslayer. Markovich292 03:36, 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 -- Samir धर्म 04:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Post Election Selection Trauma

First Deletion Reason: Non-notable neologism. Violates WP:NEO, WP:BALLS and WP:SNOWBALL. Wikipedia is not a place for things made up in school one day. Morton devonshire 01:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Note to closing admin - If this article is to be deleted, I request that it be moved (along with edit history and talk page) into my user space. I think I can rewrite this article from a different approach for resubmittal. I just don't have the time right now to absorb all the sources, and find any potential new sources. - Crockspot 12:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Note to closing admin - This article has undergone extremely significant changes (see diff [8]) - since discussion began. It might be best to close this AfD and start over. --Hyperbole 17:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

In which case, I would hope that people would give me a couple of weeks to work on it before renominating. Crockspot 18:09, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
As a contrary point of view, I would argue that the changes have only further substantiated the non-notability of the article, as can be seen from the various people who changed their vote to "delete" after new information was learned.--csloat 00:17, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I have simply been gathering references, and have not had time to analyse them and do any rewriting. Irregardles of whether or not it is deleted, I WILL be rewriting the article, and I will make sure it is as AfD-proof as possible before it reappears in the main namespace. Crockspot 13:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment I have added a couple of more sources to the external links section, and removed the hoax tag. This is not a hoax article, and I hear this term in use alot, especially by Rush Limbaugh. I would request that all editors on this AFD posting before my timestamp reconsider and reaffirm their vote. - Crockspot 16:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment see below. The source you point to as evidence of the claim's notability is itself a hoax. Rush may have said it, but he says a lot of stuff, most of it does not require an encyclopedia entry. Lexis nexis shows no use at all of this term since December 2004 in print newspaper sources. This is an artifact from an election which is over.--csloat 08:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Comment: This is a hoax. I read the CJR article about it and the writer is pretty clear that this is all the fault of a too-gullible reporter at the Boca Raton paper. He didn't check up on these articles apparently, and CJR ridicules him. I did some more research and the AHA reference is bogus; "Rob Gordon" at the "AHA" is a character from the movie High Fidelity. This blog post has some info. The Boca Raton paper refers to AHA as a Boca based organization; if it exists, it is a private organization, and not an organization endorsed by most health professionals in America, as the name would imply. I don't think this article should be kept, but if it is kept, it should be made clear that this is an example of small town journalism getting hoodwinked rather than of a recognized psychological condition.--csloat 08:53, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Update - this AHA does exist apparently; it's "an award winning non-profit community service organization" known for donating beanie babies to orphans in Iraq, not a mental health professional organization. Here's a photo of Dr. Rob Gordon, who looks nothing like John Cusack. So at least the guy exists, but the idea that he lends legitimacy to this term as a psychological condition is laughable.--csloat 08:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Tbeatty 01:56, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Hmmm, tough one. As I recall, the esteemed Dr. Gordon was dead serious when he made this up, but it was laughed out of the psychological community almost immediately and ended up being used almost entirely on conservative talk radio and blogs to disparage kooked-out liberals that couldn't handle the 2004 election results. This term may come back to life in November 2008, or maybe even next month depending on how things go. Cleanup in any case, as it's pretty much an essay in its current form. --Aaron 02:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC) Changing vote; see below.
  • Delete per nom; something Morton and I can agree on.--csloat 02:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: Bad faith nomination. Nom put in a hoax tag, but didn't discuss it on talk, then nominates for deletion two minutes later. Nothing has changed in the article, nothing suggests that (lack of) consensus would change in a month's time (since the last AfD). Can you point to discussions you've had with editors regarding that consensus on this article might have been formed? Not that I see much worth to this particular article, but seems it could be improved and I see no evidence consensus has changed (or formed) that would validate a renom per WP:CCC. *Sparkhead 02:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Afd renoms should happen in order to enforce WP:CCC and prove or disprove the suggestion of new consensuses - WP:CCC doesn't restrict renoms. Bwithh 02:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Sure it does. It mentions "you should ask around a bit (e.g. at the Village Pump) to see if people agree with you. You cannot declare a new consensus all by yourself." There's no suggestion of the nominator "asking around" regarding a (new) consensus prior to bringing forth the AfD. Lets say this AfD goes thru as no consensus. Nominate again in a month? Repeat ad nauseum? *Sparkhead 02:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I think we could WP:AGF here despite the quickness of the nom. Here's what I wrote on the first Afd about this page and it is still true -- "Only 12 hits in Lexis/Nexis, all of them tongue-in-cheek laughs at the doctor who designated this, and two of them letters to the editor. Only five actually are about "PEST"; the other seven just mention it as a joke. All of the articles that mention this phrase are from November and December 2004, indicating this was a brief news item after the election and that is it." I don't think we need a wikipedia page for every joke that someone made up during the election. It's over. Bush won. Let's move on.--csloat 02:31, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • There's no new arguments to be had since previous AfD. I'm not even arguing the merits of the article, I'm arguing procedure here. There's no evidence it was followed, there's no reason for a renom. Allegedly and knowingly violating the process then saying, "well, it's done, so let's let it run its course" while hoping for an outcome more to your liking could be considered bad faith.

    If I were to argue merits of the nom, I'd note that WP:BALLS and WP:SNOWBALL are not policies or guidelines, there's nothing to violate, hence irrelevant. While WP:NEO is relevant, nothing regarding it has changed since last AfD. *Sparkhead 03:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Lots of things can be "considered" bad faith. That's why Wikipedia reminds us to assume good faith, even when we could make a case for bad faith. By the way, there are new arguments here since the previous AfD; we now know this is basically a hoax.--csloat 00:20, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Wow, only in Florida. :) Clearly as an academic term it isn't worthy of an article since nobody in the academic community seems to take it seriously. Google scholar shows no relevant hits for the term.[9] Could it survive as a neologism? WP:NEO is one of the strictist notability guidelines I've read, in fact it doesn't really describe any circumstances when an article on a neologism is appropriate. I'll admit that some neologisms may be worthy of articles, but with only 9000 google hits [10] I'd say its pretty clear this one doesn't GabrielF 02:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Survived this once. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 02:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
That's not a good reason to vote keep. see WP:CCC Bwithh 02:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep First I don't think this meets the definition of a neologism, which is a new term to describe a new concept. A mental disorder is not a concept it is a medical condition. It would not be called a neologism if someone named a newly discovered disease. I think there is enough recognition of the subject and the subject is serious enough to merit an article. Ratherhaveaheart 02:53, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. At best a "News of the Weird" type item, at worst, we're helping promote some doctor's scheme to get new patients. Gamaliel 02:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable nonsense. This term seems to have no currency except among a few people poking fun at how ridiculous it is. Opabinia regalis 03:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. TJ Spyke 03:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. This article can't be saved. --Aaron 04:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)Changing vote; see below.
  • Merge to Public perception and assessments of George W. Bush (and the derangement syndrome too). Gazpacho 04:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete --Peta 04:28, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep - Seems at least as notable as Bush Derangement Syndrome, which has survived two AfDs. Apparently, we're considering these kinds of political neologisms notable if they fall into semi-mainstream use. It seems to me that it would show a partisan bias to delete this page while leaving the other one intact. At any rate, it is verifiable. --Hyperbole 05:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per mental condition which is cited, addressing WP:NEO concerns. NPOV is addressed by the Foxman quote and overall tone. I'd like to see footnotes to the AHA of Florida releasing list of symptoms and for the Foxman quote, and the last paragraph (Andrew Veal) shows no citable evidence that he is an example of this disorder...but those are cleanup issues, not reasons for deletion. This seems a bad faith nom, particularly given the WP:BALLS and WP:SNOWBALL arguments (for the first, is the nom a therapist who has proven the disorder doesn't exist, and for the second...if it were a Snowball issue, there wouldn't be a need for this discussion, would there?). -Markeer 12:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - LOL - "I'd like to see footnotes to the AHA of Florida releasing list of symptoms" - yeah me too! I don't think such a list exists. Please prove me wrong, I need a good laugh. As someone else said, we probably don't need to advertise some doctor's bogus panacea.--csloat 08:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge the article into Public perception and assessments of George W. Bush per Gazpacho. JungleCat talk/contrib 12:35, 12 October 2006 (UTC) I have changed my input. It seems my good faith was misplaced per new evidence. Delete as nominated. JungleCat talk/contrib 05:23, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Lessee: a neologism coined by some guy in Boca Raton.... Eusebeus 15:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Definitely a problem with WP:NEO. This is not a distinct syndrome from other depression/trauma. Moreover it did not "survive" AfD, as the last AfD was "no consensus" with only five people showing up.--Rosicrucian 15:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom --rogerd 16:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep - notable, heard in use regularly by Rush Limbaugh, and others. - Crockspot 16:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • additional comment - I upgraded my vote to strong keep. I added more sources to the EL section (will turn them into proper cites if this article survives) and removed the hoax tag. - Crockspot 16:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The article now links to multiple reliable sources beyond the Boca Raton News, including the Columbia Journalism Review and WorldNetDaily. There are more sources, and the article can be rewritten some for much improvement and NPOV, but I really don't want to waste my time if the article is going to be deleted. I now have it on my watchlist, and if it survives, I will take it under my wing and improve. Also removing "single source" tag. Crockspot 17:10, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment All sources are still from directly after the 2004 election. Do we have any evidence that this retained its notability in the intervening years?--Rosicrucian 17:47, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Seems like it found legs more as a catchphrase for pundits than as a verifiable medical phenomenon. If the article is to be shown to be a notable neologism, it should probably reflect that shift in usage.--Rosicrucian 19:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Read more carefully. Those are all blogs, and the "anti-PEST" article is tongue in cheek. Ted Kennedy never said that; Crockspot, are you joking or did you just not read it closely? All we have is Crockspot's assertion that a notorious drug addict may have once recently used the term on the radio. Not enough notability to keep; perhaps those who cite crockspot as their reason for believing this term is notable might reconsider.--csloat 08:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • To be honest, I didn't even finish the first paragraph. Funny article though. I still think this is a notable term, aside from the syndrome aspect, that is obviously still in use. I would like to do some rewriting of the article to reflect the punditry/mocking use of this notable term, but as I indicated previously, if this article is going to get deleted, I've already put in too much time on it. Crockspot 12:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I added three books that reference PEST, and two more recent articles. I have also put a longer list of sources on the talk page (including bumper stickers, mugs, and keychains that reference PEST), which I intend to research for a rewrite of the article. Crockspot 14:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Crockspot's improvements. --Aaron 21:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Marginally notable as an in-joke in conservative political circles. No other claim to notability. I'd be voting differently except for Crockspot's contribution. (Thanks, Crockspot!) CWC(talk) 22:10, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Here's a longer explanation for my vote. As someone who reads some conservative blogs, I remember the coverage of this from November 2004 and I've noticed continuing references to it in those blogs. The "syndrome", the psychologist who coined it and the 2 or 3 newspaper stories about it are, IMO, way below Wikipedia's standards for notability. Getting mentioned by the Columbia Journalism Review is more significant, but still not enough for WP:Notability. IMO, the only way in which it is notable is as an Internet meme used by conservative bloggers and columnists. I'd say it is just scrapes in as notable enough for a wikipedia article. CWC(talk) 12:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - Credit save to Crockspot. Delete as a hoax. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 23:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment -- I think this one will have about as long a life as the extraordinarily notable Great Liberal Backlash of 2003. Morton devonshire 00:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
      • You underesimate my ability to turn a sow's ear into silk. :) Crockspot 14:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep It's notable enough for me (not that that matters much) and crockspot's just added some refs. Ultra-Loser Talk | BT sites 01:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Change to delete, as it appears to be a hoax (thank you, Bobet for notifying me of this). Ultra-Loser Talk | BT sites 15:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. Media coverage does not automatically make for encyclopedic notability. This is a one-time /protologism that has had only trivial media coverage. I'd like to see Bush Derangement Syndrome deleted as well Bwithh 02:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Oh please, I hate Bush as much as well ,I guess the guy who dropped dead, but this is simply ridiculous.--Peephole 03:01, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Bwithh and nom. Its lack of usage in a real source in over 2 years shows it was just a product and not very notable one of a past election, its lack of use since shows its not very notable or memorable even to have survived. --NuclearZer0 12:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Just to point out, there are five articles in EL section from 2006, and three books published in 2005 (including Michelle Malkin) that reference the term. Crockspot 18:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Please Delete, whether as a probable WP:HOAX, or as just not notable. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete It’s a neologism, what more needs to be said? Brimba 17:17, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Brimba and many others. Vectro 20:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per denumberably infinite wp:not's. Derex 17:35, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep Seems to be in common media usage over there now. · XP · 16:00, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
    • "Over there"? Not around here, anyway. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete -- if there was one reference to this disorder from a professional journal or recognition of such from a national mental health organization (which the AHA is not), I'll be the first to change my vote. Otherwise, don't we have to include every "coined phrase" from every medical professional, no matter how off the wall? SkerHawx 22:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep. This appears not to be a hoax, but rather a circulating urban legend of relatively recent origin, based on the erroneous reporting of a professional journalist. I feel that deletion of the article or the addition of the "hoax" tag to the page would be both too strong a response and a violation of the Wikipedia philosophy of recording and retaining knowledge. However, I feel that this article still merits some form of disclaimer explaining that the proferred theory, though continuing to gain circulation amongst uninformed persons, has been largely discredited. --elambeth
  • Delete per nom and many others. Neologism that borders on nonsense. Radagast83 18:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as a neologism.--Jersey Devil 22:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • May as well delete because the humorless sorts who want it deleted will keep bringing this up until they get their way. Deleting it now will save time. Wahkeenah 10:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I hope this doesn't come out too snooty, but isn't that the roll over and die argument. While it is very persuasive, I don't think is a legitimate reason for deletion.Ratherhaveaheart 04:01, 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 Move to Sabita Chowdhury. Per Antorjal it appears that the article confuses two people by the same name, one of whom is not notable and one of whom is and already has an article under her married name. It needs cleaning up to separate the two. Yomanganitalk 22:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sabita Banerjee

Prod removed. No verificiation or evidence of notability. --Peta 01:41, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. --Ageo020 (talk • contribs • count) 04:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep. I added some references. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 04:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, pending good references. --Calton | Talk 05:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - per Ageo020. Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 07:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete At the moment the article does not express notability. If someone expands it before close, fair enough, but do not allow this to stay like this. The JPStalk to me 09:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep She was an actress, therefore notable. P.B. Pilhet / Talk 15:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep - per AGeo and PB.Bakaman Bakatalk 23:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete the article does not assort her notability. Simply being an actress does not make her notable - she has to bas WP:BIO which she does not appear to do. Ultra-Loser Talk | BT sites 01:17, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Sources are very weak. Actress is a female who acts in theatrics. I can appear once or twice in some minor movies, and I'm actor. That doesn't infer much special(I could have been an extra). She was also a teacher and a social worker the article says. Sounds like she wasn't much of an actor. IMDB is very sparse. To me, it looks like she was hired a few times to sing in some Indian movies. Beyond that, I can't tell, and that's a bad sign. In playback recorder it claims that most films in Bollywood are musicals. Which makes her a dime a dozen in terms of singing in general. (All the actors either must sing or lipsync to playback records there) Can we get honest evidence to the contrary? The lists so far don't do much for me. Kevin_b_er 02:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep and merge/create with Sabita Chowdhury As far as I am aware, she is NOT an actress, she is a singer and a household name in at least West Bengal, India and Bangladesh, I'll wager. The article body refers to a different individual that is non-notable but with the same name, hence the confusion but the references refer to Sabita (Banerjee) Chowdhury. So if the result of the debate is keep, I will rewrite it to reflect that. The filmography is incomplete because like most people here, at IMDB, people were not aware that the more famous Sabita Banerjee married Music Director Salil Chowdhury and was credited as Sabita Chowdhury afterwards. She's had quite a prolific career and has been (along with Lata Mangeshkar, one of Salil's two favorite singers). I hope editors reconsider in light of this fact. Also there are 4860 hits on google for "Sabita Chowdhury", mostly for her, which will establish her notability as a singer, if the fact that her songs are available on iTunes, emusic, MSN, and a host of other sites is insufficient. On emusic.com there are 25 songs of hers available as a solo singer, she has eight other pairings with other singers. Incidentally, there is only one song available for her as Sabita Banerjee[13]. Thanks.--Antorjal 13:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notability is established. Could use some better references, though.--Cúchullain t/c 18:58, 14 October 2006 (UTC) Oops, I was thinking of the singer. The singer is notable, the article should be re-written to be about her, and in that case keep, unless someone provides sources that the teacher is more notable than it appears.--Cúchullain t/c 19:02, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Comment I believe the teacher/actress is non-notable but the singer is notable. If we can agree on that then I'll rewrite the article deleting the current contents and focus on the Singer Sabita (Banerjee) Chowdhury. Barring any sort of consensus, I do not want to delete the current contents or put them in an "Other uses" category. Also I will then proceed to redirect from Sabita Banerjee to Sabita Chowdhury (as opposed to the other way around) since she has done the bulk of her singing after marriage using that name. Thanks.--Antorjal 16:19, 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. Grandmasterka 10:13, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Robinson Steward

Seems to fail WP:BIO. Buried in the wall of text are a few cases of what seem to be assertions of notability, but they're mainly that he wrote drafts of unpublished books, that he was the CEO of a company that doesn't seem to pass WP:CORP, and that his friends really liked him. Crystallina 02:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

  • delete We need a new policy at Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not such as "Wikipedia is not an obituary". This is the second article I read tofay of a guy who died of non-natural causes whose only claim to fame was that someone (probably the author of the article) new him and liked him. a google search turns up 96 occurances of the combination of the words "Robinson Steward" and NONE of them are about this guy (save this wikipedia article and an answers.com article). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayron32 (talk • contribs) 2006-10-12 05:31:19
    • "Wikipedia articles are not memorials" has been there for years. Uncle G 09:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
      • To wit, delete Eusebeus 15:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • delete as per nom -Ladybirdintheuk 11:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • delete as per nom Avalon 07:20, 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 speedy delete by NCurse (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights): "The given reason is: it is an article about a person, group of people, band, club, company or website that does not assert the importance or significance of the subject. (CSD A7)". — TKD::Talk 06:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Olympique Energetik AFC

Completely non notable student team Dodge 02:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

  • This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Dodge 02:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nonnotable non-varsity college team, founded summer 2006. NawlinWiki 02:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. P.B. Pilhet / Talk 03:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete - amusing but has to go as failing WP:CORP and with no claims to notability a CSD A7. BlueValour 03:21, 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 Speedy delete, db-group / company, no assertion of notability. Deizio talk 09:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Being There (magazine)

Online music magazine, arguably asserts notability by interviewing notable entertainers, but no other indication of notability. NawlinWiki 02:13, 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. Dakota 04:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kathleen Christison

NN. Only real assertion of notability is from her book, which gets only 150 Ghits [14] [15], practically all of which are blogs. Aaron 02:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete She's written a book and some articles that have been picked up in leftist and Arab publications some of which are notable. If she were writing about just about any topic other than the Israeli-Palestinian conflict she would easily fail notability guidelines. She gets some pretty big google numbers but I think that has more to do with the topic she's writing about than what she has to say. However, if we adapt the academic notability test and consider all of the people who regularly write about this issue she is certainly not more notable than the average person writing about the topic. GabrielF 02:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Non notable author, spook. Eusebeus 15:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. - Crockspot 16:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete this is more of a 'Duh'-lete as it's pretty obvious. --Tbeatty 00:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Endless reserves of conspiracy cruft advocacy stuff out there I guess. Violates WP:BALLS, WP:SNOWBALL, and Wikipedia:Vanispamcruftisement. GiveMeAF___ingBreak! Morton devonshire 02:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete--Peephole 02:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, not notable to warrant article. --NuclearZer0 12:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete notability not established.--Jersey Devil 04:32, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Are you kidding? There were very few (less than 200) CIA case officers worldwide during her tenure. That alone makes her story notable. Her political position is not what makes her notable. --Blainster 21:27, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Change to Neutral Oops, found out the Christisons were analysts, of which there are many, not case officers. --Blainster 21:37, 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. Dakota 04:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GamePlasma

Gaming website, no evidence that it meets WEB provided. --Peta 02:44, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. P.B. Pilhet / Talk 03:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete It sounds like a good website, but no evidence that it passes WP:WEB. TJ Spyke 03:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Very, very weak claim of notability (competing with GameSpot and IGN) probably keeps it out of the realm of {{db-web}}, but no evidence that it's actually in the same league. — TKD::Talk 09:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Markovich292 03:38, 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. Grandmasterka 10:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kathleen Kean

Won one national award. I don't know if a high school teacher award is notable enough. Nishkid64 03:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Merge into a new article on National Preserve America History Teacher of the Year Award and delete. If people are notable only in the context of the award, then information about them should go in the article about the award. --Hyperbole 05:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete HS teachers are almost by default non notable. I know, I am one. The assertion that she is a "historian" is unverified. a google search of her name turns up 906 hits, though MANY are for other people with the same name. The only references to her come from a) local newspapers that note she's a cool and fun teacher and b) she won an award from Laura Bush that acknowledges that shes a cool and fun teacher. No hits come up that cite her work as an historian, either her original work or others that cite her work. --Jayron32 05:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. A teacher who wins a national award presented by the First Lady is much more notable than a working whore who has been given a "year's best blowjob" award by two dozen guys who watch porn all day and blog about it [and that's all that WP:PORN requires for notability]. VivianDarkbloom 12:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
    • reply Let us know how you really feel. The analogy does not hold water. Notability criteria is NOT based on what is "good" for society at large. This person, I will assert, is far more important to us vis-a-vis her positive contribution to society, but that is not a criteria for inclusion in WikiPedia. The fact that a wider audience is aware of a Porn Actress than of a Wisconsin High School teacher means that the Porn Actress is actually more worthy of inclusion by the basic notability guidlines. Being a good person is not the baseline notability guideline for inclusion. If it were, important figures like Pol Pot and Jeffrey Dahmer would be unworthy of inclusion, while some of my buddies that are also High School teachers (some having won national awards even) would be worthy of inclusion. That's just silly. We don't have to like that people are notable for doing things that we find abhorrant. Do I think that Porn Actresses should be notable for what they do? My opinion doesn't matter. Society at large shows such an actresses notabilty, and wikipedia's inclusion of the subject matter is a reflection of that. Award-winning high school teachers are not as notable in the society at large. Is that right? Probably not. Is it the place of a document like WikiPedia to change that? Definately not. --Jayron32 17:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete WH awards are a dime a dozen; article needs to assert more than that for notability. Does everyone who wins some staged photo-op meet de jure the notability standard per WP:BIO? Citing the lamentably low standards elsewhere is not an argument: crap does not justify crap. Eusebeus 15:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as subject doesn't meet WP:BIO.--Isotope23 17:53, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. She may be a good person, but she isn't a notable person. Ultra-Loser Talk | BT sites 01:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to National Preserve America History Teacher of the Year Award if that article is considered notable. Otherwise, just Delete. --Marriedtofilm 21:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as subject doesn't meet WP:BIO TheRanger 23:49, 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 Redirect to Traxxas - Yomanganitalk 23:07, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Traxxas jato

Was put up for speedy deletion, but it has Google results. I'll let the community decide. P.B. Pilhet / Talk 02:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - no assertion of notability whatsoever. MER-C 03:32, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete If it were not for the added stub template, I would have no idea what that article was about. Keep only if expanded and notability shown. Resolute 05:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Models of trucks are generally notable, and this is certainly verifiable. The article is bad, but that's a call for improvement, not deletion. --Hyperbole 05:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, possible merge According to its google search it is a widely availible RC toy car. Merge with the company that makes it, which appears to be Traxxas. Article is stubby as all hell, but has room for improvement. Still, I would not miss it if it went. --Jayron32 05:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge in to Traxxas. It's a specfic product, and Traxxas is fairly notable for making RC toys, but it doesn't need to be its own article. Kevin 18:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Note The Traxxas article appears to already contain a section on this particular model. -- P.B. Pilhet / Talk 21:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, and should have probably been speedy-deleted per {{db-spam}} instead of {{db-nonsense}}. --NovaSTL 02:48, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge information into Traxxas and then delete. Radagast83 18:20, 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. Dakota 13:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Miron Tegze

Importance tagged for a really long time; this guy appears to be a pretty regular academic; delete unless notability can be established. --Peta 03:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - one of Wikipedia's criterea for the notability of a person is whether they're more notable than an average college professor, and Tegze, to all appearances, seems exactly as notable as an average college professor. --Hyperbole 05:37, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or merge with Game Theory - He does get quite a few google hits, however, I can only get one significant published work and that was in 1979. A nearly 30-year old paper does not meet the minimum notability requirements for Academics. Possibly worthy of a one line mention in the main Game Theory article, but thats about it. --Jayron32 05:47, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Eusebeus 15:14, 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 --Durin 19:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pleaseeasaur

No evidence whatsoever of meeting WP:MUSIC. No reliable sources. Not a speedy, because of the discography section. Contested prod. MER-C 03:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep - Have signed a record deal with Comedy Central [16], tour with Pinback, and have been featured on the Tom Green Show [17]. The article needs expansion, but it appears the band meets WP:MUSIC. --Hyperbole 05:41, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - I've added a small description, and Pleaseeasaur has been around since 1999 and have toured internationally mostly all across the US with a wide arrange of famous people such as Neil Hamburger and David Cross. The main person, J.P. Hasson, has been in other groups such as Touch Me Zoo which also included Joe Jack Talcum of Dead Milkmen fame. -Lostboy- 07:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • keep, their website lists reviews by major reliable publications. Vectro 04:50, 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. Dakota 04:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Andrew Veal

Andrew Veal non-notable person with almost no biographical information. This was a news item that doesn't belong in Wikipedia. --Tbeatty 03:25, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as nominator --Tbeatty 03:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete appears to have no notability.--MONGO 04:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete He comitted suicide at a famous cite and some newspapers picked that up. Happens every day. Nothing else about this guy is notable. --Jayron32 05:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, the event might be notable but the person isn't. Deizio talk 09:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Perhaps merge somehwere in Bush-related articles. The JPStalk to me 09:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete So this guy was upset about the election results. Are we going to have an article on every basket case that does something like this? Because he didn’t like Bush and the Iraq war, his suicide makes him notable? JungleCat talk/contrib 12:31, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Unless people can find a way to assert his notability more fully in the scope of things; but not a speedy. · XP · 16:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, subject does not meet WP:BIO.--Isotope23 18:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Why is Wikipedia a dumping ground for these sorts of trivial facts (not that his life was trivial, but the story is). Morton devonshire 00:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a dumping ground for articles on people who commit suicide, or protesters for that matter. As per nom and Isotope23, this article fails [[WP:BIO] and certaintly lacks notability. --NuclearZer0 12:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Notable to me (1st hand knowledge of most aspects), certainly not to Wikipedia. It would be easy to flesh out bio and more fully summerize news articles and conservative-leaning blogs that commented on this event, but this would still not meet standards. Only notability is proximity to election/Ground Zero and as a study of heavy, politicized national attention that lasts 1 or 2 days on the news. Many events are connected to the 2004 election and Ground Zero, and many events receive brief, exploitive national attention. This is not a notable person nor a notable event.12.216.24.192 23:33, 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. Glen 09:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WWE RAW X Anniversary Show

Pure fancruft. Doesn't belong here, maybe on a wrestling wiki, but not here. Just a one time thing. --James Duggan 03:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. TJ Spyke 03:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. MER-C 04:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. More Wrestlecruft. Resolute 05:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wrestlingcruft. JIP | Talk 13:03, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I can say the same for the pay-per-views as well. --Aaru Bui DII 13:26, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. -- bulletproof 3:16 22:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Seems worthy of a Merge into WWE RAW. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:44, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge into RAW. — Moe 22:49, 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. Dakota 04:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Go PowerTools

IRC client, no evidence of notability, delete --Peta 03:39, 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. Dakota 04:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Daniel M'Mburugu

Short-lived fame, no evidence he otherwise meets bio, delete --Peta 03:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep. He did something notable, and this was recorded by reliable sources. Sometimes a single act is enough to establish someone's notability; other times, a whole career is required. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 03:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia isn't wikinews, or a collection of random trivia. --Peta 04:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, passing news item. Gazpacho 04:23, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I've never for a moment liked the "100 Year Rule", but here, I'd go for the "100 Second Rule". In 100 seconds, I won't remember this highly trivial, non-notable news story. 181 total and 56 unique Google hits shows that, while the mainstream media picked this story up for about a minute, nobody really cared. -- Kicking222 04:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete his 15 minutes of fame have long since passed. Resolute 05:31, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Another instance of news being conflated with notability. Eusebeus 15:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. He does not satisfy the "multiple non-trivial published works" criterion because the coverage is trivial (appearing in newspapers only as a brite) and because "Multiple similar stories describing a single day's news event only count as one coverage." Pan Dan 23:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and Pan Dan's summary of the relevant matters. JoshuaZ 21:01, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • An awesome story, but delete as not sufficiently notable.--Cúchullain t/c 19:24, 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. - Mailer Diablo 14:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] David E. Kendall

changed link above to reflect that David E. Kendall is now the page on AfD after David Kendall was made into a dab page. Current link is confusing the AfD.--Isotope23 18:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

No evidence provided to show how this guy meets BIO, delete --Peta 03:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep, but I'm going to make it a name disambiguation page. There's a screenwriter/director, a statistician, and Clinton's lawyer during the Lewinsky scandal. --Dhartung | Talk 04:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Turns out it was stealth-vandalized from the article about Clinton's lawyer back in January. I reverted and moved to David E. Kendall, where the AFD tag is now, and created David Kendall as an hndis page. Per Jayron32 below, though, I think there's a case for a non-stub article on the guy but there would have to be more. As it was, this was not his article, it was stolen! --Dhartung | Talk 05:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep PPI is a notable organization; if he is involved in steering policy for that group, he may be notable. Article is REALLY stubby, however. --Jayron32 05:10, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Unclear So which guy is being deleted, the Lewinski Lawyer or the PPI guy? I would weak-keep either; even the Lewinski lawyer has notability if he had such a central role in what was a HIGHLY notable legal case. It still a stubby article, but it could be improved... --Jayron32 06:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
    • It's my position that the article history up to January 2006 was for David E. Kendall, Clinton's attorney, and that by reverting it I have resolved the notability issue. If somebody feels strongly that the PPI guy needs his own article, creating it is up to them. To preserve article history, it would have to be an enitrely new article, though, unless an administrator wants to tease out the little bit from David E. Kendall that relates to this guy's presence in that article history. --Dhartung | Talk 14:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy close as resolved. Clinton's impeachment counsel is obviously notable. Gazpacho 03:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. The President's lead attorney during the scandal was clearly notable. I remember numerous news articles about him. —Lowellian (reply) 23:00, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep per Gazpacho. I can't believe nobody noticed for like 10 months, but clearly the lawer Kendall is notable, and David Kendall is a good disambiguation page.--Cúchullain t/c 19:31, 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 Speedy delete, A7, db-website with no assertion of notability. Deizio talk 09:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cadet world

Website, no evidence of notability, delete --Peta 03:37, 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 14:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zander Vaubel

Fails WP:BIO, as the subject is not notable, even though the facts in the article may be verifiable. Even the references assert that this invidual was not well known, as one article states ("No one knew him," said Kate Marantz, 22). Delete. —Brim 03:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment - "No one knew him" from the New York Daily News article was a reference to the fact that no one at that particular party knew who he was. Aghost 00:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - Wikipedia:Notability (people) is not Wikipedia guideline policy. Even so, under the Alternative tests heading it lists Verifiability, which states: "Can all information in the article be independently verified now? (some say) 10 years from now?" The answer to both is yes. The subject is notable because it is verifiable. It was already judged for its notability when it was originally reported in credible well-known news sources like The New York Times and New York Newsday. The point of Wikipedia is to be NPOV and chronicle the facts from sources like those; why should we place subjective restrictions on things that are already established as notable? If so, there is a slippery slope, and established information that some editors don't like can be censored for being "not notable enough?" Wikipedia is not censored for any reason. --Howrealisreal 03:56, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I agree that the information is verifiable but I don't see that the subject passes WP:BIO. GassyGuy 04:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - WP:BIO states: "Failure to meet [this] criteria does not mean that a subject must not be included". --Howrealisreal 04:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
      • True, but WP:BIO is a commonly cited guideline on WP that establishes a pretty low threshold for notability as it is, and this subject still fails. So I'm citing the failure of the guideline as justification for why I believe this article ought to be deleted. It's fairly common practice. Obviously failure isn't an automatic deletion, or else there'd be no need to get community consensus - somebody would have just deleted it already. GassyGuy 05:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Disclaimer: Based on your questions about the WP:BIO guideline, I'd assumed you were a new-ish editor, which is why I tried to explain it as I did. I now see I was terribly wrong and apologize for bringing it to a level that's very basic and that explains things you likely already know. GassyGuy 05:31, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Verifiability and Notability are related but not identical concepts. We can verify that this guy lived (which is not a notable fact) that he died (which is not notable either) and how he died (unusual, but not really notable). We can also verify that he was on his high school debate team (not notable again, even if he did well) and that he created some pieces of art (also not notable, even if they were shown publically). What is left about this guys life that makes him notable in any way? --Jayron32 05:16, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete No assertion of notability. Wikipedia is not a memorial - even for someone I'd consider nominating for a Darwin Award. Resolute 05:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Fails WP:BIO, and I have serious doubts that any of this information will be verifiable ten years from now. Generally, Wikipedia does not permit articles on people who are less notable than the average college professor; Vaubel fails that test. --Hyperbole 05:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Looks like he didn't quite make the jump to notability ... or that other roof. Wikipedia is not a memorial. --Dhartung | Talk 05:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. If he makes the cut, it's because of his career as an artist; and it appears that his art was not all that well known at the time of his unfortunate death. The only mentioned exhibition was as a part of a student exhibition at his university. If further evidence that his art was well known can be mustered, I'd change my mind. - Smerdis of Tlön 13:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Dhartung. Wikipedia is not a memorial, and he has zero notability. --Aaron 15:56, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom --rogerd 16:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom - newspaper refs are all very well but just because you died a singularly bizarre death doesn't mean you should have a Wikipedia article if you didn't do anything in life. Moreschi 19:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Smerdis. I'd say keep if it could be verified he was notable for his art.--Cúchullain t/c 19:37, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep regardless of the criteria for being included on this site, it was very helpful to find this entry on wikipedia. If this does get deleted, perhaps we can try again when a book or Zander's work is published. I feel like all the people apposed to this entry are being Nazis, this is not a book, its not like you’re going to run out of space on the internet by including this entry, letting Zander Vaubel be in the wiki would make hundreds of people happy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.107.99.191 (talk • contribs) .
    • Reply Please refrain from personal attacks like calling people Nazi's. You are correct; WikiPedia is not paper but WikiPedia is also not a memorial. The policy is clear, and I quote incase you'd rather not look yourself: "Wikipedia is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must have a claim to fame besides being fondly remembered." I am not doubting people loved this guy. I am not doubting he will be missed. I am not doubting that friends of him would appreciate reading an article about him here. But WikiPedia has clear-cut objective standards by which a potential subject is judged. They can be found at WP:NN, WP:V, and WP:BIO. Read these and then IMPROVE THE ARTICLE so that it meets these standards. Simply complaining that the article should be kept does not good. If it can be brought up to standard, then do so. It will be kept. If the article cannot be brought up to standard, it will be deleted. --Jayron32 19:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep The guy was a notable Brooklyn artisan, if there is any doubt about that you should look up the success of the company he has been an integral part of: Roux Roux. It is an international jewelery business with clients all over the world. Quite notable for a small, Brooklyn operation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fowl345 (talk • contribs) .
    • reply Ok, then provide references that establish notability, and put those in the article. If it checks out, I would be willing to change my vote. As the article stands now, it is entirely non-notable. --Jayron32 19:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep' Vaubel was on the board of the Young Associates of the Chelsea Art Museum. He was asked to found this program because he was such an influential person, which speaks to his notability. I think it is also relevant to note that news of his death was being emailed throughout schools in New York soon after it had occured, including schools that he did not attend. I think the death of a university professor would elicit a similar response. Vaubel was notable for his striking art, his work for the Chelsea Art Museum, and the vast influence he had on people throughout New York. I was not aware that the Wikipedia spent time deciding who is notable and who is not, but if that is the case than Zander Vaubel certainly qualifies as notable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.107.104.201 (talk • contribs) 16:07, October 17, 2006 (UTC)
    • reply Ok, IF such statements are verifiable, then edit the article, and put REFERENCES in where we can find that such things are true. These assertions MAY make him more notable, but we won't know without third-party references. If you provide those references, I may be willing to change my vote. Alsoplease remember to sign your posts --Jayron32 20:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
      • I went ahead and added this referenced information about the YA. Thank you for helping me establish notability. --Howrealisreal 20:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
        • reply Checked out the new link. OK. We can verify that he held this post. Still, it doesn't get to the heart of his notability. Are there reviews of his work? Do others cite him as an expert in his field? That's the sort of thing that makes one notable. Getting better, but still not enough yet to change my vote. A review in the mainstream art press would be nice. Citations in anthologies or the like would be even better. Examples of widespread use of his work beyond a single museum showing would be good too. --Jayron32 04:54, 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 no consensus. Luna Santin 07:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dan Papirany Trio

I am unsure this article meets it's burden re: WP:NOTABILITY. It's certainly not asserted well. It's also unencyclopaedic and I worry if this material was removed whether there would be much left of this bio. MidgleyDJ 11:37, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete/Move The article appears to be written by the subject of the article. According to the linked website the Dan Papirany Trio were nominated for a prize, not the artist himself, so this does not seem to qualify as notable for the artist? The Radio New Zealand website has no mention of Dan Papirany that I can find. The Trio would appear to have made a number of albums and may meet WP:MUSIC, perhaps the article should become one on the Trio? Rich257 12:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • This article has a new focus (the trio rather than the artist), it has a reference to the radio interview mentioned above, and also a music sample of the trio, can the article title change to "Dan Papirany Trio"? if it's possible, how do you change it? And would this change satisfy the notability issue?Papdt 21:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • In my view, yes, I think the WP:MUSIC criteria have been met for the Trio.

    You can rename a page using the move tab at the top of the page, see also Help:Moving a page. However I would probably suggest that this AfD process comes to a conclusion first as it might get a bit confusing otherwise? What do others think?

    Papdt, please sign your comments, using ~~~~, see also "Sign your name:" below the editing box, thank you! Rich257 21:35, 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, Deathphoenix ʕ 03:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:MUSIC. The JPStalk to me 09:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I've renamed the article, and the AFD discussion, for you. Uncle G 12:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, notability (via albums released, awards nominated for and interviews) seem to me to establish notability. Akradecki 19:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep The canonical website allmusic.com has an entry for Dan Papirany. If he shows up there, he's atleast made a blip (however small) on the music scene. That proves he's atleast has an album in widespread release. His notability is marginal, but it can be verified. The writing is crap, but the subject meets baseline notability standards. A rewrite (with citations) would help quality. --Jayron32 20:40, 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 no consensus. Deizio talk 10:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RAW is Owen

Article is mostly results, making it fancruft. Anything notable should be in the Owen Hart article and/or the WWE RAW article. --James Duggan 03:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Wrestlingcruft. JIP | Talk 13:03, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. There are numerous Wikipedia pages featuring results from important single wrestling shows; see many of the articles in the World Wrestling Entertainment pay-per-views category, for example. -Conniption 14:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Having said this, Raderick's suggestion below to move the article to Tributes to Owen Hart, including details of other tributes such as the famous Bret Hart-Chris Benoit Nitro match, has real merits as a compromise solution. -Conniption 11:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete And to the above user, this was not a pay-per-view. This article is total cruft, and just because he died, doesn't mean that his show deserves it's own article. Maybe merge with the main owen article. Tony fanta 17:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Its mentioned on the Owen Hart page. I loved watching Owen Hart's matches, but I don't think its significant enough for anything more than that. Stephen Day 22:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. It was the first notable all-tribute WWE shows that honored a major star that was killed in the line of duty. IIRC, it was also the only televised tribute show that occured during the Attitude Era. kelvSYC 04:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, how does that make it encyclopedic? Wrestlers may die a little more often than most people, but that doesn't establish notability. Tony fanta 18:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I thought a person could only die once, no matter what their profession is. <g,d&r> JIP | Talk 16:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete The results of the show aren't important and the information on Owen's death is already on his page. --Aaru Bui DII 16:07, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and Delete to Owen Hart and WWE RAW. — Moe 22:48, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep-Eddie Guerrero Tribute has it's own page. And these are the only times that wikipedia has ever shown any respect.
    • Comment actually, the Eddie Tribute episode is part of a larger article that covers the many tributes to Eddie. This is not. Aside from that one WCW match between Bret and Benoit, this is the only tribute to Owen, so it won't take up a lot of room in Owen's article, especially if the results aren't covered. James Duggan 00:39, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
      • What does it matter if respect is shown? WP is meant to provide a NPOV on things, not just to do or document something that might be nice. Tony fanta 18:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep It's an incredibly sad, but important moment of WWE history as it was one of the very few times where kayfabe was allowed and even encouraged to be broken, plus it's clearly an event that won't exactly happen very often: we hope.
    • You mean a professional wrestling match where they actually wrestled? JIP | Talk 07:06, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
      • LOL you're funny. Now go play in traffic.
        • I apologise for insulting something almost holy to some Americans. JIP | Talk 19:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
          • I'm not American. Just stop replying, you're only going to embarass yourself further.
      • Joking aside, I don't think this vote is valid at all. Just because someone dies and most people are saddened by it doesn't mean that it is notable. How this has an even amount of votes is stunning. Tony fanta 18:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
        • I completely agree with both of you. Yes, a professional wrestling match whose outcome, and entire coreography, isn't determined beforehand, is an extremely rare occurence. No, such a match doesn't, by itself, deserve a Wikipedia article. JIP | Talk 19:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep or Rename "Tributes to Owen Hart" Wasn't there an Owen Hart Tribute Show that included WWF, WCW and ECW wrestlers? WCW had a tribute match and a black card (ala Adult Swim) at the beginning of their Monday Nitro broadcast the night after his death. And Bret Hart came out to the ring on Nitro a couple of weeks later and said he was taking time off because of Owen's death. A lot have been done in memory of Owen or because of Owen, and so re-naming the article might be the best way to go. Raderick 03:49, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Very important show in wrestling history.--Unopeneddoor 19:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

KEEP-People in the future will want to find out about this, and i know this issuse is important to so many fans.

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

The result was DRP. - Mailer Diablo 14:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pop Metal

Pop metal was already deleted through an Afd and has been recreated and deleted many times since. The page has also been used as a redirect to glam metal and nu metal. However, the article was recently recreated as Pop Metal and the creator insists on having it as its own article, rather than redirecting to glam metal. Note that although there are three accounts and two IP's involved in editing the article / reverting, these share a very similar contribution history.

The article seems nothing but the creator's essay, original research and personal view on the term "pop metal", failing WP:OR, WP:V and WP:NPOV. It also heavily overlaps with the glam metal article. I don't think we need to consider every 80's term for glam metal/rock as a separate Wikipedia-notable genre, be it hair/pop/sleaze or whatever. Since there is quite a lot of text, some content, if verified, can maybe be merged to glam metal instead. Prolog 03:47, 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. Regarding the presence in other wikis, WP:INN is relevant, and counts double for articles in other Wikipedias. --Sam Blanning(talk) 11:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jesús Gabaldón

I can't see how this musician is notable. Unlike every notable bassist I can think of, he doesn't have an allmusic.com entry, nor does he seem to have a presence on the web other than on venues for self promotion (personal websites, youtube, etc.) He appears to be a legitimate working musician, but I fail to see how he merits an encyclopedia article. The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 14:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous user 81.202.127.177 seems to be attempting to make the argument that Gabldon is a prolific session musician in Spain [18]. If this is true, the article could be pefectly valid-- as long as we can verify whether some of the recordings the user lists are notable... in any case, this anon editor is now going around blanking all pages associated with the musician [19] [20] [21]. I find this behaviour inexplicable.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 07:48, 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, Deathphoenix ʕ 03:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, article provides zero context or biographical data and a long list of red / non links. Spanish article has a bio but still a mass of redlinks. Deizio talk 09:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Wait. This subject appears to have an article in a number of other languages on Wikipedia. Can someone familiar with this genre of music, or who is fluent in Spanish please comment? RFerreira 00:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep per entry in multiple wikis. Extensive discography checks out. Catchpole 21:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per comments by Deiz. Additionally, unless someone can point me to a policy that states contrary I do not think being in articles other Wikis necessarily means it qualifies for THIS Wiki.--Tony 00:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - there are no reviews or other external citations that can be used to establish notability. The article is simply a long discography thet would be better placed on a website and there is no encyclopaedic content. Looks as though it may have been deleted in some other versions too. BlueValour 23:57, 21 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 14:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wu Xing Hui

non-notable club, possibly promotional Tom Harrison Talk 15:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Tued99 02:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I am slightly concerned that something that is clearly presenting itself as an East Asian religion (cf the long list of supposed names for this religion in every imaginable East Asian language) does not in fact have an existing article on any East Asian language wikipedia. I am also concerned that there appears to be no information available anywhere on when this organisation was founded, how many members it claims, or even which countries it is active in. An article that merely presents the doctrine of an organisation, while lacking such fundamental details, is problematic, to say the least. — Haeleth Talk 11:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I must disagree. Just because a society does not reveal itself according to your preference does not mean it is a fraudulent society. Please, I ask you, please refrain from such "problematic" suggestions. With warmest wishes on you and your family. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.245.5.209 (talk • contribs) 03:44, October 6, 2006.
  • Comment I certainly agree with the latter's point-of-view. Thank you for your time and consideration. May Luna's continued blessings dwell inside you and your family. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jwhite72450 (talk • contribs) 03:46, October 6, 2006.
  • Comment i don't understand why this would be deleted. if something exists then why delete information about it unless it offends some one in a legitimate way. i guess i am new but isn't that kind of the purpose of this site? open-source informaton...all of us adding information... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Keyien (talk • contribs) 20:11, October 6, 2006.
  • Delete - "Wu Xing Hui" (in quotes) gets a grand total of 122 Ghits, including its homepage and WP/mirrors. Fails to establish notability or verifiability. It exists, insofar as someone's set up a website and is accepting credit card donations, but of course that isn't nearly enuff. May Luna's exhalted wisdom lead you down the path of deletion. --DeLarge 18:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable religion. Catchpole 11:15, 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, Deathphoenix ʕ 03:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. With the tiny number of google hits, this looks exactly like something someone made up one day as a joke. Presenting religious beliefs of an organization with absolutely nothing else makes a bad article. -Amarkov babble 04:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete religioncruft Danny Lilithborne 04:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • delete as per above. Grutness...wha? 05:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Haeleth. The lack of any foreign-language articles on the topic, as well as the utter absence of any significant Google hits outside Wikipedia for a number of the alternate names, convinces me that this is total bollocks. (I tried "Hâa Tâat Sǎng-kom" which got no outside hits, "ごぎょうかい" which appears to have something to do with Naruto, and "Ngũ Hành Hội" which matched against "... toản ngũ hành, hội bát quái" in the Vietnamese wiki, which doesn't appear to be related.) Zetawoof(ζ) 08:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
    • It's unfair to search for the string ごぎょうかい: this is alleged to be the reading of the kanji, and if the allegation is true we'd expect the kanji and not this hiragana to appear. (Beats me why the reading can't be given in horrible old Hepburn and must instead be in hiragana, but still.....) -- Hoary 07:17, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Well, if you prefer Sinograms, "伍行會" (the Traditional Chinese version) gets a single hit. The Simplified version gets a bunch - I suspect they're unrelated, but I can't read their crazy moon language to verify it. Zetawoof(ζ) 07:34, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
        • The simplified Chinese characters for this name happen to be normal in postwar Japan and there are a fair number of Japanese-language hits. Among them, I didn't notice any convincing evidence for a religion of this name, though I must admit that boredom and fatigue soon overtook me so I wasn't even slightly thorough about it. -- Hoary 08:10, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Question: Large claims require particularly convincing evidence. We read: Their membership includes almost every Asian ethnicity as well as several American Indian nations. Can anyone present any evidence for this? There are loads of "Asian ethnicities" and quite a lot of American Indian nations; I'll settle for disinterested, reliable, convincing evidence of membership by five distinct "Asian ethnicities" and three American Indian nations. -- Hoary 07:17, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, Haeleth, and others. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:04, 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. Dakota 13:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SavIRC

IRC client, no evidence of notability. --Peta 04:26, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. MER-C 09:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, utterly nn software, vanity. Deizio talk 10:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. Never Mystic (tc) 21:00, 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 no consensus. Moved to 2006-07 Australian bushfire season. Deizio talk 11:14, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2006 Eastern New South Wales bushfires

A minor and typical event that occured in Australia this year, wikipedia is not wikinews. For people not familiar with the fire situation in Australia, today there are over 100 fires in Victoria, a couple in New South Wales and Tasmania, and 38 in South Australia. I have added details of the fire to the towns were houses were lost. Delete --Peta 04:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep - The article needs some improvements and should be in Wikipedia since it was a event caused by drought and something that doesn't happen in September in that area of New South Wales. -- Bidgee 04:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - Its stubby, but stubbiness does not mean it is not notable. Natural disasters ARE notable, consider: Peshtigo_Fire or Aspen_Fire or Ash_Wednesday_fires for relevent similar articles. --Jayron32 05:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
    • This event is not comparable to any of those 7 houses and 1 death is not the same as 75 deaths and over 2000 homes as was the case at Ash Wednesday.--Peta 05:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Nothing is comparable with any natural disasters as there all different. -- Bidgee 05:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • In this case I vote delete, but what would people think about 2006-07 Australian bushfire season or 2006 Australian weather incidents? -- Chuq 05:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I would support moving it to 2006-07 Australian bushfire season since other fires could be covered without needing there own page if there not notable to have there own page. -- Bidgee 05:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia is not Wikinews and this article does little to distinguish it from any other fire. Unencyclopaedic. GassyGuy 06:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I support the idea of having a bushfire season article. Notable fires could then have tyheir own articles as required. It is analogous to hurricane seasons. B.d.mills 06:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
    • With so many fires a year, this would not be as straight forward as the cyclone articles. --Peta 06:44, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
    • How about if only fires that have the S44 (not sure what there call it in other states), damage or lost homes, burnt a large area (Say over 300ha) can only be added so it doesn't get to big unlike Tornadoes of 2006? -- Bidgee 06:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • move and edit in accordance with Chuq's proposal. This is a nice Wikinews article, but seriously, S44 declarations are made most weeks of summer in NSW, and the equivalent in other states. The Bureau notice is boilerplate text, and the RFS reference has already gone from their website. An article like 2006-07 Australian bushfire season can include an intro that talks about the unusual dry hot conditions that led to the early start to bushfire season. Even that topic will be hard to keep up to date - there have been several fires large enough for mention in SA, Tas and Vic this week, too. --Scott Davis Talk 07:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete this article about not unusually significant bushfires. The season articles suggested by Chuq could work. JPD (talk) 11:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep this seems to me to be an exceptionally early bushfire season - it is not yet summer. Perhaps rename to wider geographical region.--Golden Wattle talk 01:01, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
    • For clarification, are you suggesting that it be kept as an article about the season as a whole? My delete was for the current article about the early bushfires which probably won't be anything like the most significant bushfires this season, but as I said, I have no objection to the creation of a more general article. JPD (talk) 08:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • A move to a 2006-07 bushfire season which I suspect will be large. There is a similar declaration in place for this weekend and September was rather early for bushfires. However, I think that these fires were not notable enough to warrant an article rather than part of an article. It is similar to a tropical storm in the relevant hurricane articles. Capitalistroadster 03:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 03:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Totally non notable. An individual fire/group of fires would have to do far more damage to be notable. --Michael Johnson 04:43, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Move and edit as per Chuq. If there aren't any notable fires this year and this is the best we have though, I think it should be deleted. (JROBBO 05:59, 15 October 2006 (UTC))
    • "Best" was a really bad choice of word here! --Scott Davis Talk 10:59, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Chuq's idea of creating an article for the whole bushfire season has merit though. --Richmeister 04:28, 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 speedy delete as A7/G11. Kusma (討論) 09:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Financials Expert

Non notable company newsletter. Also, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BW Expert. This article is largely identical to that article. All arguements for that articles deletion apply here. --Jayron32 04:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

  • strong delete - got spam? /Blaxthos 05:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as spam. Created by the same single purpose account as Wellesley Information Services. So tagged. MER-C 06:18, 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 no consensus. Any way you sort the arguments, there is no consensus to keep or delete here. --Coredesat 04:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A.N.U.S.

Was voted for deletion before, vanity page, is now back inexplicably 142.167.95.132 18:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Original AFD here Yomanganitalk 19:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  • keep - The page is totally different than the old page and meets wikipedia policy guidelines for NPOV and notability a lot better than the old debate. --TrollHistorian 19:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I made the 2nd ANUS page on wikipedia because I was pretty irritated that I had to read through a bunch of anus materials to determine what they really were. I actually visited Wikipedia immediately after I saw the first page so that I could hopefully get an objective view of what ANUS was. Unfortunately the page wasn't there and I was forced to read through some really awful articles on their webpage. --TrollHistorian 05:56, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or Speedy as re-creation. Same reasons as before, Wp:WEB, reliable sources, etc. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
This is a totally different article than before. --TrollHistorian 05:56, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as recreation. As before. DJ Clayworth 20:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
The old article can be found here (http://www.anus.com/etc/wikipedia/), the new article is not a re-creation. The GNAA have their own page and frankly ANUS has been more active than the GNAA as of late. Not surprisingly they are the 2nd google hit for the query "anus" --TrollHistorian 05:56, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete because it fails WP:WEB and WP:V. I never saw the old article, but if it can be speedied, all the better. GassyGuy 04:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
How does it fail WP:V? --TrollHistorian 05:56, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
The first source is ANUS itself - not a third party. The second is GNAA - not reliable. The third documents its Alexa ranking, which only verifies that the website exists but not much else. The fourth is a directory which, reliable or not, would again only verify that the site exists. The fifth is the site itself. That leaves a lack of reliable third party sources establishing anything notable or verifying most of the content within the article. GassyGuy 07:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Read the article now. It is pretty verifiable and there are many external sites mentioning ANUS pranks. --TrollHistorian 04:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, no reliable references. Not getting into the speedy / recreation debate, but it has been deleted 16 times... thats a protection candidate. Deizio talk 10:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep There is no reason to delete it! Or is there:—Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.184.167.12 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete per above. Eusebeus 15:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, total lack of WP:RS for this group of trolls and their activities. Sandstein 16:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
There were new links added from multiple sources other than "trolls" why do they not fit in with WP:RS? --TrollHistorian 04:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Please show how the article does not meet WP:WEB? --TrollHistorian 04:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. hey guys, remember "consensus"? first of all: "Vanity is a potentially defamatory term that should be avoided in deletion discussions." 2: "Just because you haven't heard of it, doesn't mean it's not notable!" 3: GassyGuy: There are more resources for "notability" than those listed in the article. I will add to the list. However, how many more do we need? 4: ANUS covers heavy metal extensively. How about you invest some search engine work? See: http://www.google.com/Top/Arts/Music/Styles/R/Rock/Heavy_Metal/ and http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Search&searchtext=anus.com&x=0&y=0 (sorry for the long links, but maybe you can excuse them like you will all those pointless votes?) If you want to have the article deleted for obscure reasons, at least be honest and state them. Best Regards, Aor 21:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • It's not a matter of quantity of resources; it's about quality. Again, none of these are reliable third party sources that establish the notability of the site; at best, they establish that it exists, or are from GNAA or the site itself, which obviously don't count since those are not third parties (the article claims that ANUS is affiliated with GNAA). GassyGuy 23:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I've added more references. You will find them in the external links section. Best Regards, Aor 06:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
The MTV article is close, but alas, it does far more to confirm the notability of Slayer than ANUS. The others, again, while mentioning ANUS, do little but confirm that the website exists. GassyGuy 06:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • In contrast to you I think it is more reference than one can expect for a site about heavy metal. If you look at the other sites in the google link I posted above, you will notice that the important ones have Wikipedia entries, too (Encyclopedia Metallum, BNR Metal). Mainstream reference is even rarer for those sites. It is in the nature of a subgenre that is not well presented in mainstream publications, but this alone doesn't make ANUS non-notable. Best Regards, Aor 07:05, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • If all the references can do is confirm that the site exists, then it leaves little too no verifiable content about the website for the article. Per WP:V, you cannot have articles without verifiable content. Per WP:OR, you cannot just use the site itself to write about it. If heavy metal websites do not get mainstream coverage, then they shouldn't get Wikipedia articles. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia - it documents things which meet the guidelines; it does not need to acknowledge the presence of everything under the sun, and especially not everything on the Internet. GassyGuy 07:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I see a problem in your skewed standards. Those other sites are not nominated for deletion, because they don't offend as ANUS does. Although there are clearly more external references for ANUS than for, say, Enclopdia Metallum, ANUS is nominated for deletion. In consequence it appears that this article is focused on and nominated for deletion because of its content, and not because of notability issues. I myself leave the ANUS doctrine aside, judge by the various references on the article page alone and come to the conclusion that ANUS is noteworthy. n.b. I don't call for the deletion of other heavy metal articles, this is just to show the hypocrisy of this debate. Best Regards, Aor 11:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • If what you say is true, then I would likely express a similar opinion at an AfD for Encyclopedia Metallum. I have not had a chance to look at that article. However, your argument is specious. I have told you what my problem with the ANUS article are. Others cite similar claims. It is really a matter of addressing them. If other websites have similar problems meeting WP:V, they should be nom'ed for deletion, but the existence of other articles that should be deleted is not a reason to keep this one. GassyGuy 13:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Of what use are guidelines that are enforced only, or more strictly, on articles with offending/dissident content? That is not in any way an encyclopedic approach, and I can only reiterate my conclusion which springs from such behaviour: that something else than the denied encyclopedic adequacy of the topic motivates those who nominate the article for deletion. As a result, articles like ANUS get singled out while others, which, by your standards should have long been deleted (if you abode by those standards), remain. In the end, this hilarious debate is pointless. Those who want the article removed because they have personal objections, which of course aren't sufficient reason for deletion, are not honest and do not aim for consensus. Best Regards, Aor 15:13, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • First off, any argument based upon some supposed equality between ANUS and Encyclopedia Metallum is flawed right from the start. ANUS has a current Alexa rank of 66,041, while EM's is only 4,781... more than ten times better than ANUS. (Yes, I know Alexa isn't everything, but it's the quickest way to compare two websites, and these two aren't even in the same ballpark). Believe it or not, this is an argument we've heard countless times before, in misguided support of everything from high-school athletes to video game ROM hacks to people's pet cats. In fact, we hear it so much that there's even a couple of essays written specifically as a rebuttal to this argument. See WP:INN and WP:ILIKEIT. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Compare the Alexa ratings of ANUS to that of the GNAA. GNAA has 307,527, while ANUS has 68,721. Popular media outlets have covered ANUS's exploits. Even admins like JoshuaZ agree this article meets WP:WEB. Also, this article is not the same article that was deleted long ago. You are welcome to compare articles (I provided links at the top). --TrollHistorian 22:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • We do remember consensus. We remember consensus to delete this article the first time, and we remember consensus to keep it deleted in at least two DRV votes. What we don't remember is consensus to create it again. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Your argument could be used against you: Maybe its notability is what motivates contributors to re-recrate over and over again. Aor 07:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • If someone can procure some reliable, third-party sources, I'll vote for keep on this one, because of its amount of ghits (9,990 for the entire name) and its alexa ranking of 66,041 (with around 30,000,000 hits per day). If reliable, third-party sources can't be found, then I vote for a delete and protect from recreation. Ultra-Loser Talk | BT sites 01:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Even more "ghits"(11,700 for the entire name) return for: "Dark Legions Archive". Aor 07:13, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Delete - These people are obviously fascistic nazis neo-pagan types, and society is falling enough down the drain due to right-wingers. I know wikipedia isn't supposed to be a place that advances a point of view, but for the sake of minorities, let's not let these people have a platform to stand on. Isn't that what democracy is about -- letting everybody have a say? These people wouldn't let minorities have a say. These people would censor wikipedia in the unmitigating pursuit to destroy freedom and coerce people into thinking their way. With that, my vote is a sound delete. --Iconoclast 04:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Did I do the above correctly? I'm a black man, you see. A gay one, at that. I don't want to be disenfranchised. --Iconoclast 04:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Anyone here want to play Dungeons and Dragons: E-Bureaucrat adventure? 3.5 edition rules. --Iconoclast 04:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Strong Keep A legitament organization, trolls or not--ABigBlackMan 14:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Your name entices me. Wanna chat? --Iconoclast 20:09, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • keep Mentions in mainstream news and such easily meets WP:WEB. JoshuaZ 20:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete and redirect to anus. Anomo 03:45, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Many articles remain from groups like SomethingAwful for Memes that are obscure/specific to them. ANUS arguably, especially in the black metal world, has some relevance and lots of history behind it. This article had clarified to me what ANUS was when I heard a casual mention of them on IRC a while back. There's no need for it to fall to people who want to delete it for personal reasons. ContivityGoddess
  • Failing WP:V is hardly a personal reason. GassyGuy 20:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I think people have shown it doesn't, and there are many, many notable links on the article's page. I suggest you check out the page and actually read it. ContivityGoddess 20:45, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I've already commented above on why the references on the page do not count as WP:RS and find it insulting that you think I would comment before reading the article. Please reread WP:AGF. GassyGuy 10:45, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
The article has changed since the initial AFD. I've asked you if you have read the new article and looked at the new links but you haven't responded to my questions. --TrollHistorian 22:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Because I already covered the revised article when I had my discussion with Aor... GassyGuy 10:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Then how do the following links fail WP:RS [22] [23] [24]? They are all mainstream media and the Houston Press article covers what the group ANUS is. I read WP:RS and the 3 links I gave examples are reliable secondary sources. Even the non-english one is considered legitimate by WP:RS. --TrollHistorian 13:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
The Clarin article doesn't say anything about ANUS except confirmation that it exists and is somehow associated with metal - that's not non-trivial coverage. The Launch one is also not non-trivial; it's more about the Slayer incident than ANUS, who is simply mentioned in passing as being associated with it. The Houston one is the strongest of the three, but it's not being featured in a real article, it's part of a "best of" special feature. That's borderline; it may or may not count as non-trivial coverage by a reliable source, but I hardly see that as strong evidence of notability any more than a paragraph in any other special interest (e.g., the tech section) area of a paper would qualify most sites. GassyGuy 15:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Strong delete It seems that the sickeningly egalitarian rules on this let's-pretend 'encyclopedia' deem it permissible to have articles like "List of props appearing in episode 432 of The Simpsons" but regard articles about subcultural phenomena, especially when the philosophies espoused by such subcultures go against the grain of placid Hindu-cattle conformity which this 'encyclopedia' promotes, to be a waste of precious server space. The irony of this is that the fool who nominated this article for deletion clearly doesn't even understand the first thing about what he read in the article. He claims that this is vanity. The thing is, Yomangani, vanity is a distinctly un-nihilistic trait. There is no reason for a nihilist to be vain, because it is placing value upon something that is transitory and fleeting. It seems to be thing at Wikipedia, though, that ignorance, political correctness, pseudoscientific twaffle and Judeo-Christian moral systems are regarded as sacrosanct, while logic, beauty and intellectualism are condemned as not being important enough for inclusion.

Iconoclast, so anything can be included in this pretty 'encyclopedia' except for 'fascistic neopagan ideology'? Let me tell you something, fool. Nihilism implies atheism, not neopaganism. Neopaganism is a pointless romantic revisionist historical creation which, while having aesthetic appeal to some, is far removed from any critically tenable conception of the world. You're ignorant, Iconoclast, but we agree on one thing. The world is indeed deteriorating. But the world is not deteriorating because of black metal. It is deteriorating because people are terrified of the truth, and would rather exist in a novocainesque facade of shopping malls, designer clothing, plastic music and trendy stupidity. The fact that there are some people who would rather have no part of that existence is mortally offensive to these herd-grazers, and that is why they want to delete this article. But this 'encyclopedia' is also helping the world to destroy itself. Knowledge is not for everyone. It is not democratic. Knowledge is an aristocracy. A fool cannot savour the existential fullness granted by reading the works of Nietzsche, or playing with the abstractions of higher mathematics. They content themselves here by editing articles on the local highway and their favourite television show. Pseudoscience is promoted here at the same level as real science. Religion is privileged above art.

That being said, there is no real reason why this article should be here. Its presence merely indicates perceived importance on the part of those who are not fit to judge. Nonetheless, it would illustrate just how fucking hypocritical the ostensive egalitarian nature of this 'encyclopedia' is, if the article were to be deleted. Any ideology has to censor that which poses a threat to itself. And while I do not delude myself into thinking that the ideology of black metal poses any real threat to the nauseating stupor of left-liberalism at the moment, its time will come. The reaction, though, of people to intellectualism and anti-egalitarianism is an inbuilt and natural extension of the left-liberal mindset, because ultimately this is what poses the biggest threat to the 'utopia' in which we live. So, if the people at Wikipedia are to truly practice the revolting morality which they preach, they will keep this article, not because they agree with it, or because it is in accord with whatever insane so-called 'rules' there are here. They will keep this article to avoid making bigger prats of themselves than they already are.

Now have fun, everybody, finding your 'consensus'. But know that consensus among fools will represent only foolishness. You make me laugh. --Diffeomorphism 18:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Now, I'm not going to read all that (I do not want to get a heart attack as a black man such as myself has heart disease), but what it boils down to is whether or not it is good for minorities. ANUS isn't good for minorities -- it is actively racist and anti-Jew (the worst of the worst as anti-Semitism has always been the highest evil) and supports neo-nazi skinhead music like Skrewdriver, Burzu, Graveland, Bully Boys, and so on. I think that what it boils down to is not whether it is notable or not, but whether or not it should be notable. Get it? Get it? --Iconoclast 19:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I quite agree, although it's not very often I get to agree with a gay gentleman of colour (with heart disease)...you're being very subtle. Although what's also subtle is how I could change my vote from 'keep' to 'delete' but it still makes sense. I think that should tell everybody something, but I shan't bother explaining what ;[ --Diffeomorphism 18:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Strong Keep A.N.U.S is an absolutely superb resource for numerous musical genres and subcultures. It is particularly insightful and well written. Indeed as someone who specialised in music youth and subculture as part of thier political studies I can only but wonder why this sight has been deemed inapproprate for this site. I would go so far as to argue that its relevance is particulalry pertinent due to the sure number of related pages of this nature concerning music in the metal scene. Many of those above that have nominated this page for deletion furthermore seem totally unfamiliar with the topic at hand and its deeper meaning and consequence for those who live this style of life and make it thier approach and philosophy. I think it would be sad to delete this page and if this is then the case it is only further indication of the increasingly deteriating quality of wikipedia as a whole. Spectral Delight 19:09, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Strong Keep This site should not be deleted as it supports metal. It is a cool source of info on bands and stuff and has some interesting ideas on why bands play the way they do etc...

Death to all false metal. Brothers of true metal proud and standing tall, wimps and posers leave the hall. The Crying Orc 19:35, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is death for true metal, fool. Diffeomorphism 18:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and protect from recreation. Non-notable and of course having an article on Wikipedia is a troll itself, and there's no reason to give them any satisfaction. Recury 19:37, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Is there a policy against describing groups which Wikipedians might not like? --TrollHistorian 22:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Hello, troll! How's the trolling? Not too obvious, I hope. Recury 22:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • TrollHistorian is not a troll. What we see here, though, is the act of accusing someone of being a troll so you can rhetorically deny the value of his contribution to the discussion (Fallacy). Also, the ANUS article is not a troll. Best Regards, Aor 06:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Keep There are articles for similar organizations on Wikipedia, such as the Gay Nigger Association of America and the Cult of the Dead Cow. The former has withstood votes for deletion several times, and the latter does not appear to be controversial. Thus I think American Nihilist Underground Society is also a legitimate article for a notable organization. --Afed 00:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Keep Anus is definitely more notable than the GNAA or even the Libertarian National Socialist Green Party, and both articles have survived deletion votes before. Anus has been around longer (since the BBS era), operates several websites (Anus.com, Corrupt.org, Sodomy.org and many more) and has been more active recently than GNAA, "trolling" both the cyberspace and meatspace (through flyering). Besides, Anus is much more than a simple trolling organisation, it advocates a philosophy and a lifestyle, and has articles that inform a certain subcuture (Death Metal / Nihilist culture) I can't see why it is less notable than Wipipedia which serves approximately the same purpose for the BDSM subculture. In fact, it can be said that the articles on Anus.com constitute social commentary that qualifies it on the same level of notability as Lew Rockwell.com and various other social commentary websites.

  • Keep, unfortunately. These people have been at it for many years and are better-known than 3/4 of the so-called "internet memes" that get Wikipedia coverage. They get 10,100 Google hits at this moment, even after removing Wikipedia-referential sites. wikipediatrix 20:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. With multiple coverages on mainstream media, the site seems to meet WP:WEB and WP:ORG. Also, as mentioned before, "American Nihilist Underground Society" gets more Google hits (both altogether and unique) than "Gay Nigger Association of America". I'm also a bit worried about the nomination, which was done by a single-purpose IP user. Prolog 03:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Nominations for deletion by anonymous SPAs should be disreguarded. This does not seem to be someone with a legitimate interest in improving Wikipedia. --Afed 18:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I just don't see evidence of an encyclopedic level of notability. Deli nk 19:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
This is why Wikipedia has policies like WP:WEB which is ANUS definately meets via mainstream media mentions.--TrollHistorian 22:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. The following links (listed under external links in the article) show satisfy WP:V and WP:WEB [25] [26] [27] [28]. JoshuaZ 23:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. As many have shown above, there are at least as valid reasons for the present article as for a rather large percentage of Wikipedia articles. Apparently, people who do not understand a topic that deviates from what they are used to, try out scrutinizing to a level never used for more mainstream topics. — SomeHuman 18 Oct 2006 23:44 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. ANUS is a useful source for Nihilism and one of the most well-known sources for underground metal. The site itself has caused quite a bit of controversy, and for this reason and the many other reasons mentioned above is a noticeable internet topic that fits the nature of this encyclopedia. Macellarius 02:35, 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 delete right now. - brenneman {L} 07:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] HR Expert

Non notable company newsletter. Also, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BW Expert. This article is largely identical to that article. All arguements for that articles deletion apply here. Jayron32 04:47, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

  • strong delete - got spam? /Blaxthos 05:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as spam. Created by the same single purpose account as Wellesley Information Services. So tagged. MER-C 06:19, 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 spam. --Interiot 06:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CRM Expert

Non notable company newsletter. Also, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BW Expert. This article is largely identical to that article. All arguements for that articles deletion apply here. Jayron32 04:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

  • strong delete - got spam? /Blaxthos 05:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as spam. Created by the same single purpose account as Wellesley Information Services. So tagged. MER-C 06:18, 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 spam. --Interiot 06:26, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SCM Expert

Non notable company newsletter. Also, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BW Expert. This article is largely identical to that article. All arguements for that articles deletion apply here. Jayron32 04:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

  • strong delete - got spam? /Blaxthos 05:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as spam. Created by the same single purpose account as Wellesley Information Services. So tagged. MER-C 06:18, 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 spam. --Interiot 06:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SAP Experts

Non notable company newsletter. Also, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BW Expert. This article is largely identical to that article. All arguements for that articles deletion apply here. Jayron32 04:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

  • strong delete - got spam? /Blaxthos 05:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as spam. Created by the same single purpose account as Wellesley Information Services. So tagged. MER-C 06:18, 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. Robdurbar 07:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wellesley Information Services

Spam / Vanity Blaxthos 05:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete as spam. So tagged. MER-C 06:09, 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 no consensus. Deizio talk 11:18, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Weak position (grammar)

OR/neologism and a minor topic that should be covered elsewhere, e.g. in Grammaticalization —Preceding unsigned comment added by CapnPrep (talk • contribs) 2006-10-12 05:13:25

  • Delete as OR. The article actually asserts that it is "intended as an initial interpretation of 'weak position'," and I can't easily find any online references that use the term in precisely the same sense as the article. --Hyperbole 05:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
    • The text that you are talking about is simply an inexperienced editor's substitute for using the {{expert}} tag. This article grew out of a dangling hyperlink in analytic language that was added in this edit by VKokielov (talk · contribs) and appears to have been good faith attempt by a non-expert to recolour a redlink. Uncle G 12:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete -- I was just starting back then. The term itself comes from a Bulgarian book, "Istorija na bylgarskija ezik", by a certain Kiril Mirchev -- whenever pronouns come after nouns, he writes that they're in "weak position". Whether the link was needed is another question. --VKokielov 14:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. "Weak position" is used in several contexts in grammar and linguistics. This is not the most common historical one: more frequent is the use of weak position to describe unstressed syllables. In classical prosody, "weak position" is where a short vowel that is usually grammatically long, usually because of preceding a consonant cluster containing a liquid, is realized as short for metrical purposes because it is unstressed. FWIW, the loss of case marking in Romance has more to do with phonemic erosion than it does with "weakness" arising from following a preposition. Whether the prepositions caused this erosion, or their use is its result, is a chicken-and-egg argument. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I went a head and added a description of weak syllables in Greek prosody. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • (I started this AfD in the first place, so I guess I've already voted) Yes, the phrase "weak position" must come up all over the place in grammar and linguistics, and also in sports and economics and architecture and psychology… But is it a recognized, technical term in any of these fields, or does it just mean, well, "weak position"? If it has the status of a standard term in poetry, this can just be noted in the Meter (poetry) article, and not in a separate article, and certainly not one called "Weak position (grammar)"! And if we make a disambiguation page for all the possible uses of "weak position" then I think we'll also need to create large object (disambiguation), dark area (disambiguation), bad idea (disambiguation), etc. etc. etc. (Please do not click on any of those.)
  • Hey, we already have Bad Thing. <grin> I'm not sure that weak positions in Greek prosody merit a separate article either, for that matter, and agree that it is only under the broadest sense that it counts as "grammar" or even phonology. It's my curse to see many things that come up here as a challenge. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:22, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
It seems like anceps might be a more established term for these "weak" syllables in Greek and Latin poetry? CapnPrep 15:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC) [Er, actually, no. Never mind. CapnPrep 13:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC)]
  • Keep, please. I have just rewritten the article to make it clear that there are (at least) three distinct, well attested uses of "weak position" in phonology, prosody, and grammar. (I am expert in none of these fields, and the OP's usage of "weak position" might not be all that common for all I know, but the others are bog-standard in their scholarly niches.) Hopefully the article is now useful to bewildered first-year classics students, among others. Michael K. Edwards 12:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
OK, you can keep the page but I still think the original stuff about syntactic weak position should be deleted. And so the entire article can be given over to the metrical stuff, and then the article name definitely needs changing, to Weak position (poetry) (or just Weak position, I suppose). CapnPrep 12:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
If you mean the vulgar Latin bit, I may agree, although it would be nice to have an expert opinion. The German usage is for real, and I suspect there are others. As to the move, who's to say there isn't a technical meaning of "weak position" in, say, go?  :-) Cheers, Michael K. Edwards 13:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
I hadn't noticed the addition of German, and the external link is very good, but the established term in this case is "weak" and not "weak position" (cf. "weak declension", "weak ending", "weak form", "weak article/adjective/noun"), and it is already treated (or should be) in articles like Declension and German articles. And there are already disambiguation pages for strength and weakness where pointers to this information could be added. So I still don't see any reason to keep a page called "Weak position (grammar)". CapnPrep 13:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Michael K. Edwards's rewrite. (I added the refs tag at the end, which was missing.) AnonEMouse (squeak) 13:08, 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. --Coredesat 06:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Manny Ortez

Not really nessacary, and not notable to Kerry supporters outside of Massachusetts or who are Red Sox fans. Possibly could be merged with John Kerry's main article. Knowing Is Half The Battle 05:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete Possibly worthy of a single sentance mention in John Kerry;s main article. A Danqualeism of this nature is not notable in any way. Manny Ortiz is not a real person, and a single slip of the tounge by a public figure is WAY below the notability baseline.

--Jayron32 05:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete The article seems to be composed entirely of OR. It may be notable that John Kerry once accidentally named "Manny Ortez" as his favorite player when no such player exists, but it's notable only in the context of Kerry and deserves no more than (at most) a passing mention on his article. --Hyperbole 06:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, not significant enough for own article, belongs as one sentence in Kerry article, maybe. NawlinWiki 11:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, per points made above. PJM 12:28, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. How many times is this going to be brought up for deletion consideration? A notable gaffe with plenty of press coverage. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
This may be the last time. PJM 16:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Heh. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Comment Is it notable beyond the time Kerry made the gaffe? From what I understand its usage was confined mainly to the period after the slipup and has since been used only in isolated, nn instances. SliceNYC 06:23, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
It's still referred to rather consistently in Sox discussions, given that Ortiz and Manny still hit next to eachother in the Sox lineup. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:54, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
But does that make it notable? It seems to have reached a current level of SoSH nickname, not a term used in either the political media (to describe mistakes) or sports media (to refer to the combo). You don't hear Brian Williams say that George Allen "pulled a Manny Ortez" or Peter Gammons talk about how the Yankee bullpen "won't be able to get Manny Ortez out." SliceNYC 15:45, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually, Gammons probably has referenced it at some point. In any case, the answer is yes. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:49, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Personally, I don't feel it's notable. WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information, and this certainly seems better suited towards a short sentence in the articles of those involved. The article does not assert any notability or evidence of usage after the 15 minutes of fame in the press -- the fact that Gammons may have possibly mentioned it at some point in the last two and a half years doesn't assert that notability. SliceNYC 14:49, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and Hyperbole. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Soxcruft that might be relevant in Manny, Papi and Kerry's articles. SliceNYC 15:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • weak keep per Badlydrawjeff presuming it becomes better sourced. JoshuaZ 20:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable, something a presidential candidate said by mistake should be, at the very most, menitioned in said persons article if at all. --Lord of Illusions 05:55, 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 keep. Deizio talk 11:28, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CorVision

Seems to fail WP:SOFTWARE. 421 GHits for "CorVision Cortex", many of them business directories. Duja 14:46, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

  • keep CorVision is very much a legacy package only used by a very small number of business, any independent publications, articles etc will have long been out of print and I have not been able to find anything notable on Google. I agree that CorVision is probably of little importance in modern software development but I believe it is of historical relevance as an important 4GL package. With this on mind it should probably be cleaned up to only include the historical facts about the package. sdcoulson
  • Weak keep Seems to be moderately notable, at least passing WP:SOFTWARE. For software popular in the 70s and 80s, I was surprised to find as much about it as I did, actually. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:05, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep per Andrew Lenahan. While parts of this need to be rewritten for encyclopedic tone and greater specificity, it seems largely of historical rather than commercial interest now. - Smerdis of Tlön 18:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I didn't see multiple external references in the entry, which leads me to question the assertion that it passes WP:SOFTWARE. It is also in need of cleanup. - TewfikTalk 05:04, 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) 06:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - utterly fails WP:SOFTWARE for not having multiple non-trivial publications written about it. Valrith 20:43, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
    • The publications exist, they just need to be cited. Also, Keep per Andrew Lenahan. Vectro 16:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - notability standards have to take into account the nature of the topic in question. When it comes to legacy software, we need to be more relaxed in our evidence -- there is unlikely to be much WWW info on these languages, because by the time the WWW came along they were mostly gone. But that does not mean that they are unnotable (from a historical perspective), if there are significant mentions in older literature (e.g. trade magazines, journals). Unfortunately, looking up those old magazines would be quite an effort; so I would suggest the answer is to err on the side of keep. --SJK 20:31, 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: after discounting WP:SPAs and arguments which do not meet policy, there is still consensus to keep, with only one delete argument coming from someone who appears to have reviewed the improvements made (and that self-described as weak). --Sam Blanning(talk) 11:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sweatdrop Studios

  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}}


Abstain. AfDing in place of {{db}} placed by someone else. There's contibutions by two existing users, and possible notability. Interiot 06:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Puppetry warning - See [29]. In the case that they wise up and remove it, it's a request of their forum to help out with the AfD. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 23:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Is that Sock Puppetry? I was under the impression that that involved multiple accounts belonging to the same person. These accounts are owned by different people, who are, yes, coming here as a result of that thread, but they are different people --User:SunKitten
      • "Meat puppetry". Calling folks from a forum to defend an article is somewhat... annoying. It's not that I fear it will affect the result, so much as that this tends to get a bunch of inexperienced users coming in to try to "vote bomb", without actually adressing the problems at hand. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tribalwar is an extreme example. Arguments from people personally involved in the topic at hand are often far less useful and objective as well. Hopefully you understand. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 00:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
        • Fair enough. That's why I commented rather than voting. I would argue that in some cases the personally involved people can offer more information than others - such as my first comment below - but that's irrelevant to this debate --user:SunKitten
        • Since you're new, you might want to read the policies at WP:V and WP:RS, and the guidelines at WP:NOTABLE and WP:VAIN to help with your arguments. Becoming notable doesn't mean that they're notable yet, and simply not being a corporation isn't really reason enough either. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 00:07, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
          • Yes, hence the comment rather than the vote. I understand that being a publisher/corporation/business/dictatorship is not reason for inclusion, I was simply trying to clarify facts. I did not mention becoming notable. Thanks for the links --User:SunKitten
  • Speedy Delete. These so called established users are User:Msproduct and User:Chaos X3 and are members of Sweatdrop Studios as they have stated on this thread [30]. In that thread they also state that they realise Wikipedia policies but continue to write vanity pages about themselves anyway, for instance User:Chaos X3 said Wikipedia can go screw themselves; if they want the information to further their encyclopedia, then they shouldn't be complaining where it comes from, even if the subjects write about themselves (I mean, who knows them better?). This violates Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox Creating overly abundant links and references to autobiographical articles is unacceptable. As for notability, the studio is run by forum and the checkout system is paid via paypal. The studio is an amateur club and is not a registered UK company though they state that they are UK based. [31] in fact the only information I can find on the studio is that the domain is registered to Dock (Hayden Scott-Baron). All this article amounts to is a list of amateur authors internet aliases and a collection of links to their EOL manga books which is vanity and advertising. The page has been deleted before and the same users have created it again without improvement. --Squilibob 06:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)Changed see below--Squilibob 15:47, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per Squilibob. So tagged. MER-C 09:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, seems like a lot of the people involved - Dock (Hayden Scott-Baron), Laura Watton, Subi, Foxy (Manga Artist), Emma Vieceli, Sonia Leong and a whole heap of redlinks have pretty tenuous claims to notability as well. Deizio talk 10:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • The users involved have begun reviewing these other articles and have agreed to reference them as well. --Squilibob 15:45, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Coment, though a number of the people involved seem to have books available on amazon.co.uk [32] [33] [34], with at least the Digital Manga Techniques book being sold somewhat widely [35]. --Interiot 18:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment, that is true but none of those examples that you have listed mention Sweatdrop Studios anywhere. That is a good argument for keeping their individual articles and renaming Dock (Hayden Scott-Baron) and Subi, but that is not what this AFD is about. --Squilibob 22:56, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Would Draw Manga, by Sweatdrop Studios, count? --User:SunKitten
  • Yes, that's a good reference. --Squilibob 15:53, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Myself (User:Chaos X3) and User:Msproduct are not members of Sweatdrop. Sweatdrop are recognised as a Publisher within the UK, though may be considered amateur nonetheless. Sweatdrop members write monthly slots in Neo (magazine) and host Manga Alley at the biannual London MCM Expo[36]. Sweatdrop are developing; this page does not serve as self-promotion or vanity, nor does it contain propaganda. --User:Chaos X3
    • Comment, Sweatdrop are genuine UK publishers. The six books they have published bear ISBNs and are registered with Nielsen BookData (Amazon: [37][38][39][40][41][42] )(note: this comment was intended to confirm a factual statement, and not as an opinion either way) --User:SunKitten — Possible single purpose account: SunKitten (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
  • Keep I believe sweatdrop are the largest non-company based publisher in the UK. they have been in existence for 5 years, and have many of their products available through forbidden planet international. 2 of the members noted with 'tenuos claims' to notability, are currently working on some of the first commisioned manga books in the UK.
  • Because the group exists not as a company, but as a collective of individuals, supporting eachother, and often giving up profit, time and commercial projects to spend time on comics that make them little to no money, i believe sweatdrop deserves to be explained on wikipedia, as they are certainly unique within the UK manga scene, providing an alternative to the corporate publishing route, while offering opportunities to obtain 'notability'.--user:Palmer-san — Possible single purpose account: Palmer-san (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.

*Delete, as it does not assert notability beyond simply being a publisher. It also looks like we've got a bad case of The Socks on our hands. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 23:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)</a>

  • Weak Keep At least as notable as other small press publishers linked to from British_small_press_comics, given the ISBNs probably more so, though I've argued in the bast that some of those are nn cruft and should go. Artw 01:35, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Wikipedia should be the definative A-Z of everything, regardless of importance. If grotty little towns like Dewsbury are mentioned on Wikipedia, then why not a group of hardworking individuals like Sweatdrop. Regardless of what some people seem to think, Sweatdrop is not out for vanity or to advertise on Wikipedia. Infact a couple of totaly independent people took it upon themselves to list Sweatdrop because they love the group. I personaly think it's mean not to include things like this. I think you should have a definitve list infact; of Uk all manga producers.


This puppety thing as i understand, are people called from a forum for instance to defend an article such as this. The only people who have commented so far are me, and the pair who wrote the article to begin with, and the wiki wise Sunkitten.

We are not one person with multiple accounts, and we only comment because we care. We are also totaly independent of Sweatdrop appart from Sunkitten.

Wikipedia contains a lot of information, most of it totaly usless depending on your point of view.

I say keep the article, maybe you could refine areas you don't totaly agree with. Totaly condemning the article is wrong, especialy considering it's contents are all true. Look at the website, read the forums. You'll see that everything is right.

Wikipedia should be based on the truth, not on notariety or fame.

Most sub-atomic particles are niether well known, or perticularly exciting but they do exist, and are listed on Wikipedia. Why not Sweatdrop?

There are articles about total losers, facists, dictators, food, small chunks of ice in space, things which are theorised about in the future which nobody really knows about, assumpions about the end of the universe, even articles about what the word dickhead means. So why not Sweatdrop?

I'm not saying that these things are unworthy of an article, i'm saying that nothing should be. If it exists, is proven to exist, and that information about it is true, then it should be included.

Note: The above is just my opinion. If you delete the article then thats life. Although deleting this article because a few people decide it's unimportant or has some ulterior motive is kind of laughing in the face of truth. Sweatdrop does exist, it publishes books, and stands out from the rest of the UK manga scene. It's a fact, and that makes it important to include it. The assumption of vanity and advertising is a complete falsehood, based on some cynical observations by a couple of people who would do well to enrich their knowlege of this small but very noteworthy publisher of manga in the UK.

Go on, google up Sweatdrop, they have many mentions on other websites as well.

Well; here are just a few links:

[43] Sweatdrop Website [44] Sweatdrop profiles [45] Mentions of Sweatdrop on animeuknews.net [46] Mentions of Sweatdrop on eurofusion.net [47] Mentions of Sweatdrop on noated.net [48] Mentions of Sweatdrop on answers.com [49] Mentions of Sweatdrop on the manganese forums [50] Sweatdrop merchandise on sale online [51] Mentions of Sweatdrop on quarto.com [52] Sweatdrop merchandise on sale online [53] Reviews of Sweatdrop comics [54] Article about Emma Vieceli

There are many more than this by the way if you look, this is just what i have scraped off the top.

It may also be worth pointing out that if many of the other british small press people are worthy of recognition then Sweatdrop certainly are.


UKMXL 01:59, 14 October 2006 (UTC) WRH --User:UKMXL

On Hold: I would like to put this deletion nomination on hold. I have made contact with the several editors involved on this page: [55]. Perhaps this Call to arms that is happening can be redirected from trying to save this page here on the deletion nomination page. Instead they can collaborate on just improving the page. That is what this nomination is all about after all. We don't want another rubbish, unreferenced page that just has a list of members who don't even use their real names and don't have any content about what their Studio is about. The users user:SunKitten, User:Msproduct, User:Chaos X3, user:Palmer-san and User:UKMXL obviously know more about the subject than any of us could ever know and if they just put that information on the actual Sweatdrop Studios page then this article would not only be kept but may even be a good article. I think this is a case of new users who aren't exactly sure how Wikipedia works. They argue Sweatdrop is a valid page. Prove it: Pages need content, Be Bold edit the page, reference your work and the deletion nom will fail. --Squilibob 02:59, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I've attempted to edit the page, please note it's my first attempt at Wiki as well. I've given links to certain important statements such as creation dates, and editited the real names of members. There is only Foxy and Yuri that remain annoymous. I've also changed the some of the terminology to something you might find better. I've also linked each name to a Sweatdrop profile for now. If more info is required then only the original founding members can answer properly. I have also updated Foxy and Yuri's article to include samples of their work. --User:UKMXL
    Comment, I'd love to edit the page, and would have liked to do so when it appeared first, but I am a member of the group and I understand that that is frowned upon --User:SunKitten
    It isn't frowned upon. You are allowed to as long as you follow the policy stated on Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not:
    Self-promotion. You are free to write about yourself or projects you have a strong personal involvement in. However, do remember that the standards for encyclopedic articles apply to such pages just like any other, including the requirement to maintain a neutral point of view, which is difficult when writing about yourself. Creating overly abundant links and references to autobiographical articles is unacceptable. See Wikipedia:Autobiography, Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.
    Note the Creating overly abundant links and references to autobiographical articles is unacceptable. which is exactly why I nominated the page for deleteion in the first place. The list has been changed into a paragraph, which is better, but it still needs context and though there are links as references, they need to be links that confirm their notability. See Wikipedia:Notability. Are there any third party reviews of these mangaka? Reference to them. If all these people are popular, and it seems that they may well be, there must be something written somewhere by someone else about them. --Squilibob 08:43, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

keep i'd like to thank the member who offered their help with cleaning up the sweatdrop article earlier (crustacean man?) - i will be happy to update the article with some more information, but i am quite busy and find it difficult to get to grips with the format (altho obviously i'll try my best to make it decent).

i am not a sweatdrop member but have known of the group for just over a year and own several of their comics, books and the magazines they have been featured in. i also have a website with a couple of amateur reviews of their works (e.g. http://www.mangacite.com/Reviews/review_SD_stardust.htm )

the group is the major driving force in UK manga and therefore i would consider the entry on them worth keeping

  • Keep - I am happy to report that I wish to change my opinion to keep. After much discussion on the Sweatdrop Studios forum, several editors have added substantially to the article and it has changed from this to its current form. The page still needs some more references but there's no reason to delete it as has at least a dozen references to comply with Wikipedia:Autobiography, Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest which was why it was nominated for deletion in the first place. All my concerns have been addressed. --Squilibob 15:47, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Weaker Delete (consider it closer to Delete than to Weak Delete), the article has improved. It still doesn't really say anything for, say, their popularity. Amazon sources also don't do a terrific amount to establish notability, as I've found it's not that difficult to be listed on there. I can find several sources referencing them on the interwebs, but they all look like plain press releases, which doesn't speak much about their notability. We've had outright hoaxes come through AfD before that had extensive press release Google hits, and that's about it. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 18:55, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - I understand where you're coming from. I have asked them to supply some third party Reliable sources, which they have done, three unrelated magazine references. --Squilibob 02:53, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment; two of which are just talking about the artists as individuals. I'm not certain if NEO magazine is at the point of notability at which things associated with it become notable. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 03:08, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - A user has suggested this review as a review. I have found this one which even has some critisism. What do you think? I think the second one has some merit. --Squilibob 15:45, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - I've been avoiding all anime/manga-related site news and press releases because I assumed they didn't count as sufficiently notable and were not as neutral as sources such as the London Graphics Centre or UniOrb. That second review is in any case based on a press release issued by Sweatdrop at the time of release of the books it's talking about, which based on comments on this page again I thought wouldn't suffice. If it is good, then I have a lot more references I can add - SunKitten
  • Keep - They're an important and notable part of the British small press comics scene. I have a significant history in that area and I don't think most aspects of small press comics deserve Wikipedia entries, but this lot do. Peteashton 23:04, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep -
 To begin, it is stated in the attention box above.

‘Deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting heads (or socks)'

And so I put the fullness of my argument to you Consumed Crustacean. First, in relation to Neo magazine.

Neo magazine is the only UK based magazine dealing with manga and anime, and the only one to be found in non specialist shops there period. The only main competition it would have is in specialist comic stores from the American or Japanese version of NEWTYPE magazine. But, they have sole magazine coverage of the UK anime/manga scene. It’s a valid reference. But frankly, I don’t think it’s as famous as Sweatdrop is.

As a section of culture which only continues to expand in popularity, individuals who have no interest in that sub-culture may consider the likes of Neo and SD to be of no importance. However, that does not detract from the status of said groups. Those two groups along with the Tokyo pop Rising stars of manga competition constitute the core of the UK and Irish manga scene. Sweatdrop, through its tutorials and constant presence exceeds the other two in importance, is literally educating and supporting the next generation of UK and Irish manga artists, and frankly whether it is listed in wikipedia or not, will go down in history as the source of the organised manga creation scene in the UK. They simply can’t be robbed of that fact. Anyone with even remote familiarity with the manga subculture in the UK or Ireland has been exposed to sweatdrop. And the list of companies that they collaborate with includes industry leaders like letraset, Wacom etc.

Who are wacom??? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wacom they make the leading brand of graphics tablet used by artists the world over, but many people have no idea who they are, because of course they are only famous within the artistic community. My point is, just because a lot of people don’t know who wacom are, does not mean they aren’t of core importance to certain groups. Without them, the digital art community would probably crumble overnight.

And here, on wacoms site, wacom, who sell to the whole world of digital artists is Sonia Leong's work, SELLING THEIR PRODUCTS. http://www.wacom-europe.com/manga/manga.asp?lang=en&pdx=10 and on that page are also the words Sweatdrop studios.

Also, the references named above which 'are just talking about the artists as individuals' were to cite that Sweatdrop is mentioned before every tutorial said artists give in a leading concept art magazine which is read world wide a.k.a. the artists market themselves as Sweatdrop artists. When you consider the magazine in question has articles in it by the likes of ADI GRANOV and others who did concept art for everything from batman to star wars, names which might mean nothing to you, but once again, within the art community holds high esteem you have to realise Sweatdrop relative importance. It was made totally clear in the references that they accompanied tutorials by the artists in said magazines. It would be unfair to expect the magazine to allow a huge rant about Sweatdrop pre every tutorial by their members, and expecting such as proof of their position is unrealistic because that would never happen for any company.

For example. When you buy a pair of Nike shoes, you don’t get a 10 page rant about the company in the box. And the store selling the shoes isn’t handing out such rants either. Similarly, where Sweatdrop provides a service, there is no rant about them either. The very fact that they are providing the service, for magazines like neo, Imagine Fx, and companies like Wacom is the proof of their credibility.

In the October 2006 imagine fx magazine ISSN 9771 7489 3000 3 10> Sweatdrop is mentioned in the same breath as the biggest names in manga worldwide "other big publishers include Manga Entertainment, which is somewhat more focused on anime and DVD releases, Dark horse comics and Sweatdrop studios." -page 24 The fact that Sweatdrop in not an official company, but the blood sweat and tears of people with 9-5 jobs makes this ever more remarkable.

Imagine FX august 2006 page 27

Results of a competition run by Sweatdrop, and sponsored by IMAGINE FX, LETRASET, WACOM ,E FRONTIER AND TOKYOPOP are announced.

this proves a professional working relationship between SD and these very very respectable companies.

If you go to Tokyopop right now http://www.tokyopop.com, the leading manga publisher outside Japan, there is Sweatdrop artist Joanna Zhou featured, and advertised as 'of the Sweatdrop crew'.

Of note is that the article which was being judged here has changed to a degree that it is unrecognisable from the one set for deletion, for this alone, the article should be re-examined and re-voted upon after a short period to complete updating of the wiki.

Also, if you can find me another manga circle in the UK, or even outside Japan that can list credentials, and companies, and magazines like those Sweatdrop are associated with, ill be very very impressed. Credit where credit is due gentlemen. And in this case, that credit is your simple recognition of their right to be known. Various links have been provided, magazines cited in their defence, examples of their name associated with big companies within the trade.

I think you will agree, there is nothing unfair about that. At the very least deletion should be withheld for a month, to give time for the wiki, and a full list of magazine citations to be included. The problem is of course, any such citation can be negatively spun to being a form self praise, but, without it you doubt the importance or accomplishments of the group... How you resolve these two conflicting directives I do not know. Can you not accept all these references provided to you, and leave them out of the wiki, so it does not look like a list of ' look what I can do' references? It would seem that whichever direction they move in to appease you folks, they’re damned. Leave as in - not enough proof. Provide proof - tooting ones own horns.

Thus and for many similar reasons, the counter argument is flawed, and has failed to provide any proof to damage the validity of the citations provided.

Crustacean Man and the counter argument in general are being unreasonable in its view, as it was willing to be dismissive of the proof given. SD was asked for citations, and I provided numerous. Many of which were looked down for no solid reason. If Sweatdrop can be asked to provide proof , and provide it, then sir I say when you discredit that proof you must provide proof of your own, Questioning whether one magazine was valid as a source with the words 'I’m not sure' is unacceptable in such a situation, as you disregard the burden of proof you lay on others, and saying the other citations were just about the artists themselves when in fact it is stated plainly that they were bios quotes that accompany all of their tutorials in said magazine, and that I was quoting the bios to show hat the artists market themselves via the Sweatdrop name shows a clear willingness to pick and choose elements of the facts to reflect a distorted truth which favours your argument. This is unacceptable.

In addition to this, the links provided above, in respect to tokyopop and wacom, are proof undeniable for the case of keeping the SD wiki, where your current counter argument sir is based on mis representation of the facts I provided, which were cited in accordance with the submission rules of this institution. If you are unwilling to investigate my citations properly by buying said magazines , or contacting said companies to disprove said proof, then you have no basis to cast their validity into question, an by doing so you fundamentally weaken your argument to the point where it can no longer be upheld as rational. That is why I respectfully ask you to withdraw your argument at this point.

My argument is one filled with citation from site after site, magazine after magazine, company page after company page.

All the counter argument has done is attempt to tear down that proof with speculation. To any reasonable onlooker, the burden of proof overwhelms any current attempt to discredit it. Until the counter argument is willing to stand up, with proof to discredit these citations -you have no valid argument.


In closing I would say to the administration.

Sweatdrop has proved their existence, and that that existence is exceptional, through various citations from established sources. To include such citations in the wiki would be viewed by many as clear self indulgence and self promotion on their part, providing them with an angle to once again attack the SD wiki. Thus I ask that the issue of burden of proof of Sweatdrop’s importance to the UK manga scene and the validity of its connections to various leading creative companies be dropped as an issue, unless Wikipedia is willing to allow a list of shining citations which would only serve as self promotion, thus breaking the established rules against such behaviours. The burden of proof asked of sweatdrop by the counter argument was severe, and the proof provided was questioned in a very unreasonable fashion in that it was based on no valid source. A house of cards counterargument based on simple nay saying.

The only reasonabe decision, within a system which survives through the value of fact, of citation, is to disregard the validity of the counter argument due to a lack of anything but nebulous accusations and award the right to exist to the sweatdrop wiki which has clearly defended itself to a far more professional degree those who would act for its deletion.


James Gammell- October 15- 2006-17.08

Strong keep. I cannot fathom why this article is being considered for deletion. Sweatdrop studios is an important part of the UK Manga scene and should have a clear article on Wiki. As for the source of the information, as long as it is accurate I don’t see why we should discriminate against it. Butch-cassidy 08:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Strong keep. Sweatdrop Studios are very well-known in UK anime and manga circles. MoonShadow 12:29, 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. Dakota 13:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Patback

Extremely minor, unimportant character on the show. Character does not make significant impact, and only appears for a few seconds, maybe minutes, doing something unimportant. SuperDT 06:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per TJ. — TKD::Talk 09:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)Merge and redirect into List of SpongeBob SquarePants characters. — TKD::Talk 06:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete It's not even a character, it was just a face that Patrick made with his back fat. TJ Spyke 07:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Ah, you're right; I misread it originally. — TKD::Talk 09:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per TJ Spyke. PJM 11:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, very much non-notable. JIP | Talk 13:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable and I doubt there could be further information (with encyclopedic value) added to this article. Markovich292 03:48, 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. Dakota 13:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Smiley Grim

I proposed this article for deletion a couple days back, but that's been challenged. I'm to understand that the company/organization has no videos released. It was supposed to be some sort of reformation of a previous similar group named "Poly Bag Boy Productions", but I can't find heads or tails for this:

  • There are no sources for this.
  • The article's been moderately kept up since it was created in may, but doesn't have any videos then and now and its August.
  • With reguards to the article's creator's self-description: "He is also a writter for the Smiley Grim Film Productions company, which is owned by a friend of his." Wikipedia is not a vechicle for self-promotion.[1][2][3]
  • The owner of the company can't finish the videos just yet, and is taking directing classes to help improve themselves.(see talk)
  • Their offical website is a myspace page.
  • I cannot substantiate the claims of popularity in Scotland, and I reason that I will not as a result of what I've seen above.

As a result, I believe there are numerous and currently insolvable problems with this article. It should be deleted. My regrets to the author; please read the above. --Kevin_b_er 07:34, 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. --Sam Blanning(talk) 11:26, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mamoon Eshaq

For a "widely popular" singer, I find very little information on the web (60 ghits, 25 unique, most of which appear to be from web forums). Simply put, there's no evidence that this singer has met any of the criteria of WP:MUSIC. Zetawoof(ζ) 08:47, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, fails WP:V. Hallmarks of hoax / vanity absent of reliable independent sources. Deizio talk 10:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

This is a widely popular ethnic singer. I am gathering some articles from Zeba magazine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NeutralWriter (talk • contribs)

  • Please be careful to ensure that any external source is regarded as reliable. Deizio talk 15:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I will reference the article. It will be listed under references as soon as I retrieve it...NeutralWriter

I put couple references that I was able to confirm. I will continue with other reference souces as they become available...NeutralWriter

I'm afraid that those are not "references" as required by WP:V. Please provide links to reliable sources, rather than unverified notes about where this person may or may not have been featured. Deizio talk 15:25, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:MUSIC, WP:BIO. If he is popular in Afghanistan, why is his website in English? Also, we have no evidence of major distribution. Vectro 06:20, 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. Dakota 13:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fourth Rome

  • del. WP:NOR. Nonnotable speculation about USA becoming superwower, an essay loosely tied with the ideas of New Rome and Third Rome. "Fourth Rome" has no reputable usage in the way as the author describes it. `'mikka (t) 09:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • The article is a copy & paste of Third Rome with addition: The monk Philoteus claimed that there will be no Fourth Rome. However there is a fourth Rome already. However it does not claim decendancy from the Empire but from the Republic. The United States of America have re-established the foundations of Roman Empire through a republican constitution. Essentially United States of America has all the strtuctures of Anticent Roman republic. Delete original research. --Ghirla -трёп- 10:32, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • keep Article is explaining why the formal even mystical claims for succession of the anticent Roman Empire lost signifficance. Moscow being the last Rome. There was a shift towards substance and adoption of Roman statecraft. According to the political philosophers of the age of reason there was no merit nor legitimacy in mere tradtion. Spespatriae 10:41, 12 October 2006 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Spespatriae (talk • contribs) is the creator of the article that is the subject of this AfD.
    • Comment Above vote is from the author of the article. Danny Lilithborne 21:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom; WP:NOR. PJM 12:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as a non-notable phrase and IMHO a nonsense: USA has (thank God) not the same structures as the ancient Rome.--Ioannes Pragensis 12:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. The author removed {{adf}} template from the article, so it's not tagged for deletion any more. --Ghirla -трёп- 14:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. There probably is a better place for this material. Ideally, I'd propose a page discussing legends about the Roman Empire at which some of the material concerning New Rome could be merged and expanded, together with Third Rome and the apocalyptic hero the "Last Roman Emperor" who appears in the Apocalypse of Pseudo-Methodius. The Kliuev poem could be discussed here as well. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, confused WP:OR essay, and someone give the author his medication, please. Sandstein 16:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per it is a WP:OR essay. Hello32020 19:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete essay Danny Lilithborne 21:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as WP:OR violation, and damn close to a WP:POINT vio. --Aaron 22:51, 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 both. --Sam Blanning(talk) 11:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eminence Symphony Orchestra

Autobiographical and notability concerns. The page also is basically a press release, misusing wikipedia for advertising. Em-El 09:56, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages because of autobiographical concerns:

Hiroaki_Yura

Em-El 09:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep for Eminence, Delete for Hirokaki Yura. For eminence, there are no notability councerns. A google test for "Eminence Symphony" gets 100 thousand + hits. The orchestra also stands out for being popular amoungst people who aren't the usual orchestra crowd, as its choice of music is unusual (unusual as in unusal compared to most orchestras) comprising mostly of fantasy, video game and anime music. Many concerts, three albums released, not to mention they've been noted in reliable sources (see references for articles about Eminence from some of Australia's biggest newspapers). Compare with other australia orchestral articles like Melbourne Symphony Orchestra, Adelaide Youth Orchestra and Barrier Reef Orchestra. It's defintely notable enough for us to write about. Not sure about what you mean by autobiographical concerns, please clarify. Article is not a press release or misusing wikipedia. Section on staff and albums could possibly be cut down. And some more information on their history and choice of music would be nice. The fact that the article has been almost completely written by one user, who has made almost all their edits on this article is worrying. All that means is the article needs some more people do help by doing a bit of research and writing, and tidying up. But the article isn't advertising - although one could say it is one-sided, and it's certainly not un-notable. --`/aksha 10:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
    • comment this is probably not assuming the best of faith, but i can't help but feel slightly suspicious about the fact that the person who nominated this article was an anon ip who has made no other edits on wikipedia, and seems to have created an account only to create this deletion page. I have to wonder whether the nominator is making this nomination because he or she has something to do with Eminence in real life. --`/aksha 11:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
      • The google test is insufficient as one would need to put that in quotes, because of the commonness of the two words "eminence" and "symphony" and "orchestra." If you google the whole phrase you get less than 750. My main concern was the fact that it was all one person. That's what I meant by autobiograhpical. It seems to me that everything the person has written is written to advertise the symphony. I mean, who says "bold, dynamic and fresh" if you're not associated with the project? Also that phrase is taken directly from the "About us" section of the website- http://www.eminenceonline.com/2006/index.php?display=about_eminence Leading further to the belief that the one guy who seems to maintain this article s also associated with that page.
      • I also added Hiroaki Yura because it's related to this page as it seems to be the leader of this group and the same guy who maintains this article has also edited that one. It seems too much like vanity to me.
      • (I have made many contributions to wikipedia but have never made an account. I guess my cable provider gives out dynamic IPs. It's true I made the account to nominate this, but that's because I finally decided to "make the jump" as an editor.) Em-El 12:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
        • hmm...the intro does portray the group very positively. But at the same time, the newspaper articles (which are a genuin third party source) very much do so as well. Though phrases being taken directly from their group's own website is a big problem. The article defintely needs work, especially in terms of neutrality. It's already been tagged with cleanup as i speak. In terms of notability, i still don't think it's an issue. Eminence "Canberra Symphony Orchestra" gets me only about 800, which is about the same amount i get for eminance, so i'm not so sure how reliable this is. Google test aside, i think the face that Eminance has been documated by two of Australia's largest newspapers means a lot.
        • I'm going to hold onto keep. The article is notable, it just needs work, and neutrality, but i don't think deletion is suitable. However, i will change to delete for Kiroaki Yura. I've changed my ealier statement accordinly. --`/aksha 13:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak KeepA search of EBBSCO's Australia New Zealand database comes up with 4 references. Google News Archives comes up with one in Gameplanet see in Gameplanet. [56] The references in the newspaper articles refer to performances in relation to computer gaming. The performances referred to the article don't seem to have been regularly reviewed by the Australian press or the reviews aren't on EBBSCO's database. May be worth keeping but marginal. Capitalistroadster 03:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 03:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Eminence Symphony Orchestra and merge the founder's article into it. No reason to discard any information here. Dekimasu 03:29, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • To clarify, I am the creator and main editor of this page. I apologise for the occasional anon IP, that's my fault for not being logged in. I also was not registered early on, so that helps explain. I am the senior production co-ordinator from Eminence, thus I am in a position that gives me the most knowledge to write this information. I have written in as best I can so it doesn't come off as an advertisement, and wrote it in an informative passive way. I have avoided using terms like 'greatest group' etc for this reason. I must stress that this initially went up to be informative, and that it shall stay. Given that we are an orchestra and we perform to a sizable audience I believe it to be fitting to have an entry here to reflect this. I list the staff so the public knows who is behind the concerts, though if the Wiki community so desires I can shorten this. My main point here is that I as an Eminence staff member have been editing this, and therefore Wikipedia will not run into copyright issues. I create the majority of the text on our website and programme booklets therefore I am able to replicate this in a passive manner. I should have mentioned all this earlier, I apologise. Eminence fully condones the use of their logo and this article, that is not an issue. Should the article on Hiroaki Yura be requested for a merger I am happy to do so, I did not create it. Given my lack of direct Wikipedia experience I apologise if we have broken rules or created content incorrectly. - Nephtis 11:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or Merge Hiroaki Yura; Keep Eminence Symphony Orchestra, per Dekimasu. Vectro 16:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm not sure where to put an addition to my argument, so I'll put it with my other comments. By article's creator's own admission, this article is in clear violation of the guideline WP:AB (To quote: "You should wait for others to write an article about subjects in which you are personally involved"). Em-El 03:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment That's true. But i don't think it's appropriate to delete an article for AB violation. Put it this way, if ESO is not notable, then it should be deleted for being so. If we decide ESO is notable, but delete the article. Then the next person who comes along to create the article will have to start from scratch. So it's better if we keep the article, trim off anything that is violating Wikipedia's content policies (such as Neutrality and verificability), and leave the article there for other people to improve. I don't think the entire article is violating any wikipedia content policies enough to warrant deletion. --`/aksha 05:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I welcome any editor to accomodate my article, and if it is not objectionable to the editors, I will continue to add future concerts and albums to the page. Should notes be given in the editing page, I will adhere to them (such as not to include certain information etc) Nephtis
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- `/aksha 06:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Eminence and merge founder as above. enochlau (talk) 10:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep orchestra article; merge founder. (JROBBO 04:54, 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 no consensus. Deizio talk 11:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How to Make Money Like a Porn Star

Procedural nom, former candidate for speedy deletion. Deletion reason was CSD G11, though it doesn't look spammy to me. Abstain. MER-C 10:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as spam/vanity. Unsourced, no claim to notability. — Werdna talk criticism 10:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • PLEASE DO NOT DELETE. book is legit. Published by ReganBooks/HarperCollins (including ISBN #) and is first graphic novel published by said publisher, marking significant importance. Deletion requested by blogger with own agenda trying to impose personal opinion. User:Bohnah 10:16, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree that the book is legit and notable and that the article no longer reads like an advertisement. K. Healey. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.243.129.7 (talk • contribs)
  • Agree that it shouldn't be deleted. However the deletion request seems to be in response to the inappropriate conduct going on in the history. Next time follow Wikipedia's guidelines for disputes instead of clogging up the history with flames. -tekanji 222.228.197.217 10:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, as the page and the edits have not made reference to it's "significant importance", but have focused on selling the book instead. It's very clear which was the purpose of making the page. Without reference to controversy, it's just advertisement. The book name as the first graphic novel can be added to a page about the publisher instead.
  • Keep - Strauss is a significant author and journalist - The Game was a best seller and he appeared on several major chat shows when it came out. Page should not be deleted just because it was once spam.
  • Keep, Cleanup, and Semi-Protect Obviously this is a problem page, but notability seems clear from the above (significance of the authors + first graphic novel published by Harper Collins, which is significant in publishing news, although that point NEEDS a citation, not an assertion). The history of the page is rediculous as has been mentioned, demonstrating a value to at least semi-protection while the page is improved. -Markeer 12:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Please note: This is not Harper Collins' first graphic novel published (that was Understanding Comics, I believe), but rather the first graphic novel published by Regan Books (their parent company is Harper Collins). -tekanji 222.228.197.217 14:28, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Clarification: Above note is incorrect. This "is" HarperCollins' first graphic "novel" published. "Understanding Comics", and followup "Making Comics" were "non-fiction" comic books (as stated in its own Wiki entry), not "novels". User:Bohnah 14:47, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. No more notable than the average collection of drawings of naked women, drawn by guys who can't even hold down a job drawing Spider Man comics and probably haven't seen a naked woman without laying out cash. VivianDarkbloom 12:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Keep, I'm pretty convinced the significance of the authors makes the book notable. The writer and illustrator are fairly well known. Englishrose 14:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete If the authors are significant it can be ref'd at their page. Doesn't need its own spammy article. Eusebeus 15:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep due to notable publisher and notable artists, although it does fail the "appears in at least a dozen libraries" test of WP:BK; it appears in five. [57] --Hyperbole 15:56, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, spammy, no indication of notability on its own. I'd have used {{db-g11}}, too. Sandstein 16:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, Neil Strauss is the name of the rock critic at the New York Times. It seems to be a first something, whether all of News Corp or just that one imprint.–♥ «Charles A. L.» 20:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, non-vanity title published by a well-known house. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep seems notable per what's been said above, though it definitely needs better sources. (I can't believe someone wanted me to speedy it...)--Konst.able 13:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete See no reason why it being fictional or attached to an imprint makes it a significant first.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.240.136.82 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete Looking at the criteria- yeah, it's not cleared enough hurdles. Evan Waters 22:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Please log in with your account to comment here.--Konst.able 23:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Since when?–♥ «Charles A. L.» 03:47, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep it meets the needs of WP:BK it's not are place to judge the book suject or content in this process. We are here to judge if it meets our guide lines and it passes that.
  • Keep. I added a few references. It's not Shakespeare, but it has gotten a little bit of press. AnonEMouse (squeak) 13:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per MER-C. Ridiculous. Sort of thing that makes Wikipedia look really stupid and trivial. Morton devonshire 18:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. You're arguing to delete based on someone writing that they abstain? AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep because of the publishing house and it being their first graphic novel. The publishing company is highly notable and the fact that it is their first graphic novel is also notable to them and their history. I wouldnt rely to heavily on library penetration simply because of the title. --NuclearZer0 12:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Major publisher + established artists + news coverage = no brainer. Gamaliel 21:28, 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 move to European Soil Database. Deizio talk 11:27, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] European soil portal

No evidence of passing WP:WEB; Alexa rank of 69,000 for one of the URLs given, no rank for the other. Prod removed without comment. ~Matticus TC 10:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete or Merge into a new article for the European Soil Bureau Network - This article is about the nn website of what appears like it might well be a notable group. --Hyperbole 16:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Also supporting merge as section(s) of the more noteworthy European Soil Bureau Network article which has been created since this AfD began, though I believe it needs to be condensed somewhat to keep the waffle down and avoid unsourced statements. ~Matticus TC 08:23, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge or Userfy. Copyrighted source material needs to be referenced. Material cut-and-pasted needs to be reworded, more than just finishing the de-hyphenating work that remains. -- Paleorthid 19:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • There's useful information here, mostly about the "European Soil Database". I'd say either merge that information into European Soil Bureau Network, or else move it to European Soil Database. Either way, European soil portal should probably be deleted. Cheers, Vectro 16:32, 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. Dakota 13:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Voodoo_Chat

Advertisement/vanity page Cardigan3000 10:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - no evidence of meeting WP:SOFTWARE. I wouldn't call it spam. And it's probably not vanity either. MER-C 10:23, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete Vanity Page Knowing Is Half The Battle 05:48, 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 No consensus, so kept. - Yomanganitalk 10:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mark Tucker (musician) and Tetrapod Spools

proposed deletion of small walled garden of this artist and his defunct indie/underground record label, whose best-known release was the subject's own Batstew (200 copies released). The artist has released the album commercially on CD in 1996 on destijl records, but there is no evidenc he passes WP:MUS (no sign of any awards, gold discs, tours, or reviews) Ohconfucius 05:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Support of deletion and comment... Why didn't you WP:PROD this? The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 21:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • The article on the musician cites 5 sources and states that xe has released 3 albums, on a record label that the discography linked from the article on the record label indicates isn't just a vanity label for that artist alone. The linked-to site also tells us that the musician has been the subjects of articles in the San Diego Reader. This appears to satisfy the WP:MUSIC criteria. Keep. Uncle G 11:39, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: As a CD was released 10 years ago by a company that still has its web site and thus clearly survived, and that CD was a re-release of a much earlier album which is not done without good reason by a company that likes to survive. Should one here risk-free pretend to be a better expert? It also indicates that the music was not all too contemporary. — SomeHuman 3 Oct 2006 19:57 (UTC)
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Deathphoenix ʕ 20:52, 4 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, Yomanganitalk 10:28, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • delete allmusic.com has a very weak entry on a guy named Mark Tucker but it does NOT appear to be this Mark Tucker. Even if it were, his entire entry is a single album discography of an album with no review or track list. The album is from 2004, and is not one of the identifying albums listed in the article, which makes me think its a different guy anyways. There is no evidence that he is a notable recording artist. --Jayron32 23:23, 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. Deizio talk 11:41, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] John Nagle

Irish guitarist; doesn't appear to me to meet WP:MUSIC, but moving here from speedy-delete page for consideration of arguments raised on article talk page. NawlinWiki 11:31, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom, WP:NMG. PJM 12:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I haven't yet examined the article, but wanted to point out that the article's creator contributed an extensive keep reasoning on the article's talk page. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 14:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • delete No entry on allmusic.com That means he has not appeared on any wide-release recording. Also, acording to the articles OWN AUTHOR on the article's talk page, and I quote:

    "I felt that adding such an Artist to Wikipedia added to the collective knowledge from both a technical and stylistic point of view."

That is according to the articles own author. Sounds like Original Research to me. WikiPedia does not exist to make someone more notable. A subject must have verifiable notablity to qualify for an article here. WikiPedia merely documents established fame; it does not act as a means to establish fame itself. Additionally, I did a google search for "John Nagle" Guitar. I turned up a paltry list (1000) articles, and most on the first page were writen BY guys named John Nagle, rather than about. There is paltry verifiable evidence that this guy is notable. He may be a great guitar player. Being good, or even having a unique style, does not make you notable by WikiPedia standards. If his style is so important, people who don't know him personally will note that style and write about it in the music press. Then he will become notable and then he will be worthy of an article. Unless and untill that happens, he doesn't belong. --Jayron32 23:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --John Nagle 05:18, 16 October 2006 (UTC) (the computer scientist, not the guitarist)
    • Ok. Even though its not the same guy, this has GOT to be a near first... Humorous at the least. --Jayron32 05:28, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:MUSIC, but additional sources might change this vote. Vectro 05:47, 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. Dakota 13:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Function Point Workbench

Advert for a software product. Written by David Cleary from the company that produced it. -- RHaworth 11:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - 219 unique Ghits, many of which are spam [58], and the article appears to consist entirely of OR. --Hyperbole 16:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, perhaps speedy per new directives on advertising / vanity. Ad for another flowchart type application for those who manage programmers, which will never be of great interest to the general public. - Smerdis of Tlön 17:59, 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 keep. --Coredesat 04:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 1997-1998 United States network television schedule

Wikipedia is not a TV guide. Punkmorten 11:41, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Yomanganitalk 12:26, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, per nom. PJM 12:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • The mind boggles. Delete per nom this one and the rest of the series -
1995-1996 United States network television schedule
1996-1997 United States network television schedule
1998-1999 United States network television schedule
1999-2001 United States network television schedule
2000-01 United States network television schedule

and maybe more... OBM | blah blah blah 12:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep I'm going to have to go with keep on this one. If you look there are listings going back to the late 50's-early 60's regarding network TV schedules. Wildthing61476 13:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - I'm not sure that's a good thing. If a more accurate reason is required, it fails WP:NOT: "Wikipedia articles are not... TV/Radio Guides"...although in this case with a historic lilt. OBM | blah blah blah 14:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep The fact that there are dozens of these pages indicates to me that somebody is genuinely interested in creating them, and frankly, I find them useful, since they represent historical facts, and are really no different than lists of who was in Congress for a particular year. It'd be one thing if they tried to keep you up to date as to what's on this week, but this is a historical perspective, and as such retains usefulness. I just wish somebody would do this for other countries. FrozenPurpleCube 14:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I think this is an interesting set of articles and it could be a valuable resource for some users. --MatthewUND(talk) 15:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - Has historical value. Can't really be said to be a "TV guide" since the shows aired years ago. I think this is more a useful tool for research than it is indiscriminate information. --Hyperbole 16:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Manticore. A lot of people actually care about this sort of stuff. --Aaron 16:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep the whole series Index pages like these are VERY useful, especially as part of a cohesive project. The relevent Wikiproject states on its project page: "This is to guide the structure and normalize the standard of articles dealing with the Television medium and television series or other forms of episodic programs." This type of index page serves to guide and direct to the individual articles. Other lists like this are NUMEROUS and highly useful on wikipedia, and like all of those lists, deserve to be kept. Not to mention that under the most basic terms of notability (hundreds of thousands of people watched these TV shows) and verifiability (back issues of TV guide and other sources make it so) also points to keep. Finally, the guidline that Wikipedia is not a TV guide is designed to keep people from creating huge numbers of articles dealing with every individual episode of a TV show. Merely noting that a show existed, and when it aired, does not fall under that segment of WikiPedia guidelines. --Jayron32 17:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete All. Whether an article is "useful", "interesting" or part of a wiki-project, these are not encyclopedic criteria. Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed, as well as not being a tv guide. A directory is a directory is a directory; being "old" doesn't change that fact. If being "old" makes them "historic", then a bus timetable from 1953 or entries in a 1967 yellow pages is encyclopedic. The fact that the articles under AfD consideration are like "numerous" other articles is no reason to keep - multiple wrongs do not make a right. At most, these might be worth moving over to wikibooks, but they certainly have no place here. In their present form, they may also constitute original research. Agent 86 18:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
    • reply Except that bus timetables from 1953 or yellowpages from 1967 do not themselves contain notable information. Indices of notable information are notable by extension. For example; NFL teams are notable, so an article that listed, say, the league records from a particular year, listing where each team finished in each division and their W/L record is also notable; it is a way of organizing notable information in an alternate fashion that provides a unique perspective that would not exist except for the list. It is true that in this example, we could list a teams win/loss record on THAT teams main entry page; just like we can note that a particular show aired on a particular network in a particular timeslot on THAT shows main article; however, such notations also lack the context that a list like this provides. For all that say "delete": Please check WP:LIST to see the consensus standard guidline for lists. I quote the relevent passages from that Guideline page here:
      • 1) "The list may be a valuable information source. This is particularly the case for a structured list. Examples would include lists organized chronologically, grouped by theme, or annotated lists. " -- This list is a structured list, which is recognized in WikiPedia guidelines as a valuable information source
      • 2) "Lists can be used as a table of contents," -- This list serves this purpose: It directs people to specific articles about specific shows, within a certain context (in this can when they aired)
      • 3) "Some lists are useful for Wikipedia development purposes....Like categories, lists can be used for keeping track of changes in the listed pages, using the Related Changes feature. Unlike a category, a list also allows detection of deletion of pages from it, and, more generally, a history of its contents is available." -- Lists like this can be useful when working around a topic. By using a list like this, the relevent WikiProject can keep track of which information is still needed, what is happening to articles, etc. etc.
List articles are not just a large group of articles. When you say "The fact that the articles under AfD consideration are like "numerous" other articles is no reason to keep - multiple wrongs do not make a right." you ignore the place that list articles, especially lists of notable and verifiable information such as this, have within WikiPedia. List articles individually must meet standards of notability and verifiablity just like all other articles do. As a class, however, the entire concept of a list article is NOT up for debate and is a valuable and accepted part of the WikiPedia structure. --Jayron32 20:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
1953 Bus timetables and 1967 Yellow pages are nowhere near as important as nationwide TV programs. Comparing these things doesn't do your argument credit. And it's not OR, as it's merely facts verifiable by reading old copies of TV Guides, not theory on what a given TV show's presence or cancellation might mean. Which itself is the subject of some research, and probably belongs on some page or another. FrozenPurpleCube 20:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
I fail to see how an old outdated TV Guide is of any more use or importance than an old bus schedule or yellow pages entry. Importance is relative. Old bus schedules are of significance to an urban planners and social historians. The 1990 Thomas Cook train schedule might be of importance to train historians. Yet neither of these are encyclopedic. No importance is asserted in these so-called articles. The mere assertion that they are important, without saying how they could possibly be important, isn't enough. I have seen no citation of any policy that supports their inclusion, but there is enough policy to support their deletion. Agent 86 20:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
You missed the point entirely. Read the section at WP:LIST. Are you claiming that TV shows, seen and remembered by millions of people, are not themselves notable? If TV shows are notable, then by extension LISTS of TV shows are notable as well, especially provided the structure of this particular list. An article does not have to assert importance by stating in plain language "I am important". It is important because the information it contains is notable and verifiable. Lists are a vital component of WikiPedia structure. Any claim that this list is not notable is an indictment of accepted WikiPedia practice, unless you are claiming that network TV shows are not notable. Either proposition is ludicrous (that Lists should never be part of WikiPedia or that TV shows should never be part of WikiPedia) Lists are important. TV Shows are notable. Therefore lists of TV shows should be kept.--Jayron32 21:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
You seem to be confused. I mentioned the old TV guide's as evidence that this was not Original Research. Why you attached it to importance I don't know. The importance comes from being "nationwide TV programs" . Can you explain to me how that is uninmportant? It would be one thing if this list covered local programs. But it doesn't. It is about national TV networks, who also have other lists of programs broadcast on them. See: List of programs broadcast by American Broadcasting Company, List of programs broadcast by CBS, List of programs broadcast by NBC, List of programs broadcast by FOX, List of programs broadcast by UPN, or heck, the Category: Television Series by Network. All this is list and the others represent is a collation of that data in yet other form, this time providing the useful detail as to what date a program is on. To make this unimportant, you'd have to argue that all of those pages are unimpotant. Sorry, but I don't think you're going to get there. FrozenPurpleCube 21:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
I have no problem with encyclopedic lists. My only "indictment" is of the nominated articles, or any non-encyclopedic list cloaking itself in WP:LIST when it does not meet the criteria of WP:NOT. You can attribute all sorts of arguments to me that I haven't made, but the long and the short of it is that WP:LIST is a guideline that concerns itself mostly with style and offers little in relation to the determination of what is encyclopedic, as opposed to the policy that is WP:NOT. If one is to go strictly by the criteria of WP:LIST, I suspect almost anything, properly formatted in the manner provided for in LIST, would merit inclusion. I won't even get into the fallacy that all television shows are inherently notable (let alone "remembered") or that a complilation of "notable" things makes the compilation notable. Agent 86 23:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Ok, so when are you going to respond to the issue of Nationwide television programs? And what argument do you have to suggest that the time/year of a program being broadcast isn't notable? Every year, in case you didn't know, there are articles in papers, in TV Guide, about what's on and when. Every year. It would be one thing if these pages tried to cover every channel, including cable and independents. But they're restricted to the major networks of the time. If that's not enough specificity, then frankly I don't know what will be. FrozenPurpleCube 13:30, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep all this is actually, as odd as it is, useful and of historical value.-- danntm T C 18:56, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Neutral I might have leaned towards keep, but there are major league WP:V concerns here, not to mention that shows routinely get slipped in and out of various time slots as their level of success dictates. Also, what was played in Monday Night Footballs place in the off season, etc? I am not entirely sure this list is maintainable. Resolute 22:26, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
What verifiability concerns do you have exactly? Anybody who wants to read old copies of Network TV Schedules need only check archives of TV Guide or USA Today, or your local paper which may well have covered what the networks announced as part of their scheudule. Yes, you might have to leave your house to do it, but you can verify anything on this page if you want to take the time to do it. Yes, this won't cover every week of the year, but that's not the purpose of this list, and if it did try to cover things like that, it would become indeed become a TV Guide. That might be a bit much, though I'll note many of the individual TV articles do mention schedule changes. FrozenPurpleCube 22:35, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
WP:V#Burden_of_evidence. It isnt my job to research the veracity of this article, it is the editors. Resolute 23:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
And what you don't seem to get is that those sources are undoubtedly out there, and if nobody has bothered to specifically add it in the article, well, for me, it's a so-what. They still exist, and at best, it's a call for a tag asking editors to add them, not grounds for outright deletion. FrozenPurpleCube 23:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, and in case you havent noticed, I did not vote delete. I merely said that the lack of verifiable sources and the incompleteness of the list prevent me from leaving a keep vote. Resolute 23:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
And just so it is clear, I think you are mistating the case when you say what you did. There are verifiable sources, they're just not cited. That's not a major-league concern here, that's a minor-league one, if not sandlot, because this is not a case of thought or argument, just simple, non-contentious facts. If you want to say you think these pages should cite their sources, fine, but try to be more clear, as that was not clear from your original post. Sorry, but it wasn't, not to me. FrozenPurpleCube 23:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep all Notable, easily verifiable, and useful in research. No convincing reason to delete that I can think of. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's interesting, verifiable, historic, and a very useful way to see how different television programs (many of which already have their own Wikipedia articles), were connected to each other within a particular timeframe. --Elonka 23:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep all. While a list of notable things doesn't automatically make the list notable or of encyclopedia value, I believe these have that value. They're a valuable historical perspective on not only what TV programs were airing in a particular year, but on what days, times, networks and programmed with shows on the same network and against shows on other networks. It shows what programs were appropriate at family and late-night hours, what was programmed during lucrative days, and what shows lasted in particular timeslots. Gotyear 01:07, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep all It was a happy time for our family to get together for the popular trio of Nanny and the Professor, The Partridge Family and The Brady Bunch. But what years was that and which night? Wikipedia easily—and expectedly—provided answers. My biggest question was, Why are some years missing? So I contributed. Granted, few people will ever care about the articles in their entirety, not like more traditional articles such as United States Bill of Rights. Perhaps articles like List of Olympic medalists in badminton and 1953-54 United States network television schedule seem unencyclopedic because they don't explicitly provide context, notability or evaluation. If that's the chief objection, perhaps they should be tagged as stubs? — EncMstr 01:58, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep all. I find this format an encyclopedic method of organizing this information, imparting information not to program your VCR/Tivo, but to see the schedules of major national TV networks in a particular year. I'd argue that listing the programs airing nationwide in a particular year is culturally significant. The list is essentially a List of TV programs by year. It further organizes them by day, time and channel; this grid is intuitive and familiar. I wouldn't mind them being tagged as stubs to provide more information about the seasons they're in, and of course to verify with formal citations. TransUtopian 21:59, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


Additional comments: I got here via the See also in Television program, and was instantly interested in the juxtaposition of which programs were airing on which times & days, especially for the years before I was born.
Some do have short intros which put into context and arguably assert their importance. Additional information unique to each season, such as shows that move or are changed mid-season can be added. The ones with the years in xxxx-xxxx form can be changed to xxxx-xx form if they survive afd so thay'll fit the navigation bar fitted in some of the years. Gotyear 01:46, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep all. This survived a former AFD attempt a year or so ago, but it was nominated on another year page. Maybe I should create a Wikiproject just for this. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 06:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep all - Historical significance. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 17:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep all. It's not in serious dispute that American network television series are per se notable, and so if simple lists of such series would be appropriate, the only remaining question I see is whether these schedule lists are a useful alternative means of organizing that information. I say yes. Scheduling blocks do show meaningful relationships among programs, and these lists could be useful for pop culture historians. What is great about list/table articles is that they allow for multiple ways of presenting and organizing information (unlike categories, which diminish in usefulness as they multiply and compete), so we can list cities by alphabetical name or by population density, and we can list television series by originating network or by broadcast schedule. Postdlf 17:49, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep all. I have been using Wikipedia for many many things for several years. When I have a question about ANYTHING I check Wikipedia first. While the policy of "notability" and "verifiable" are very good standards there seems to me a conflict with that in some of the projects I have seen on Wikipedia (e.g. pages for state legislators, articles completing timelines). These projects imply a desire of comprehensiveness to some degree. Those things said, these articles seem to fall into line with the comprehensive drive of other projects. Verifiability? Yes, difficult. So, to me, it seems the question here calls for a balance between Verfiability and/or Notability vs Comprehensive and leading resource. And one more point to the idea of Comprehensive Resource: many other Wikias also imply a similar drive...things like Lyrics library, etc.tony garcia 18:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
    • regarding verifiability FYI, verifiability in this case is actually pretty straightforward. There are already published books that outline major network prime time schedules (I have one on my bookshelf at home, can't remember the exact title.) Simply citing the appropriate page of such a book would be sufficient reference. Another printed source is to look up major newspapers from the season in question, most of which have published television schedules that can be cited. So verifiability is not an issue in this case, aside from having an editor willing to take the time to actually add the reference to the article. Dugwiki 16:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep all Historical prime time network television listings are a non-trivial way to index and compare some of the most important pop cultural works of a given period. Want to know what people were interested in watching or doing or thinking about in 1976? The prime-time network schedules of that year give you a nice insight. Notable information worth keeping. Dugwiki 21:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep all per Manticore. Markovich292
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Deizio talk 11:45, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The John Legend Collection

sounds fake. no source or anything, google doesnt find anything. Shawn88 12:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Yomanganitalk 12:31, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete until the thing is actually released and we have some reliable information to put on it. Vectro 06:27, 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, as this is not a vote and no credible third-party sources have been presented to verify notability. --Sam Blanning(talk) 11:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Flightsim.com

Contested WP:PROD for a website not giving any third-party evidence for notability. I just deleetd their competitor Avsim.com as an uncontested prod. Delete unless third party sources show WP:WEB or WP:CORP compliance. Kusma (討論) 12:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Recury 17:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - one of the most popular flight simulator sites on the internet, has been around for about 11 years.--Nobunaga24 01:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Do you know of reliable sources that indicate/verify notability? Articles or reviews in significant news, computer gaming, or aviation sites? Lots of hits on google but I haven't yet found anything that establishes its notability, not just its popularity. To differentiate between the two, there's the proposed policy WP:SOFTWARE. While it's only proposed, it gives an idea. Gotyear 06:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Vectro 16:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Nobunaga24. Cynical 11:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge useful parts into Microsoft Flight Simulator: Community involvement Weak Keep does not meet the critera for WP:WEB but that is only a rough guideline. As per Nobunaga24, it is clearly one of the most popular FS sites on the internet. It has remained, relatively unchanged for about 11 years. On that ground I think that it is weakly notable. At the same time, the article reads like an advertisment and needs a rewrite. Mozzie 00:11, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  • comment - looking at the criteria for WP:WEB, it actually looks like avsim.com might have met the criteria even closer. Unfortunately, that has been deleted, but I totally agree, if this article stays, it needs a rewrite, and a close eye on the external links section, which gets spammed by everyone else who has set up a fly-by-night flight sim web site. I'm not passionate about saving it, but I think it genuinely deserves an article. Both it and avsim have been battling it out for a while now for the title of most popular flight sim site. Both are not just a few guys with a geocities account. For example, companies that produce FS software and hardware will frequently cite reviews by both sites, and avsim holds an annual convention that is taken very seriously by Microsoft, who, if I'm not mistaken, used it to unveil their next generation flight simulator. --Nobunaga24 00:33, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  • comment Perhaps there could be a section on the FS page for file archive sites, which are a major part of the community, which is in turn a major part of what FS is about, then flightsim.com can redirect to that.Mozzie 01:54, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 23:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Editorial Viability Assessment

A software testing methodology. Original research written up in some horribly turgid prose. -- RHaworth 12:30, 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 15:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Harris CTC U15

Vanity article about a school football team. Sorry boys, we Croydonians must keep a proper sense of importance. -- RHaworth 12:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - Fails WP:V and WP:NOR. --Hyperbole 16:10, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • "Delete' - Non notable on face value. The article even asserts it's own lack of notability: "Despite their all-star squad they were relegated to the B-league due to a fixtures mix-up which meant they only played 3 or so games.". An under-15 B-league soccer team that only played 3 games sounds damn unnotable. Amateur sports teams whose fans don't even number in the triple digits are fairly below baseline notability. --Jayron32 18:03, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nearly every policy in the book. Resolute 22:28, 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. --Sam Blanning(talk) 11:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] InCab University

Remote learning institution for our nation’s driving community (!!). So far it is an advert and probable copyvio. Is it notable? -- RHaworth 12:41, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

  • keep Has NPOV problems, especially since it is an advert, but a check at its google search turns up some interesting stuff. Memphis Business Journal wrote a full article on them, and they ARE accredited by a legit agency the Tennessee Board of Regents. They meet the baseline notability requirements for schools of higher learning. Article needs rewrite, but subject is notable. --Jayron32 18:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup per Jayron32 Cynical 20:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup per Jayron32. Vectro 05:35, 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. Dakota 13:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Td lind

Musician bio. Looks like autobio. Notability check please. -- RHaworth 12:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as vanity and OR. Subject does not appear to pass WP:MUSIC. I can't easily verify whether this person was in fact signed to major labels in the past, but his current label, "Tall Tale Records," returns only four Ghits - three of which are not about the record label. [59].
  • Delete a search at allmusic dot com, a canonical music site (think IMDB for music) turns up nothing. If he EVER recorded, or produced, or engineered, or ever appeared on any significant recording he would show up here. He doesn't. Ergo, he is not notable. --Jayron32 20:22, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete vain vanity in vain. Danny Lilithborne 21:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Save One search and oh the world has moved on, do you intend to delete every artist who has not signed for a major label? Should wiki have signed for Britannica?Stillfreewheelinfranklin 02:29, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • comment Allmusic is a fairly canonical site. It covers nearly every artist with an sizable distribution deal, whether major label or indy. If his albums are self produced and distributed locally or self-distributed, then no one knows about him, if no one has ever heard of him, then he is not notable. If he becomes notable in the future, he will then warrent an article. People who are not famous yet, but are really good musicians and just SHOULD be famous do not rate high enough to pass the bar on notability. Look, I have done more than you have in support of him. If you assert he is notable, just provide us the sources to prove so. A few independant reviews in the national music press ought to do. --Jayron32 03:21, 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. Dakota 13:49, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gigmasters.com, Inc.

Non-notable (fails WP:Corp) company. No reliable sources (and none found with a brief search). Appears to be using Wikipedia as advertizing, Google search for gigmasters -wikipedia produces three results, two to the gigmasters.com website. Edits appear to be by User:Gigmasters and User:69.120.243.181. Both these accounts have been used almost exclusively to add links to Gigmasters article or web site. Article speedied once. Second speedy tag removed by 69.120.243.181 with comment "fixed article" (though only change was tag removal). Siobhan Hansa 12:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC).

  • Comment This is a legitimate online entertainment booking business which has been around since 1997. Why is this being considered an advertisement? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.120.243.181 (talk) .
    • Because it does not meet the criteria outlined in WP:CORP. --Nehwyn 13:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
    • ... and because all of the other edits to articles made by Gigmasters (talk · contribs), 69.120.243.181 (talk · contribs), and Kkinyon (talk · contribs), across many articles have been either to internally link to this article or to Kevin H. Kinyon, or link externally to the web site. Uncle G 16:47, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Nehwyn 13:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, corporate spam. NawlinWiki 14:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete (category G4) - recreated article [60] — Tivedshambo (talk) 16:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
    • G4 does not apply to speedy deletions, for the reasons given in the very explanation of the criterion. Uncle G 16:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
      • My mistake - changed to delete, as per nom. — Tivedshambo (talk) 16:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Although legitimate (I've actually used them to book something), they fail WP:Corp.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Knicholls (talk • contribs) .
  • Strong Delete clearly part of an orchestrated spamming campaign to promote this website regardless of the harm it inflicts on Wikipedia. user:69.120.243.181 alone has spammed more than 50 articles with links to Gigmasters. The company clearly fails WP:CORP and this article could easily be removed under WP:CSD:A7. Gwernol 21:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Borders on G11 due to the level of spamming of other articles by this user, but I'll stick with a regular delete on this article itself. Resolute 22:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete per nom. 69.120.243.181 (talk · contribs) has been systematically spamming gigmasters.com throughout Wikipedia. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 22:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, adcopy for non-notable corp and vehicle for spamming other articles. Very few google refs - mostly forum chatter and reflinks. Kuru talk 00:28, 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 Urine therapy. Sorry, didn't realize a prior article existed. NawlinWiki 13:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Urinotherapy

Article accused of being pseudo science and not notable (few Google hits) Dweller 13:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment - I am neutral on this one and have brought it to Afd, having resolved a minor dispute (article did have speedy tag). --Dweller 13:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is already covered at Urine therapy, which is the proper nomenclature (140,000 Google hits), not "Urinotherapy" (848 hits). (Urine therapy is a very well known practice. Whether it's a pseudoscience or not makes no difference here - we have dozens of articles about pseudosciences, and even a category for them.) wikipediatrix 13:26, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Urine therapy. The term here is a protologism, which should be avoided unless and until it attains sufficient widespread usage and can be properly verified per WP:V. --Satori Son 13:40, 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. Deizio talk 11:48, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jalporte

Non-notable Musician- --Nehwyn 14:03, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Only gets 1180 Google hits [61] RedRollerskate 15:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete, no claim of notability. Vectro 05:39, 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 15:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Necroeconomics

Appears to be original research, cites only to article author's paper on iUniverse. Also including redirect page Necroeconomy. NawlinWiki 14:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment only: please see Wikipedia:Village_pump_(assistance)#Necroeconomics. For now, I agree it looks like OR. Lupo 14:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's unsourced original research compounding a neologism. (Side note: it's created by User:Vladimer Papava, which means if this really is Mr.Papava (not likely), there's a vanity issue - and if it's not Mr.Papava, there's a WP:USERNAME issue.) wikipediatrix 15:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. The topic (transition from stagnant command economy) itself is an interesting phenomenon but this low quality essay makes only disservice to it. Pavel Vozenilek 22:42, 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 -socking is futile.Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 02:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Matthew Karpin

May be noteable or not. I tend to think with only 55 google hits, he's non-noteable despite all the weaknesses of the Google test. However, I smell an attempt to bypass our WP:AUTO policy: on 12:20, October 12, 2006, User:Mkarpin created this article, and I promptly userfied it and informed the user 2 minutes later about WP:AUTO. Again three minutes later, new User:Mmgibson recreates the article, using exactly the same text. No thanks. Delete. Lupo 14:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. While sometimes it is acceptable for notable persons to write articles on themselves, Matthew Karpin is not notable. He has published only one (fairly unpopular) book according to Amazon.com. Google books returns no results in a search for his name. Per WP:BIO, this author is non-notable. Perhaps after he publishes a few more successful books, he will merit his own article. Srose (talk) 16:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Maybe I'll kick myself for this in twenty years, when Karpin is the Thomas Keneally of 2026, but in the meantime, notability is not established (no online references that are not either self-generated or plain listings; no reviews, no mentions in discussions of contemporary Australian literature, etc.). Robertissimo 16:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Non notable, vanity, autobiographical, and suspected sockpupetry. The perfecta... --Jayron32 23:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Canley 04:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Don't delete: There are 18 works, and 5 reviews, as listed in the Austlit database--the comprehensive reference source for Australian literature. (Are you all aware of this database? Perhaps not, which tends to indicate a super-power myopia.) Reviews are in reputable newspapers and journals, including The Sydney Morning Herald, The Australian, Southerly, and The Courier Mail. Amazon.com is not a good test for Australian notability. Thomas Keneally is a successful author in the sense of being bankable, but in Australian writing he is not the cultural high point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmeevans (talk • contribs) ([62]. Jmeevans is one of the two contributors to this article, both appearing shortly after Mkarpin had been informed about WP:AUTO. Lupo 07:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC))
    Austlit is subscription-only, unfortunately. The National Library of Australia lists three books (two as author, from 1995 and 2004, one as co-editor, from 1984). The library catalogue of the University of Queensland, where he is teaching (according to our article), also has only the 1984 and 1995 books, but at least tells us that he was born in 1959. All his other works seem to be individual poems or short stories. Lupo 08:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Don't know about super-power myopia; I don't live in one myself. More like lack of Google-searchable online archives for the papers mentioned. An individual check of each shows that the Sydney Morning Herald has a capsule review as part of a fiction roundup[63], pay-to-view only; Karpin may be mentioned in a new-fiction roundup in The Australian (2/10/2004), but the article is also pay-to-view; the site for literary journal Southerly has no online archive; and a search of the Courier Mail site turns up nothing.[64] Robertissimo 09:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Mind you, it is good--very good--to see an article on Alvirne High School. This notable high school had been previously neglected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmeevans (talk • contribs) [65]

First, please sign your comments: just add ~~~~ at the end of your messages; the software will translate them into a signature and a timestamp when you save. Second, thanks for fixing my typo. Third: if you want to lobby for a tightening of the WP:SCHOOL criteria, do so (at the appropriate places, not here!). But arguing about Alvirne High School isn't going to further this discussion here. Lupo 14:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, assertions of notability are much too weak for my liking. Lankiveil 23:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC).
  • Don't delete. Please do not bold your opinion more than once. Srose (talk) 16:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC) It is of course best to keep such comments as these short, but it will be difficult to say what I want to very briefly, so I hope some of you can bear with me. Lupo, I don't want to quarrel with you, really. You seem like a very nice person, even thanking me for correcting your inaccuracy--and also helping me by telling me how to sign my article. However, you're being a little obtuse, aren't you, in creating some magical boundary between commentary in your encyclopedia concerning schools and that concerning literature? The point, of course, is that the encylopedia--which should probably really be called a compendium--is stacked full of trivia. A very arbitrary browse would tell anyone that that is the case. Why would I want to enter a debate about tightening up WP:SCHOOL criteria? I also would have no interest in sticking a tag on the trivia I find. It seems to me inseparable from what this encyclopedia does--as well as providing information about important issues. It seems that none of the people who have said "delete" have any expertise in the field of Australian literature at all--perhaps no expertise in any literary field. I don't really know. It even seems that no one was aware of the significance, when it comes to considering whether or not to delete this item, of the Austlit database--a not-for-profit organisation, unlike Google and Amazon.com., which one of you at least immediately turned to. However, no one has said Austlit should be considered the most reliable source. It's been remarked that to access the database you have to pay; but if Wikipedia can't pay to see the best information to support its decisions then it is even more removed from expertise than otherwise. The group who have responded to the article by saying delete strike me as at best punters, with a general understanding--annoyed at someone not using the editing process correctly; and, at worst, a gang, arrogantly backing each other up rather than trying to think about the material objectively. Finally, there is a real paucity of entries on Australian writers in your encyclopedia, but no shortage at all of American writers--many of whom I have never heard of before and never will again. Of course this reflects on the people who have taken the time; but it also reflects what this encyclopedia is: seriously biased towards the US, at least in this comparison. Such bias is the responsibility of everyone to correct. I do tell my students, when they quote from Wikipedia, that it is academically regarded as an unreliable reference source. I am not saying this to be contrary. This is a real criticism and something you should all be aware of. But you will make your decision sooner of later no matter what I say. ~~~~—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmeevans (talk • contribs)

By the way, doesn't Matthew Karpin fulfil this criteria in WP Bio: "Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work"? And please note that the article has been considerably revised. ~~~~—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmeevans (talk • contribs)

  • Comment. Wikipedia itself is not for profit. Therefore, unless an editor on this site wants to shell out some money, Wikipedians cannot see the Austlit list. Even if an editor did pay to access the list, not everyone can. Therefore, it will be unverifiable, because most people will not be able to see it in order to verify it. American and Australian writers are held to the same standards. American authors must have books that are reasonably popular, and unless their book sells a million copies and is talked about in the press frequently, they must publish multiple, well-selling books. Where are your reliable, third party sources, verifying that Matthew has won multiple awards or has been reviewed multiple times? By the way, Google certainly is international in its coverage. If I can find boatloads of information on Estonian writers, why wouldn't I be able to find a lot of information on an English-speaking Australian writer? All of the editors here have taken independent, objective looks into the article as well as magazines, web searches, online lists, Google Books (which, incidentally, has novels by Estonian writers...), and news archives. Please do not insult or degrade us; we have been extremely civil towards you, especially considering some of your accusations. Srose (talk) 16:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • 15 October Don't delete. Entry is useful and informative about a published author with two books from quality publishers, short story in Best Australian Short Stories (2004) . All too few entries on Australiani literature, particularly about up and coming new writers. Large numbers of entries are allowed in other cases - US particularly.

'Maxjudge'—Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxjudge (talk • contribs)

Don't delete. What's the problem guys? Even if Karpin himself did create the original article and then got a friend? to resubmit it under a different name it's obvious the article is valuable in Wikipedia. The revised article clearly establishes a case to retain the information. (I've checked the austlit database, I have access and there are five reviews of Karpin's work in the herald, the Australian, Courire Mail and Southerley and another one, which are all very creditable pubs in Oz. Fulfils the multiple review crietera) I also see that the same author (jamievans) who revised the article created an article on the famous Australian writer Delia Falconer who hadn't been included before. This is all important stuff. Surely a big gap in Wikipedia, including references to the important mag Hermes. Important stuff. You guys are just ridiculous --Pop (Popallen)

  • Comment. Were you insulted? Dear oh dear. I don't think you should have been, any more than I should feel insulted. This is surely the argey bargey of debate. I'm trying to express this carefully, because I don't wish to offend: "Therefore it will be unverifiable" must be a special Wikipedian definition of veracity. The argument is: most people can't access the most significant of the databases in regard to this debate—only some can—therefore no one can verify the information. This is what we (you also have taken the liberty of claiming the collective) would call a fallacious argument. I can't imagine an argument of this sort standing up in any fair-minded forum. However, there is another fairly important point to make in response to Srose. The AustLit database is accessible via libraries in Australia for free—and I'm assuming this is the case with just about any library in the US (and most countries' major libraries). Obviously it may have to be organised at your end and would take a little extra time. You could probably do it through your personal computer at home. The argument that you have to pay to see the most relevant information is incorrect. The argument that Google provides the basis for Wikipedian information, at least in this case, and Australia's most academically authoritative source in this debate, the AustLit database, can't have a role, is surely demeaning to Wikipedia's relevance. Why not just rely on Google as your encyclopedia? (Jmeevans)
  • Comment. On second thoughts, I can't resist. Will you permit me just one little Australian joke: I think Srose might be a bit of a precious petal. (Jmeevans)
  • Delete Not notable. Also, strong evidence of sockpuppetry in the 'keep' comments above. Jeendan 00:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator; sockpuppets are irrelevent either way, this subject simply does not meet our WP:BIO guidelines and I see no other exceptional evidence to take into consideration beyong those guidelines. RFerreira 01:14, 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 JIP should know better than this; when the author of an article nominates that article for deletion, it is a G7 speedy, even if he/she "abstains" in bold letters. I am persuaded that this result is "the right thing" (and not just a technicality) because the article has only the club's webpage as its source, thus failing WP:V because of a lack of WP:RS. Xoloz 14:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Turun Baletti

It must look weird that I'm nominating an article for deletion that I wrote myself, especially since I'm an admin. However, this is a response to the deletion of SMFR (which I since placed on WP:DRV). I feel that SMFR and Turun Baletti are of equal importance, and the articles should be treated in the same way. This nomination has therefore mainly been made to generate discussion. Abstain. JIP | Talk 14:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment looks vaguely pointy, why not wait for the DRV result? Yomanganitalk 14:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I know it looks pointy, but it's not actually not so much, because I'm the author of both articles. JIP | Talk 17:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete around 100 unique Googles does not indicate that this is particularly notable, especially when one considers the vast numbers of hits that anything with an erotic context usually get. Please show evidence of multiple non-trivial coverage in sources of some provable authority. Guy 19:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
    • For that, I would have to live in Turku. SMFR has been mentioned in a Helsinki newspaper, but I do not know of any media mentions of Turun Baletti. JIP | Talk 20:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Does Turku not have a newspaper, or doesn't it have a website? I'm not going to search it; I don't read Finnish.Septentrionalis 16:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
        • Yes Turku has a newspaper and yes it has a website. Not living in Turku, I don't read the print version, so I only have access to the website. I couldn't find any "search" form there so I couldn't search for mentions of Turun Baletti. JIP | Talk 04:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Argh per Yomangani; why couldn't you at least wait until the discussion on DRV was completed? If you don't actually want to see this deleted, don't nominate it "to generate discussion" for your other article. Beside all that, it would appear that these clubs could be merged into a BDSM in Finland article which would help them aggregate notability. -- nae'blis 13:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I suppose you have a point. The original reason was the deletion of SMFR, which I would not have wanted deleted. In my opinion, SMFR and Turun Baletti are of absolutely equal notability, so Wikipedia should treat both articles the same way, especially since I wrote both of them. I'll wait for the DRV to be completed before making any further nominations. JIP | Talk 14:27, 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 speedy keep because the nominator re-nominated this within 19 hours of the closure of the prior AFD discussion. Such instant renominations have never been acceptable at AFD, especially when, as here, the nomination makes no reference to our policies and guidelines, and just repeats the prior nomination with no evidence or explanation that the prior discussion has been taken into account. See WP:POINT, Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#If_you_disagree_with_the_consensus, and Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Renominations_and_recurring_candidates. If there was a problem with the previous discussion, take it up with the closing administrator first. Uncle G 16:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Virtual Air Traffic Flight Simulation Network

Gamer nonsense and basically an ad for the gamer group. Other gamer groups like this had their article deleted. It is basicaly worth a mention in the Flight simulator article, as it is. OBILI ® ± 14:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy close and keep previous AfD was just closed a day ago with no consensus. --CFIF ☎ ⋐ 15:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete As I said in the first AFD: It is basically an ad for a website and software. Even if it is free, it still is an ad. Wikipedia is not a gamer website directory. TV Newser Tipline 15:10, 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 and redirect. Punkmorten 06:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fractal animation

Article was prodded and expired the duration but seems good enough to deserve an AFD. Just listing here No Opinion from me. Srikeit (Talk | Email) 15:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

  • delete whilst it has some nice images I don't think there is enough depth in material to justify an article. What there is here could be merge into a section in the main fractal article. --Salix alba (talk) 15:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I prodded the article for the reason explained on its talk page: it is utterly irrelevant. One can "animate" a picture of a flower by panning over the image; this does not merit an article called Floral animation. The possibility of animating a seascape by shifting the image does not deserve an article Marine animation. Neither does doing the same with an image that happens to be a fractal. The article is completely unreferenced and qualifies as original research. The Google hits for the term refer to something rather different (and rather more interesting) than what it is described here, and for that reason I do not recommend a merge.  --LambiamTalk 21:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and redirect to fractal art. Nothing here is specific to fractals. Gazpacho 18:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
    I agree that Fractal art is a good redirection target.  --LambiamTalk 23:39, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and redirect per Gazpacho. Maybe we can use some of these images elsewhere? Vectro 16:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
    I'll put a few of them into fractal art. Punkmorten 06:33, 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 delete. Deizio talk 12:00, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] UBA Urban Artists Records

Google shows 8 unique results for "Urban Artists Records", including the band's generic site, bandspace, wikipedia & mirror, myspace & a personal site. No reliable third-party sources found. TransUtopian 15:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Punkmorten 06:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Vectro 06:29, 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. Punkmorten 06:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] E.T.A.

Basically doesn't demonstrate notability. Movie in production. Basically crystal ball stuff. No IMDB link, can't find it from IMDB. IMDB page for Jonathan Cain doesn't mention it. No Google hits for "Jakina! Pictures" or "Jakina Pictures". Otherwise highly ungooglable title. Sources that explain why this in-production movie is remarkable would be terribly appreciated, otherwise, this isn't really going to fly. Prodded earlier as crystalbally, but removed for no apparent reason. wwwwolf (barks/growls) 15:44, 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. Dakota 13:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chris Berens

Appears to be a pretty much unknown media artist. I'll let the community decide. P.B. Pilhet / Talk 15:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

  • NN delete - even speedy Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! (Whisper...) 15:47, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Article is obvious vanity and filled with OR. Subject does not appear notable to me, and the article does not assert notability. --Hyperbole 16:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete a google search of "Chris Berens" turns up only a few relevent hits. The only major verifiable hit of note is that the one gallary that shows his art has done a bio on him. All other sites are in Dutch (which I don't read) or word-for-word mirrors of this bio on other sites. A single notation is probably below the notability baseline. --Jayron32 23:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete as non-notable and no real assertion of notability is provided. ju66l3r 01:43, 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: with no challenge to Pavel's assertion of notability, keep. It is the responsibility of those arguing to delete to watch discussions for new evidence and either reply to it or change their !vote. --Sam Blanning(talk) 11:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] VEB Plasticart

Defunct model airplane company. Wikipedia is not a directory for hobby shop folks. DesertSky85451 15:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete because it fails WP:CORP. Maybe it could be merged into Revell if anything can be said about it. -- Mikeblas 16:37, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: VEB Plasticart from Zschopau was one of _large_ toy manufacturers in GDR, selling their goods throughout the whole East Bloc (as a child I had similar to this). VEB PIKO (~1,000 employees) is probably the most know among these, several more are mentioned in [66] and [67]. Short overview of Plasticart production is on [68] (in German). These companies were very large, having de-facto monopoly and market that took everything. After 1989 they collapsed due to being undercapitalized, poorly managed and incompetent to market their products. Pavel Vozenilek 23:11, 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 --Durin 17:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fleshlight

This article was speedy deleted by User:Danny despite a keep consensus in past AfDs. A DRV consensus overturned this deletion after receiving clarification from Jimbo and Danny that the deletion was not a WP:OFFICE or Foundation issue. Danny does make an argument for deletion in the DRV which many commenters might wish to consult. This matter is resubmitted to AfD for fresh consideration. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 15:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment I disagree with Xoloz's interpretation of past AfDs. There was one "no consensus", and all the others were closed early and/or opened during a deletion review. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • ..., for reference, the previous nominations were:

For reference, previous deletion debates are here:

— Arthur Rubin | (talk) 06:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is a notable product, with a citation to back it up: "One of the best-known boy-centric toys is the Fleshlight..." Since the article has just been unprotected, I will add said citation and clean up some of the promotional text. --NE2 15:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or Merge into Artificial vagina. The article is a notorious target for spam and quickly fills up with marketingspeak promotional text. Wikipedia is not a shopping catalog. The use of artificial vaginas in human sex behavior is encyclopedic, but this product is just one product in that class and the article does not point to any reliable sources to bear on its notability. —ptk✰fgs 15:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and monitor super-closely for possible spamming. That this product meets our basic guidelines isn't really in question, the problem is possible/probable spamming, and that can be dealt with by editing (after all, we don't delete George W. Bush because it's a vandal target). --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • My first instinct was overwhelmingly to let it stay, but after reading the above DRV and taking other things into consideration, i'm now saying Delete. If the "Rabbit" vibrator doesn't get an article, then neither does this. As referenced above Artificial vagina covers the type of device and (correct me if i'm wrong) i thought that Fleshlight was just a brand name of such, in a Hoover/Vacuum Cleaner-type way. OBM | blah blah blah 16:10, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge current version only (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fleshlight&oldid=81028025) , to Artificial vagina. The probable disruption by the manufacturer and destributor, as described by Danny, suggest that the redirect should be protected, and the target article closely monitored. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Is disruption a rationale for removal? --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:16, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Disruption could be a reason for permanent protection, which seems contrary to other policies. Deletion might be safer. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
        • This is a pointless debate. The consensus of the DRV was that Afd should debate this. Afd is about deciding on whether an article falls within the guidelines of notability etc. As I understand it, if there are legal or other issues, this forum is not the place for discussing or deciding them. --Dweller 16:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
          • Not exactly. AfD is about determining if an article satifying all the critera for an acceptable article could be written — notability is only one of the criteria. If it is determined that an acceptable article could not be created, even if partially for legal reasons, a delete is in order. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:05, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep seems a notable example of a generic. --Dweller 16:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge as suggested by Arthur Rubin; I'm not convinced that this is individually notable enough. Sandstein 16:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Smerge to Artificial vagina. — xaosflux Talk 16:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
    • What do you mean by "smerge"? --NE2 18:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Thats a Merge/Delete vote as far as I can tell. I personally am leaning towards Keep however as this is a notable sex product thats been on shows like Howard Stern, and in Playboy/Penthouse/Hustler magazines.  ALKIVAR™ 18:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Sorry for the confusion, updated the glossary on this one as well. I propose that this is PARTIALLY merged, only keeping posrtions of it, then made in to a redirect. — xaosflux Talk 23:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep since the product is highly notable and monitor closely. Being a target for spam is the tradeoff one has to accept as part of being an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Silensor 17:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Silensor. Meets all of Wikipedia's requirements. Turnstep 18:35, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, this product is known to almost all pornsurfers due to their extensive advertising. bbx 19:03, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per badlydrawnjeff, Silensor, Alkivar, etc. --Myles Long 19:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete "this product is known to almost all pornsurfers due to their extensive advertising" and a dearth of reliable sources to back it up. ~ trialsanderrors 22:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, Delete, Delete and keep deleting it until it stays deleted. Atom 23:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
    • It's traditional to give a reason. Turnstep 00:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Since when have we started being traditional? After voting three other times for delete, it seems like a waste of time to say it again. Notable is not the only criteria. If we list every notable commercial product, and each one pursues commercializing as much as this article did before it was deleted, and tries to block other competing products, as the editor of this one did, we would be spammed to death. Look how much time we've wasted on it already. Atom 12:31, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
      • I agree - in an ideal world, things wouldn't keep getting renominated over and over for deletion, so you would only have to present a delete argument once. But at least you could have said "delete per my arguments at the last AfD." Believe me, those of us voting keep are as frustrated by the multiple nominations as the delete voters are at failing to have the article deleted. Turnstep 00:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per previous AfD results. This is obviously a useful product that has been mentioned in the press and should be covered here. I also have no doubt that our readers expect wikipedia to be the authoritative refrence work on the subject. There is also no need for an AfD renom just because some admin trampled policy and existing consensus in an unbridled rush to censor wikipedia and remove valuable sex toy info. --JJay 23:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment What is here (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fleshlight&oldid=81105744) at the moment could easily be added as a paragraph in Artificial vagina. What was here before was a good example of WP:VSCA, and was had nothing worthy of being said anywhere in Wikipedia. Perhaps an article could be written, but the place to do it is in Artificial vagina, and then split it out from there after it is written. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, delete, delete. The only time it's ever been mentioned in the press ever is one article in the Village Voice about multiple sex toys. Let's not let people advertise their sex toys on Wikipedia, thanks. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • What exactly is that statement based on? There are numerous press references for this product, easily found through google. --JJay 16:14, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or merge (who cares where) if this product is notable enough. What exists isn't big enough for an article and never will. SchmuckyTheCat 06:39, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, keep, keep per Alkivar. Grindingteeth 07:13, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • merge and redirect to artificial vagina. There is very, very little which can be said about the fleshlight which is not either original research or advertising copy. Guy 10:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to the article suggested by JzG. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 11:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Evidence has been provided of notability, and the normal practise where a page is the target of vandalism/spam is to protect or semi-protect it, not delete it. Cynical 11:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I originally wondered if this product (so widely advertised on certain websites) was worth an individual article. I'm still in two minds about that but that doesn't mean it should necessarily be deleted. If it's a relatively trivial example of a masturbation aid it can be merged to an article about sex toys intended for solo use. The Village Voice article suggests to me that merging is probably unnecessary; it seems to have attained an individual identity. --Tony Sidaway 11:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or merge per MiB, et al... Nn. Eusebeus 13:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep notable unique product. Article has a use. When I first heard about product on web I came to Wikipedia to find out more.  Funky Monkey  (talk)  14:24, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge. Notable enough that I've heard of it through press reports, although I can't give you a cite from memory. However, I wouldn't object to a merge to artificial vagina, of which it is probably the best-known example. Oh, and regarding the vibrator, a Google News search for "rabbit vibrator" gives 14 hits, has featured in Sex and the City, and it now has a feature film, Rabbit Fever [69] named after it: definitely a notable phenomenon. -- 80.168.224.225 14:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per a man in black. Not opposed to a merge, but definitely not a keep. Stifle (talk) 18:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge as having its own article is unnecessary when compared to simply having a short description in artificial vagina could suffice. The only other material that could be present in this Fleshlight article would be specifics on buying a fleshlight, which in itself seems to just be a big advertisement. Cowman109Talk 19:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - sybian was never deleted and merged into vibrators --Philo 23:17, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - a notable and unique product. the article could use some expanding. the only substantial reason for deleting is the possible spamming of that article, and every article is susceptible to that. Vivelequebeclibre 23:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - Meets WP:V, WP:WEB, and is very notable. If you think it is an advertisement I suggest you change it. It is a well advertised, well known, well BRANDED sex toy, it probably has some of the greatest brand recognition of any sex toy out there. The article needs serious work but based on a quick survey of what is on Wikipedia, I think this article is more important than the thousands of articles on homebrew sonic the hedgehog fan-fic video games thus should stay and should be fixed. --TrollHistorian 04:46, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Notability is something established by commentary in multiple non-trivial reliable sources. All we have here is an article in the Village Voice, which, as the article talk page notes, is running prominent advertisements for the products and is probably a paid affiliate. We have standards for notability, and a flood of product fans to this AFD will not change them. —ptk✰fgs 16:57, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
      • There is nothing in the deletion policy to mandate the deletion of an article on the basis of "non-notability". Perhaps there should be, but there isn't. --Tony Sidaway 17:46, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
      • But you did claim that there are no potential sources for this article beyond the Village Voice. That is patently untrue. There are numerous potential references. If you are interested, they are very easy to find starting with google. Also please provide proof for your assertion that the Village Voice is Fleshlight's "paid affiliate". --JJay 20:21, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Why is there only one article, and it's a survey of numerous products, if there are purportedly so many external references? —Centrx→talk • 17:33, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
        • I don't see a claim that there are no potential sources, just that there are no actual sources. (And, even if the column in the Village Voice is not a "paid ad", it's about babeland, and their claim that the Fleshlight is notable. Notability is not inherited.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:25, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per the comments made earlier at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fleshlight (third nomination), which still hold true. Yamaguchi先生 20:14, 14 October 2006 20:14, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
    • The best comment on the earlier nomination is Centrx's:
Why are none of these "many media mentions" cited in the article?
Where are these mentions? Really, where? —ptk✰fgs 20:23, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
It is massively reviewed and appears in many blogs. It is a lot of crap to sift through on google that is for sure. Eye Weekly [70] wrote about, a Nerve columnist [71] wrote about it. If you google "montreal mirror fleshlight" there are many links including an actual survey from readers (although not really analyzed) [ http://www.montrealmirror.com/ARCHIVES/2003/021303/sexsurvey2003.html]. Various bloggers wrote about it [72] [73]. These links don't really add much information other than people used and reviewed it. --TrollHistorian 02:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Except sometimes in discussions of Internet phenomena, blogs are irrelevant. And I don't think that Montreal Mirror article counts, either. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 08:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Why doesn't the Montreal Mirror article count it is an attempt at a survey of the readers and what they use. It is also mentioned 2 other times in the column [74][75]. Frankly it isn't hard to find links that aren't blogs: Seattle Post Intellegencer [76], Wired [77], NOW Toronto [78], Anchorage Press [79], Eros NY [80], some report on sex in video games [81]. I found 1 reference to a CNN story on it and 1 to a MSNBC news story on it (weird news) but the pages were down. --TrollHistorian 15:16, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
The Montreal Mirror article doesn't count, IMO, because the reference purports to come from a "survey", and we don't know what the "survey" contained. For all we know, the "survey" may have mentioned the Fleshlight, in which case all we could say is that one columnist, in an unedited (or edited only for libel) article, thought it was notable the first time. However, User:JJay has done a better job of adding references. (Why he didn't do this before is a still a good question.) If they pan out, and are "articles" rather than "columns", it becomes a (marginal) Keep. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:38, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Here is the survey questionaire [82]. It didn't mention the fleshlight at all. You can make the same claims about the columnist as you can with just about any research out there. This is pretty bad research but it is evidence. --TrollHistorian 16:59, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Alkivar, Silensor etc. Widely, internationally known product. Prolog 06:20, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a catalog advertisement for specific products. Merge any relevant generic information into other secual activity articles. --Tbeatty 08:31, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I really cannot see that this product is one with any fame, importance or cultural significance. It is a curiosity, and has perhaps picked up some interest in independent media, but nothing which is of any long term interest. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete (or merge if you must) basically if we keep this, then why not any other product. These things come and go, and really what can we say that someone won't find on the advertiser's website -Doc 15:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Negative and critical views? Duh. 75.35.193.2 00:08, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete for preference, there being no evident genuinely independent non-promotional coverage of the product. Failing that, as a poor second, redirect to artificial vagina. Guy 22:45, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Please explain that comment in reference to the existing sources in the article, which include a number of books from major publishers. Are you really implying that Random House or Chronicle Books are not independent or exist to promote this product? --JJay 01:08, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Pocket pussy is the slang name that redirects to Artificial vagina...this article is just advertising.--MONGO 04:49, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. notable sex-toy. I'v also seen the product in various articles on AskMen. --Madchester 05:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per JJay, Philo, TrollHistorian. --71.80.31.11 14:19, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per the above comments and flush G11 down the drain, what a horrible policy. RFerreira 00:43, 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 keep. Punkmorten 06:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aeroxchange

advert for NN-aviation retailer. Wikipedia is not a directory of corporations. DesertSky85451 15:53, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete the spam. RedRollerskate 15:53, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. As far as I can tell, it meets WP:CORP. -- Mikeblas 17:26, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Good references. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 18:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Badly written, very stubby, but the involvement of the numerous airlines in the creation of this company gives it some noteworthiness. Needs help to make a good article, but subject is somewhat notable. --Jayron32 23:48, 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 Speedy Delete per A7. Nishkid64 20:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blue Machine Marching Band

Non-notable high school band. P.B. Pilhet / Talk 15:53, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Strong delete, non-notable school band...--Nilfanion (talk) 16:32, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete, no assertion of notability. Recury 17:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete A7.--Húsönd 17:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete and marked as such. Otherwise, just delete. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 20:35, 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 no consensus. --Sam Blanning(talk) 11:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] International Virtual Aviation Organisation

  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}}

This is a procedural nomination, that should not be counted as an opinion one way or the other. This article was deleted by Eagle 101 (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights) on 2006-10-04 for being "spam" after OBILI (talk · contribs) had tagged it with {{db-club}}. The speedy deletion was contested at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Virtual Air Traffic Flight Simulation Network. Given the contest, and the fact that the speedy deletion was only 2 days after the new speedy deletion criterion for blatant advertising (#G11) was first introduced, it seems prudent to send this through AFD. Uncle G 16:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as not-notable. Doesn't seem speediable though since it claims notability (50,000 members or whatever) and the advertising doesn't seem that blatant to me. That said, I can't find any evidence that anyone besides people who play flight sims would care about this. Recury 17:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Very notable within it's own field. While I agree that the article needs a good re-write to comply with WP:NPOV (heck, a general cleanup would be good), that is not a valid reason for deletion (nor is lack of notability in itself), and the problem could probably be best solved with some cleanup tags; there's a lot in the article that could be re-used. See also discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Virtual_Air_Traffic_Flight_Simulation_Network; much of that could also apply to IVAO. --Scott Wilson 19:41, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete pending evidence of notability. I agree that the article isn't speediable and isn't blatantly promotional. Google shows lots of hits, but in the first five pages of listings I saw zero media coverage except flight-sim niche sites (I'm not sure any pass the reliable-sources guidelines except as supporting material) and Wikipedia mirrors. By that fifth screen there were things like one guy's user information. It's obvious that this is a group active in a number of nations, and there seems to be only one other group (VATSIM) of similar importance within the field, but I'd have to see some independent non-niche coverage before it meets WP:V. All the article's links are to the group's regional orgs, none to third-party coverage. Barno 23:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • The revision done since my 12-Oct vote improves NPOV, but there still are no independent sources cited. No change of vote yet although the group is probably notable enough to be included. Barno 13:27, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Although it should be re-written, the article is worth keeping. IVAO was founded in 1998, it is one of the largest organization of this kind, has an international user base and it is a legally existing organisation (NPO). Yrtgm 19:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Yrtgm (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic..
  • Keep What YRTGM said. Also there is a precedent as the VATSIM article was not deleted, yet it's a very similar organisation. I believe both articles have a place on wiki Babotika 20:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Canwolf (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
  • Keep Article needs to be brought to a more encyclopedic style, and it would be good to have some external references, but all in all, it is notable enough to keep. - Canwolf 21:13, 13 October 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Babotika (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
  • Keep IVAO is relevant within online flight simulation. However, the field itself is rather not-notable, which explains the lack of media coverage outside the flight sim niche. Besides, I wouldn't consider Googles ranking algorithm as a good indication of relevance for any site. --airborne 22:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Following Scott Wilsons idea, I just proposed a cleaned-up edit which should be WP:NPOV compatible. Feel free to revert. --airborne 08:20, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep IVAO is the 2nd largest organisation in online flight simulation. Mainly because of what said by airborne, Babotika and Yrtgm. TheSpecial 08:54, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I do agree with opinion stated above, no much more to say Yownos 19:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep but with extensive rewriting. -- AirOdyssey (Talk) 22:00, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete per CSD G4 TV Newser Tipline 03:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Query: When was it previously deleted? --Scott Wilson 13:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • The prior deletion was speedy, so I don't see the relevance of CSD G4. Tim 14:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • That's what I thought. I'm just wondering if I've missed something else. I only happened across this AfD by accident after some poring over the deletion logs. --Scott Wilson 15:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete I thought we got rid of this gamer garbage and it pops up again, but the stupid gamers come and recreate it against the rules. OBILI ® ± 14:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Take a look at the deletion logs. It was restored to go onto AfD (it has not been recreated). G4 technically only applies if it was deleted through an XfD process. (Also, calling things you don't like "garbage" is close to WP:CIVIL.) ColourBurst 15:52, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment As above, plus I contest that G11 applies to the latest revision. --airborne 17:06, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. This has made it to a few newspapers in Turkey along with VATSIM: http://arama.hurriyet.com.tr/arsivnews.aspx?id=94815 (others were printed papers). I think, it meets notability criteria. -levent 17:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. This organization is equally notable as VATSIM, which remain on Wikipedia despite efforts to delete the page using most uncivil and intemperate tones. --LukeKolin 20:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Apparently the gamer community has rallied, due to the owners of the gamer website asking people to save their ad. This is not right and yet another reason why this spam should be removed! OBILI ® ± 14:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Please try to remain WP:CIVIL, especially when making accusations of meatpuppetry such as this. Of the ten keep votes, while two (Yrtgm and Yownos) have only edited this page, VATSIM's AfD and the IVAO article, the others have been active since at least August and at least five (Canwolf, TheSpecialist, Airodyssey, İLevent and myself) are established users according to the '100-edit' rule of thumb at WP:SOCK. You'll get much farther if you try to counter the substance of users' edits, rather than trying to smear them. Kudos for putting the template up, though. This is certainly the sort of situation where meatpuppetry could happen, even if it isn't happening as much as you allege just now. --Scott Wilson 16:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Your negative attitude and ignorance of facts is suspicious. Maybe You were one of the eSkyWorld people? Yrtgm 21:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Please see WP:NPA. OBILI ® ± 16:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia is not for promoting websites. Ponch's Disco 05:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • IVAO is more than a website. It is a network of servers to simulate air traffic. -levent 08:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep the notability requirements are guidelines, not policy. That means that, where there is a clear case for doing so, it is perfectly alright to ignore them. It seems that there is such a case here. Cynical 11:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Cynical, not all of our guidelines can be one-size-fits-all, no harm in the retainment of this article. Yamaguchi先生 02:54, 22 October 2006
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 11:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Piazza Telematica

At first sight, this looks legitimate, if unheard of in English. The definition is remarkably vague, making it somewhat hard to figure out what, exactly, Piazza Telematica could be (a place? a service? a product? how does it differ from a hotspot?). The term is unheard of on English-language Internet (30 mostly bogus hits on Google), and there are only 6 mentions of it in 2006 on Italian Usenet.

But here's the interesting bit: what's odd is that this article started popping up in exactly the same format, neatly translated, on various Wikipedias in immediate succession. Compare nearly identical inital versions: pl.wiki, fr.wiki, en.wiki, it.wiki, es.wiki. Most of them are edited from the same or related IPs that have no other contributions.

I did some research and found out that the name is actually being used to identify a specific product by this organization. They apparently market it to cities and other communities, and fund it from EU structural funds. If yes, they would have a clear interest in promoting this term on random Wikipedias thae are used by citizens of the European Community. Moreover, on es.wiki and en.wiki, where named accounts were used, the name coincides with one of the founders of the organization.

Either way, the article is either a vague non-notable concept-gone-OR published on multiple Wikipedias by an anonymous altruistic polyglot; or more likely, a nicely orchestrated marketing attempt.

I submitted the article for deletion on plwiki, where I'm a regular contributor; I figured I'd make a guest appearance here to submit our findings for your consideration. lcamtuf 16:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Update: We also asked it.wikipedians for a second opinion - here is a link to up-to-date responses; they confirm that the phrase is used locally, but seem to suspect advertising. --lcamtuf 17:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, I don't know exactly what to make of it, but unless someone can point to some news articles about it or something then I will say delete. Recury 16:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Neutral, Uncle G's links at least prove it exists but it is still a pretty weak case for notability. Definitely needs cleanup to remove the promotional language. Would consider a redirect or merge to hotspot since it appears this is some kind of variation on it. Recury 17:31, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Pure spam. I've tagged it as such. --Aaron 16:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC) NawlinWiki is right; let's have precedent. Delete per nom. --Aaron 17:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per well-researched nomination, but removing speedy tag to allow full AFD and precedent if article is recreated later. NawlinWiki 17:23, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Some things that might help:
  • Excluding non-English search results for an Italian subject really doesn't make sense. Uncle G 17:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Actually, it kinda does, since we're debating the notability of a vaguely defined subject matter on English Wikipedia (as opposed to a mention in hotspot or no mention at all). Either way, it wasn't my intention to mislead others: the term certainly is used in Italy, but same can be said about names for thousands of other local phenomena (note, however, that hotspot and hot spot are used far more often on .it pages). I'm simply curious as to why it's propagating on various Wikipedias as a seamless translation. --lcamtuf 17:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Does not appear to be the same as a hotspot. Any spam that was in it seems to have been removed before I saw the article. Fg2 01:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. Seems to be what would be a public hotspot, except the article doesn't specify whether it requires wires. However, all the references are in Italian, so it may be something different. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:56, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - non-notable, advert. Michael K. Edwards 09:58, 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 14:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mollie Sue Steenis-Gondi

prod was removed by User:172.206.147.44 without comment. The subject of this article is a losing reality show contestant and a non-notable fashion model.

  • Delete. I'm the nominator; I fogrot to sign my template. Mikeblas 16:31, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. Unlike ANTM's winners and more notable losing contestants (Jade Cole, Sara Albert), it is hard to find valid sources for her. Perhaps recreate when more notability is established. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elcda0 (talk • contribs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brita Petersons

prod was removed with the comment that "a subsequent career has been used as a defense against deletion". That may be true, but the career of this losing reality show contestant is not notable. Mikeblas 16:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. RedRollerskate 16:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wholly non-notable model. -- Necrothesp 17:56, 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 14:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Helen Osborne Storrow Immersed Tube Tunnel

I believe this to be a non-notable proposal by a private group, based on this Google search. In fact, they might be using Wikipedia for promotion: "He said those who want more information can find details on the Helen Osborne Storrow Immersed Tube Tunnel at www. HOSITT.us or on Wikipedia." This edit makes that clear: "Sorry, this may not be the most apropriate spot. But we've got a close deadline"; "That puts urgency to make Hositt easily accessible (and WikiHositt understood, even if Wikihositt engineers need anonymity to work)." Their site doesn't even work! --NE2 16:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete, advertising. Some of the article almost sounds like an encyclopedia article and then other bits are obviously just promotional. Considering that the editors' intentions are quite clear, I think it would be good to just speedy this to discourage people from doing this kind of thing. Recury 16:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete, advertising. Set up a web site, folks. Gazpacho 18:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Project proposals sound like some one is trying to make WikiPedia a crystal ball. Wikipedia is Not a Crystal Ball. Until the project is greenlighted by the the Massachuesetts DOT it doesn't deserve mention here. --Jayron32 20:44, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. This topic could theoretically be notable even as a proposal if there were widespread media coverage and proper citations, but those are missing. Vectro 04:31, 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 14:39, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ms. Panther

prod was removed without comment by User:Bigkhrisdogg. Fails WP:PORN. Mikeblas 16:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Delete, fails PORNBIO.--Nilfanion (talk) 23:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, fails WP:PORN BIO. In other words, not a particularly notable porn star - no awards, relatively few films, no articles, etc. AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:22, 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 keep. --Sam Blanning(talk) 11:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Philip Sayce

Notability tag in place for 4 months and nobody's fixed it, so I'm sending it over here. RedRollerskate 16:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep - It's a mess, but seems to meet WP:MUSIC. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 16:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - Passes notability test with flying colors. a google search turns up album releases, independant reviews in the music press, etc. Also, an allmusic search turns him up as appearing on several Jeff Healey Band albums. The article is a mess, but poorly written articles does not mean that the subject is non-notable. He ain't Eric Clapton yet, but he's also not that stoner guitar player from down the hall. He's got some press. --Jayron32 23:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and replace notability tag with cleanup tag. Vectro 06:21, 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 14:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Force Powers and Special Abilities

If this doesn't qualify as listcruft/fancruft, I don't know what does. cholmes75 (chit chat) 16:37, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Exactly per nom. · XP · 16:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I'd prefer that this be nominated properly, as the deletable game guide it is, rather than just calling it cruft. FrozenPurpleCube 17:26, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete since Wikipedia is not a game guide, either for video or table-top games. NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 03:38, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comparison of one-click hosters

By it's very nature, this entire article consists of Original Research in violation of WP:OR. Also, WP:NOT a guide to this stuff, on Wikipedia. As potentially useful as it may, Wikipedia isn't the place for it; lots of free web hosts out there for this sort of thing. This AfD is also for Comparison of video services, for identical reasons and reasoning, and both share the AfD tag of the former. · XP · 16:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete both per nom. --Aaron 17:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • bla bla bla, its useful information! -someguy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.28.160.206 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep comparison of video services. It serves a similar purpose to comparison of media players.—thegreentrilby 18:43, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
    Unfortunately, both are almost 100% violations of WP:OR. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, WP:NOT an online guide. · XP · 14:56, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep both. They seem useful enough to keep to me. If there is an external page with all the information on (for either article) then that article can be replaced by a link on the One-click hosting or Video hosting service page. Otherwise, I see no reason to delete. NumberJunkie 12:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep both. This is really useful info and I see no point deleting it. Chris, Australia 23:34, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep both. Very helpful information. There are lots of other useful comparison pages on Wikipedia as well; no need to single these out and delete them. --Czj 08:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep both. I second Czj. There are several similar comparisons on wikipedia. Most of them are useful. If you think that all software/data comparison tables are in violation of wikipedia policy, than a larger discussion needs to occur to decide whether to keep or delete them. Delirium of disorder 13:06, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep both. It's not only very useful, as written above. It's an important comparison of comparable things. That must be possible in an encyclopedia to have a comparison. Doesn't matter if it is services or bird eggs. I think this is a compilation of facts, just like any other wikipedia article. Add the other articles as references. KEEP. -- Michael Janich 13:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep both. While it may be research in the broadest sense it mostly consists of the same hunting of stuff on official webpages that exists in any article, is it research to put the the table of processor information and drive size on the iPod article?. That and tables comparing items have long been in encyclopedias. From tonnage weights of Ships in the Fleet to grain harvests by region, you can find it. Yes it is somewhat almanac like, but there is no wiki almanac (and no real world almanac would touch it). Yasth 14:07, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep both. Or delete all. I don't see much differences with either of these to, for example, Comparison of virtual machines on the part of original research. Wikipedia is a great facility for this kind of stuff and it would be a shame to see these deleted. I can modify the table to better conform to WP:OR policies, but won't waste any more time before this argument is settled. --213.216.199.6 15:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep both, per Yasth above. Writing a Wikipedia article always involves "research" in the broadest sense, namely the evaluation and compilation of information from various sources. This is not the kind of research prohibited by WP:OR. WP:NOT also doesn't apply. Furthermore, and more fundamentally, the articles are clearly seen as useful by many, and removing them would not help our readers in any conceivable way. The deletion therefore has to be rejected on principle, without regard to any legalistic bean counter interpretations of arcane policies. After all, the policies were written to serve only one ultimate goal: the creation of an encyclopedia useful to its readers. AxelBoldt 04:20, 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 delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 11:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stamford Plus magazine

Concerned about notability of publication, and also because article's creator seems primarily interested in promoting magazine TJ0513 16:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with the deletion request, since I don't think that anything in the article can be considered to be for promotion purposes. It merely informs what is the purpose of the publication and who owns it. The notability of the publication comes from the fact that it is the only publication for the city of Stamford and has the largest circulation among local magazines in southern Fairfield County at this time (this fact was not included in the article, since it could be understood as a promotional information). Thank you. (Stamfordct 05:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC))

  • Delete This is in borderline G11 territory; material that looks like advertising copy and would need to be totally rewritten to be an encyclopedia article. And there is no use of independent sources in the article. GRBerry 14:49, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless expanded. Some circulation information/citations would be useful then for notability, I am from the area (and it may be my own ignorance) but I have never heard of it. By all means if article can be expanded I would like to see it kept, but right now I'm still a little skeptical. TJ0513 01:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per GRBerry and TJ0513. Vectro 06:23, 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 no consensus, as both the interpretations of WP:BIO here are arguably valid, and neither has any overwhelming majority support. --Sam Blanning(talk) 11:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Charlie Ahearn

fails WP:BIO as baseball in the 1880s was not "fully professional", and this player in question only played one game, and nothing of note happened. A search for ("Charlie Ahearn" baseball 1880) gets less than 200 ghits [83]. Had a prod tag on it for several days, before removed by radical inclusionist editor. There is just no need for these "athletes" who played one game, when many who have had full careers don't even have articles. Tony fanta 16:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep. Personal attack aside, I removed the prod because he meets WP:BIO as a professional athlete (which is true), and this can be verified via Baseball Reference, among other publications. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • (I always wanted to be a radical something.) Weak keep. My baseball knowledge is spotty, but this name seems awfully familiar to me. I think he's more notable than the article is letting on. Wouldn't take much to convince me otherwise, though. --Aaron 17:03, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete but not because he played in 1880. Many 1880's players could be notable. A guy who played 1-game in the majors, even in 2006, would be non notable. His entry at the canonical Baseball Almanac shows a) he lived and b) played one game. No other information is availible. Not notable, not verifiable, not worthy of WikiPedia. --Jayron32 00:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Notability is typically gleaned from the consensus guideline WP:BIO, which he does meet. Meanwhile, you've shown the verifiability. So what's this about? --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
      • reply OK Then. Lets open up WP:BIO and read the relevent sections aloud, shall we?
        • 1) "The person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field. " A 1-game appearance does not a widely recognized contribution make.
        • 2) From the section on sports athletes. Everyone reads the first sentance (which mentions that Professional Athletes competing at the highest level are notable) but ignores the rest of the guideline: "Third party verification from a non-trivial publication outside of publications by sponsors of the sport or activity should be provided to demonstrate that the subject is widely recognized—meeting the first criteria—as performing at the highest level." Again, the terms widely recognized and performing at the highest level don't apply to someone who appeared in 1 game.
Which brings us to the relevent points to be made regarding this AFD: a) Participation is not contribution. b) Cursory documentation of a name is not wide recognition. All we can verify about this guy is that he was alive and he appeared in a professional baseball game. Neither by itself is enough to pin a WikiPedia article on. --Jayron32 02:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
False on all counts in that final paragraph. Not much else to say, really. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Unsure about this one. I'm of the opinion that all pro athletes should get an article, though whether a one-game run in 1880 counts as "pro" is the big question. For all we know, he might have been just some random guy asked to fill in for a day while somebody was out sick or something. Witholding vote for now in case anyone has more information, but I'd say I'm probably leaning toward weak delete. It's also worth noting that there's a far, far , far more well-known person by the same name, who directed the very important music documentary film Wild Style and had a book published not long ago. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Reply Every pro (fill in the blank) is not automatically deserving of an article. Wide recognition of notable contributions to your field should be the baseline requirement. As I mention above, participation is not contribution. ALL subjects should have their notibility verified on a case-by-case basis. No single category of subjects should be offhand unworthy of inclusion, likewise, no single category of subjects should be offhand worthy of inclusion. --Jayron32 02:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I'd hope this were moved over to Charlie Ahearn (baseball player) when this is kept to make room for the other guy. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • WP:V issues is my main concern, he only played one game in 1880, in a time that they rarely listed players, and most players who played in only one or two games in that era is only known by their last name, which is an obvious problem and who knows if that's acually his first name and how baseball reference got that info. Unless there is more info avalible that isn't one of those websites, Delete. Jaranda wat's sup 02:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
    • How about CNN/SI? --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
      • They likely got it from the baseball reference, doesn't give much info Jaranda wat's sup 03:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
        • It doesn't really need much more at this point, it's a stub. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Still not any more information. Look, many people are verifiable as people. Many professionals are verifiable as professionals. You could find a website that listed me as a teacher working at the school I last worked at. You can verify I was born; when I graduated high school; when I graduated college; taxes I have paid. Lots of things are verifiable as part of the public record. That does NOT make them notable. Simply confirmation of my existance and my job does not make me notable. Does anyone review Ahearn's play? Are there any contemporary or historical records that tell us what he was like as a ball player; what the press thought of him; what fans thought of him? The fact that he existed and played baseball falls below minimum notability baseline. 4 at bats is well below the meaningful statistical threshhold to even extrapolate on his effectiveness as a player by a mere statistical analysis. There is no way to establish this guy's notability. --Jayron32 02:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
        • But you're not a professional athlete. If you don't like WP:BIO, try and change it, but there isn't any consensus for such a move. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
          • You know something, I am tired of you being a wet blanket over this discussion. Why don't you just let us discuss this like human beings and not nitpick around when someone makes a perfectly valid argument? Tony fanta 16:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
            • Thanks for your input. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Could someone explain to me how he meets WP:BIO? JoshuaZ 20:44, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Professional athlete. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Well, that's just what one person thinks. Simply being a professional athlete alone doesn't assure that WP:BIO is met, that's the conflict in this afd. It also should be noted that the American and National leagues merged to form the MLB in 1903, if that helps matters any. Tony fanta 21:34, 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. --Sam Blanning(talk) 11:51, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Red Dwarf: The Movie

Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. No news since April 2003. Erik (talk/contrib) @ 17:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep While Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, the fact is, discussion on this movie does exist, and there is information on it on their official website. At the worse, I'd say redirect and put the information on the Red Dwarf TV series page. FrozenPurpleCube 17:31, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: "Discussion" on the movie does not excuse crystal balling. You could invoke that argument with any movie with a different media background (TV series, comic book, etc) that's dragged its feet through development hell. Furthermore, there has been no news since April 18, 2003, according to the movie news archive on that official site. (I don't know where the "summer of 2006" edit in the article came from if their last movie update was 3 years ago.) --Erik (talk/contrib) @ 18:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Discussion that comes about as a result of releases from official sources, like the creators of the property does qualify. Not to mention numerous news sources on it, like IGN, who have covered it. And all your claims that this is old and out of date, and so the movie is unlikely to happen do is make this event history. That's the opposite of a crystal ball. And yes, there are some articles on movies in development hell. At most, I'd say redirect to the Red Dwarf page, but it's not like you're going to delete this information from there. FrozenPurpleCube 20:16, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Manticore --Alynna 18:32, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • On second thought, I'd be fine with any useful information being merged into Red Dwarf. --Alynna 05:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, discussion is not enough. Gazpacho 18:47, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Deleteper nom and Gazpacho. The topic is adequately covered in both the development hell and Red Dwarf articles (in fact, more than enough is mentioned in the latter). Agent 86 20:03, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Smeg it per nom, Agent 86 and common sense. I've been keeping tabs on Red Dwarf for a while, and the sad reality is that this film isn't going to be made, certainly not in the near- to -medium-term, and likely not ever. Nobody is going to be prevented from recreating the article if production ever actually does begin. --Aaron 22:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, there's nothing here that can't be said in the Red Dwarf article. Obviously if they ever actually start pre-production things change then...--Nilfanion (talk) 23:47, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete This isn't the place to present treatment for a non-greenlit scrip. --Marriedtofilm 04:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge into Red Dwarf. JubalHarshaw 13:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Red Dwarf has more than enough, so send it to silicon hell along with all the photocopiers. Andjam 22:53, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. An obvious candidate for deletion. —Encephalon 06:09, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge = Even though I created it in the first place, I can see why it doesn't deserva an article at the moment. Should it become a film, then the article should be re-created. until then, merge it. User:Tom walker 20:53 GMT 21 October 2006
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete - there seems to have been enough time for the creator to come up with independent sources. --Sam Blanning(talk) 11:53, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] LEI Financial

Seems like nonnotable corporation to me, even with the one source given; moving here per argument against speedy deletion on article talk page. NawlinWiki 17:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Falls well short of WP:CORP, unless there's better evidence than the advertising [84]. --Mereda 17:37, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I believe this contribution is not an advertisement and is a relevent to Wikipedia for the following reasons:
    1. the company is notable and is one of the fasted growning Real estate comapnies in the country.
    2. The company has been published in numerous works and many are non-trivial
    3. There is no self promotion of the any of the services only statements about the company and its offerings.
  • I do understand that the company is not a public company, there for is lacking stock market indices and is a young comany, there for not having a large number of non-trivial publishings, but the contribution, in my opinion was written in a very factual matter, perfect for Wikipedia. I do understand that I may be wrong and would like your opinion on how I may be able to fix the article so that it may accepted on Wikipedia.

    Please advise me before completely deleting the submission. Thank you Mferree --mferree 21:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

    • Comment The issue is not the article, it's the company. There are thousands of companies like this one. Second largest real estate firm in New York or LA would be notable. Seventh-largest in San Diego doesn't seem to make it. Fan-1967 22:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
    • If the company has been the subject of "numerous" non-trivial published works, then please cite them. Wikipedia is not a business directory. Purely factual entries can be written about any (registered) company, given that names, addresses, telephone numbers, and other directory information are facts. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, and is not in the business of hosting factual entries for all of the companies in the world. To show that Wikipedia should have an article on this company, cite sources to show that the WP:CORP criteria are satisfied. See BETDAQ#References and 1-800 Contacts#References for two examples of what you should be looking for. Uncle G 22:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Note: Mferree (talk · contribs) is the original contributor. Vectro 05:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete No evidence from independent sources of meeting WP:CORP. External coverage needs to be about the company, not just trivial mentions (rankings, directory information, etc...). GRBerry 14:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Understandable, please give me time and I will post the other non-trivial mentions. I only put the one because it was the only article I mentioned. I appriciate the opinions and help. --mferree 16:46, 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. --Sam Blanning(talk) 11:54, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dori Koogler

Notability. It seems that she's only published one book as part of a marketing spin-off of a popular TV series, and she's had only one broadcast media interview about the book, and she's done nothing else that's notable --Batamtig 17:22, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Weak keep I admit she's not very notable, but I think she still merits an article. Either way, though. P.B. Pilhet / Talk 21:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
    • If she's not notable, why do you think she merits an article? Batamtig 22:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, substub not saying anything much about the person, borderline A7 speedy. Failing that, redirect to These Our Actors (the redirect gives about as much information as the substub). Kusma (討論) 09:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete for lack of context (Speedy A1) Vectro 16:22, 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. Yanksox 03:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Acrobat down

Appears to be of doubtful notability in terms of WP:BAND, which it already fails for having no external sources. It looks as though they have only ever released one album. Contested PROD. Sandstein 17:28, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom; fails WP:BAND, WP:RS, WP:V, all the usual suspects. Vectro 04:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Inability ro satisfy core content policies (WP:V in this case) equals deletion, regardless of other stuff (which, per Vectro, it fails anyway). Cynical 08:34, 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 Speedy deleted as a re-creation of the previously deleted Qual.

[edit] Qual theory

This article appears to me to be at best unverifiable original reseatch, and possibly a hoax. For example:

  • The theory's supposed creator Thomas H. Kedznie (or "Thomas H. Kendzie": spellings in different versions differ) gets zero Google hits,
  • nor are there any Google hits for its supposed most dedicated opponent Arrhenius Fishner.
  • I cannot find any Google hits for "Qual theory" in the sense meant in this article.
  • There are no Google hits for the either of the journals cited, the "International Journal of Unified Physics" or "Quantum Chromodynamics Quarterly".

Contributed by User:Bytesizebrain, as their sole edit. Edited by User:WrAth2110, whose five edits so far include one edit to this, two to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qual, and one piece of vandalism to Fatah and its self-reversion. Ŧhis article is also the sole subject of attention of IP editor 71.201.92.252, which resolves to c-71-201-92-252.hsd1.il.comcast.net. -- Arthur Frayn 17:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Appears to be a recreation under another name of the previously AfD' Qual article, previously created by User:WrAth2110 and User:Bytesizebrain. Speedy deleting. -- The Anome 17:56, 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 close. You want Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. Please nominate this redirect there. Uncle G 18:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Platonic dialectic

This page was originally redirected to point to 'Platonic dialogue,' because that is the correct term to refer to Plato's dialogues. The solution should be to delete it entirely, though. The term 'Platonic dialectic' is not one used by scholars. 'Platonic dialogue' is all that is needed. Danflagrat 17:53, 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 14:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Afro-Kings & Ebony

Just because you have had a few famous "costumers" come to a barbershop, does NOT make your shop notable. Wildthing61476 17:56, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Orginal prodder. Heimstern Läufer 18:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as subject falls well short of WP:CORP.--Isotope23 18:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable per above. --KFP (talk | contribs) 21:36, 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 14:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mark Scarborough

Written by self, against Autobiography TOS. Furthermore, not written in a neutral standpoint. Bradcis 18:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:BIO and WP:VANITY. A shame that its original author, Owelles99 (talk • contribs • count) (whom I already told about this debate), hasn't returned to WP since last Christmas. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 18:31, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as subject does not meet WP:BIO as well as the lack of WP:V sourcing.--Isotope23 19:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete The nominator does not have any valid point for deletion. WP:AUTO is NOT a criteria for deletion, merely for rewrite. The fact that an article is poorly written, not NPOV, or even autobiographical, does NOT make the subject non-notable. That all being said, this subject is non notable. relevent google search of "Mark Scarborough" Poet turns up 86 hits. Outside of a very limited geographic area, his works have not been reviewed by any reputable national press. Even a search of just "Mark Scarborough" turns up a smallish list of hits, mostly related to OTHER Mark Scarboroughs. Sorry, not notable. --Jayron32 06:16, 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. - Mailer Diablo 14:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wormhole Series

appears to be a non-notable future computer game Hawaiian717 18:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. [Check Google hits] 38 Googlehits, very few of which are even relevant to the subject of the article. "OMBSoft" gets 4 hits. ... discospinster talk 18:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

X_2> This game is already finished and has a pending sequel. I've cleaned up the article a bit to reflect this. It may be 'non-notable' in the US etc., but in some parts of eastern England (a.k.a where I am) it is real and is quite popular. I also believe that judging this article on its Google rank or results (whether Wikipedia policy or not) is an extremely poor way to check an articles accuracy. It is factual information and therefore encyclopaedia-worthy. If you erase this simply due to its 'unpopularity' it doesn't really reflect what an encyclopaedia actually is.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Sam Blanning(talk) 11:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Troy E Hyde

bio of non-notable college political representative. Fails WP:BIO. Speedy tag removed by author. Akradecki 18:22, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, nn. Punkmorten 06:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Vectro 06:28, 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 Speedy delete a1 (empty) and r1 (redirect to nonexistent/deleted article). NawlinWiki 18:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quoteworks

Misspelled variant of the article QuoteWerks that was already deleted multiple times. A {{prod}} was contested by user:71.41.127.202. S.K. 18:24, 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. — CharlotteWebb 15:34, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 1-800 Contacts

Smacks of spam, fails WP:CORP. Claim of "largest in world" is completely unsourced. Akradecki 18:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

  • If lack of sources is the problem, then this, this, this, this, this, and this should help. Uncle G 18:37, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, large and well-known company with significant news coverage as shown by Uncle G. Needs expansion, but that shouldn't be hard. NawlinWiki 18:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep... meets WP:CORP.--Isotope23 19:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • keep I've seen this company's commercials, and they appear notable enough to me. -- P.B. Pilhet / Talk 21:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep notable company. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Subject is notable. They have run a national ad campaign across all media (TV, Radio, Print) for 7-8 years at least. Companies with those kind of resources are eminently notable. The article is crap, however, and needs a major rewrite. The entire article consists of a single legal case. Corp articles need to mention more on company history, sales, services provided, industry ranking, etc. etc. The current article would make a good section of the main article. However, badly written articles do NOT mean that the subject is non notable. This subject is notable, and should be kept. --Jayron32 03:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Subject is clearly notable, even without my lenses in. Nomination smacks of failure to watch TV for the past decade. I can't understand why there is nothing in the article about the company, its sales, history, ownership, advertising, etc., and the exisitng article focuses exclusively on a single lawsuit. Besides, what about the article "smacks of spam"? Alansohn 15:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Have a look at the at the article at the time of nomination. The content that you refer to isn't there because the sources used, listed above, don't provide any of it. Feel free to locate sources that do discuss the company's advertising, and to use those sources to expand the article accordingly. Uncle G 17:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Me?!?!?! I thought you were going to take care of expanding the article. I found some really great sources (this, this, this, this, this, and this) that should really help you with your task. Alansohn 19:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
        • No you didn't. Those are the sources that I listed above. As I said, they don't provide the content that you want. Read them. If you want content in the article dealing with the aspects of the company that you mention, find sources for those aspects, and then edit the article. Uncle G 09:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
          • Are you sure? I'm pretty certain I found these sources with my own independent research. I have already made additional changes to the article to expand it beyond the one legal case. Alansohn 06:48, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - as others have noted, this is an undoubtedly notable company... It is however in desperate need of a drastic rewrite and expansion. I'm frankly surprised at the small amount of information about a commonly known company. It looks like Uncle G and others are already at work revising it. -Porlob 13:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove It's about a company as opposed to about anything else. If it were 1800 contacts vs. WhenU that might be different, but add in all the company information and all of a sudden they're using it as an ad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.50.66.9 (talk • contribs) 2006-10-13 17:03:06
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

===Robert S. Kwok===Successful attorney, but not any more notable than a lot of other successful attorneys. Doesn't meet WP:BIO. NawlinWiki 18:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, subject does not meet WP:BIO.--Isotope23 20:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

It's true that Kwok is just an attorney, but plenty of other successful attorneys are important newsmakers and actors in their communities- and they are certainly on Wiki. Take John O'Quinn, Gloria Allred, Johnny Cochran, Ken Starr, Barry Scheck, Joe Jamail, and plenty of others. This article therefore does not deserve deletion. Deletion should be reserved for topics that are irreleant or are no longer changing. This bio on Kwok is neither of those—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.196.236.138 (talk • contribs)

  • Delete, and I disagree totally that his guy is anywhere near the level with Ken Starr or Cochran. hateless 22:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Resolute 22:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom -- Ritchy 22:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the people who want to delete this page don't know a lot about litigators. OK, this guy isn't Cochran or Allred, but he's won some major cases and is one of the best-known litigators in Texas. It's easy for ivory tower types to criticize, but just because someone doesn't show up on their limited radar doesn't mean their not notable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kas818 (talk • contribs) .

If you notice, we do have objective criteria which we use to define notable people for the purposes of this site at WP:BIO. Please offer us some proof of his notability rather than leaving things to your personal judgements and/or personal slights. hateless 23:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete The google test for "Robert S. Kwok" turns up 22 pages. If he hasn't made a bigger impression on the national media than THAT he is not widely recognized as a significant contributor to his field. Thousands of tort lawyers win multimillion dollar judgements for their clients. It doesn't make all of them notable. I did also do a search for "Robert Kwok" which turned up more pages (594) but a cursory glance shows that there are SEVERAL other Robert Kowk out there. The Robert Kwok that is a Physics Professor in Ireland gets more hits than the Houston Lawyer. Ghits are not the end-all and be-all of verifiability, but the neither the number NOR the content of these ghits shows ANYTHING about this guy's notability. --Jayron32 03:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Whoa! Let's all just take a deep breath about this. It's good to have these debates. No, this guy is not Atticus Finch. But he may be important regionally or recently. That's part of what's cool about Wikipedia- that as much information as possible can be assembled and put into a larger picture. Having more information about something is always more valuable than denying yourself knowledge. So maybe let this guy be. The information may be useful to someone. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 32Julie (talk • contribs) 13:04, October 16, 2006 (UTC)

    • comments please sign you posts on talk pages. Also, if he IS important regionally or recently, then there will exist a paper trail to document such. Post references to the articles found in regional newspapers that establish his notability. If such sources do not exist, then the article is unverifiable and thus needs to be deleted. We are not denying ourselves knowledge. We are denying ourselves unsubstantiated statements. If anything notable about this guy more than he's a tort lawyer and does his job very well, PLEASE PROVIDE SOURCES to prove that he is. --Jayron32 21:08, 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 deleted by Uncle G as "attack article and general silly vandalism". Zetawoof(ζ) 23:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Peter Watts (Australian)

A joke. Not a bad joke, but a joke. DCGeist 18:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

  • I think {{db-nonsense}} covers this one. If not, delete it anyway. Zetawoof(ζ) 19:22, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Hello32020 19:56, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. PJM 21:37, 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 no consensus, but this could probably just be redirected to the list of episodes without controversy. Given this, I don't feel it's worth relisting this despite the lack of participation. --Sam Blanning(talk) 11:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I Love Lizzie / Nosferateens

This article's content is already mentioned in List of Mr. Meaty Episodes. Gray PorpoisePhocoenidae, not Delphinidae 19:11, 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 15:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] James O'Keefe

Article was PROD'd then deprodded. Subject ran for state office on 2 occasions and held leadership positions in the Massachusetts Green Party, but none of this meets WP:BIO. I lean towards Delete.--Isotope23 19:41, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete wasting time deleting articles on small time political candidates is bad enough, nevermind failed small time political candidates. Resolute 22:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable third-party candidate, unelected and unchosen by the people of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. No other sign of notability given or evident. Deprodded by the serial deprodder and time-waster VivianDarkbloom (talk · contribs), too. --Calton | Talk 00:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment If you think that Vivian is wasting time with prods you should talk to her, but that isn't a reason to delete the article. JoshuaZ 20:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom note that he also fails WP:C&E. JoshuaZ 20:41, 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. - Mailer Diablo 15:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Standardised Notation for Musical Genres

This seems pretty irrelevant. If it is a real, widely-used notation style, (which I doubt) that needs to be shown in the article. Even in that case, it should probably be a paragraph in a larger article like Musical notation. The name is nonsense. Mrees1997 19:59, 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 keep. --Sam Blanning(talk) 11:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Raymond Buckley

PROD'd and deprodded, the subject is the chairperson of a DNC Regional Caucus. I don't see any evidence the subject meets WP:BIO. Concern has been expressed that this is a WP:VAIN or WP:AUTO violation as well based on the creator's username, though it should be noted that is speculation at this point. Delete per subject not meeting WP:BIO though.--Isotope23 20:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Changed to No Opinion. Somewhere it the bloated cruftiness of the article, I missed the fact that the subject once was a NH State Representative, which would meet WP:BIO. I'm going to tag the article for cleanup though because it is an overblown mess.--Isotope23 13:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as the original prodder, I say, not even close to notable outside the political circles of one state. Deprodded by the serial deprodder and time-waster VivianDarkbloom (talk · contribs), too. --Calton | Talk 00:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Reading WP:BIO, it says the following people are notable, and I quote:

    "Political figures holding international, national or statewide/provincewide office or members of a national, state or provincial legislature. (For candidates for office, see the ongoing discussion at Wikipedia:Candidates and elections.) " (emphasis mine)

    . He is verifiable and notable as such. He served in the New Hampshire General Court as a memeber of the House of Representatives for 18 years, and served in leadership roles in said body, including Party Whip. He passes notability tests with flying colors. Also, the fact that it is an Autobiographical article has NO bearing on the subjects notability. The subjects notability is verifiable by outside sources. The article needs a major rewrite to removed NPOV concerns, but it doesn't mean that WikiPedia does not need an article on this guy. Oh, and I shouldn't have to remind Calton to assume good faith and to play nice with others. --Jayron32 03:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Hmm, I guess I should remind you that AGF says This policy does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary, so you need to read past the first paragraph. So don't offer smarmy lectures when you don't know what you're talking about, it just makes you look foolish. But if you still need a hint, try here, here, here, here, and here. --Calton | Talk 07:39, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Still keep I cleaned up the article a LOT, but it still needs help. The subject is a former member of the New Hampshire legislature, and I have refenced verifiable sources to show such. That should remove notability problems with regard to WP:NN. I have left in most of the original information as is that I could not confirm via google search. This information should be cited with verifiable sources (doesn't HAVE to be internet sources, could be print reports like news paper articles or books). If not verified within a reasonable amount of time, I will return to eliminate that information. There is still enough here, however, in my opinion, to prevent article deletion as the subject is notable. --Jayron32 18:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I've striken the preface of your comment because it isn't the best wikietiquette to state keep a second time. WP:AGF, you meant no harm by it. I've also stricken all the unsourced information per WP:LIVING with no predjudice against it being added back if it gets sourced. What is left still meets WP:BIO.--Isotope23 19:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • No problem. I made comments on the Talk page that I would do just such. I figured we ought to give people some time to improve it. I merely noticed that he was a state legislator, and that he thus met WP:NN guidelines. I just added enough to assert as much. Thanks for your help in cleaning up the article as well :) --Jayron32 03:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I guess, statewide office helps him peep over the bar. Not going to be a candidate for good article status in this shape though. Deizio talk 20:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment yeah, it still needs cleanup... but at least it is sourced now and cut down to what is verified. I'd rather have an ugly sourced article than a pretty piece of original research.--Isotope23 20:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. This was a good deprod, and I'm glad the article has been rescued. Even if state legislator wasn't enough to meet WP:BIO, the fact that he was party whip is. Good job with the sourcing, trimming, and deletion of unverifiable nonsense. Captainktainer * Talk 04:19, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • comment added more information still. Hope it's getting better. Still stubby, but improving. --Jayron32 05:34, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep meets WP:BIO --Marriedtofilm 05:25, 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 close because no-one wants an administrator to hit the delete button, and merger can be discussed on the relevant talk pages. Uncle G 16:44, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Miami mafia

Super secret society that apparently contains one notable member - Drew Rosenhaus. I placed a merge tag on this article suggesting the content be merged with the Rosenhaus one (in fact it is already included there}. The creator of this article removed the merge tag after 6 days - see the talk page for more. From this article it impossible to tell who (apart from Rosenhaus) is in this secret society or what it is exactly that they do. Redirect to Drew Rosenhaus -- No Guru 20:16, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Further Comment. FYI a Google search for "Miami mafia" will return a multitude of hits almost all of which pertain to organized crime. A serach for - "Miami mafia" Rosenhaus - will return about 25 unique Google hits some of which are Wikipedia mirrors.-- No Guru 21:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • This is Articles for deletion. Neither article merger nor redirection require an administrator to hit a delete button. Only come here if you want articles to be deleted. Unless someone comes forward within the next 12 hours who actually wants deletion, as opposed to a redirect, I shall be closing this discussion. The places to discuss mergers are Talk:Miami mafia and Talk:Drew Rosenhaus, as the merger notices indicated. Uncle G 21:22, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Thank you for the clarification, Uncle G. I tried the merger route but the original editor removed the Merger tag. I see now I should have placed it on Wikipedia:Proposed mergers. You can close this now if you wish to. -- No Guru 21:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge with Drew Rosenhaus or rewrite to explain that the term is a widely used pejorative that refers to the network of Cuban exiles who have influence in Miami.--Zleitzen 23:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: The organization, informal and secretive as it may be, has been cited by major national media and certainly is a big deal in the NFL as it relates to how Rosenhaus, the most prominent NFL player agent, built his practice. As for the other matter that the phrase is sometimes used to describe an unrelated group of Cuban-Americans, I think that only becomes an issue if an article is created for that group and, even then, it is easily resolved with a disambiguation page or a clarification on the top about which is which. I conceed the point that more information should exist on this group. Since the sports angle is what I know, it's limited to that. Perhaps other information can be found that would add to its overall substance, to the extent the group is active in any other fields. MiamiDolphins3 14:09, 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 speedy: fictional disease from movie Zerophilia. `'mikka (t) 22:26, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zerophilia (Disease)

This article is about an improbable sounding disease. An editor marked it for speedy claiming patent nonsense. Another one was going to mark it a hoax, but found google results and now isn't quite so sure. This AFD is to expose it to a broader audience who might be able to determine if it is a hoax or not. Plain Google results turned up 1,640,000 hits, most of which are for a movie featuring a disease by this name with this description. Some of them, however, are for the International Organization of Zerophiliacs. A narrower search [85], attempting to exclude the movie, and limited to English-language results turns up 522 hits, some of which are still about the movie, and most of which are dubious at best, but may be genuine (look at this one). A google news search turns up 6 hits, all for the movie [86]. A google scholar search for Zerophilia turns up nothing, but one for z chromosome turns up 624,000 hits [87]. So, is this a real disease? If so, where are the reliable sources? Co-nom by User:Twospoonfuls and ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 20:26, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

  • As the nom who isn't sure if this is for real or not, I abstain. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 20:26, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Firstly there is no such thing as a Z chromosome, clearly the author is making this up or repeating something from some absurd sci-fi film. Secondly this notional disease would have to change its adult host's sex, patently this is nonsense. Twospoonfuls 20:41, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • No Z chromosome in humans, I should have said. Twospoonfuls 20:48, 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 merge into a single article, no need for AfD here. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 09:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Start of Something New, Get'cha Head in the Game, What I've Been Looking For, Stick to the Status Quo, When There Was Me and You, Bop to the Top, We're All in This Together, Eres Tú

Stub-length non-notable articles about songs from High School Musical Will (Glaciers melting in the dead of night) 20:26, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Merge with High School Musical Cynical 20:35, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge with High School Musical. Hello32020 20:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per Cynical and Hello32020. P.B. Pilhet / Talk 21:47, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per the above three. TJ Spyke 22:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per above. --Marriedtofilm 23:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Close Should be merged. Merging discussions do not belong in AfD. Merge and redirect them yourselves. --Jayron32 04:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Interesting case. They aren't non-notable songs, but I suppose they can be adequately covered in the same article. However, I would recommend merging them to High School Musical (album) rather than the article about the film. Also, I would change the target of Eres Tú to Eres Tu (actually, I would recommend that Eres Tu be moved to Eres Tú and that Eres Tu be the redirect, but that's another matter), which is a disambiguation page including the undeniably notable Eres Tú (1973 song). GassyGuy
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 WP:CSD:A7 spam. Gwernol 21:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Farmer Wink

This page is just being used to promote a radio station and book, and the person in question is not of any significant importance. Lee Stanley 20:37, 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 per CSD A7. Naconkantari 22:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sade Faison

Prod removed without comment. Supposedly "a 15-year old R&B/Pop singer that is definitely on the rise". Only sources are sites where you can add yourself (myspace, indie911, ubl.com.) Google search gets 40 total hits, 18 unique. Looks like pretty clear failure of WP:MUSIC. -- Fan-1967 21:03, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Well, she is featured on a major radio station's website where you can request her song, and has an official website: saderocks.com - Because, there's obviously a problem with artists with websites where you can add yourselves. But, Indie911 and UBL aren't those type of websites, because you cant add, or join as a friend or anything. It's a artist showcase website, like MTV.com, or MP3.com. The only website thats listed in the article where you can add yourself is myspace.com/saderocks.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Saderocks (talk • contribs)
  • Comment Please read the standards at WP:MUSIC. Indie911 and UBL list anyone who will pay for it, while myspace is free. Having a website likewise counts for nothing, because anyone can get one for 50 bucks, though it seems you may have forgotten to pay your bill. Yours has been shut down → http://www.saderocks.com/ Fan-1967 21:57, 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. As it stands notability hasn't even been asserted, let alone verified by credible sources, so the fact that this discussion has received little participation apart from that of single purpose accounts (who can be discounted) is rendered irrelevant by the fact that policy is to delete such articles anyway. --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aetolia, the Midnight Age

As per the prod made 17/07/06; No claim of notability. Prod removed by Lor772 with the comment This is quite a notable game, existing alongside Achaea as its sole sister project for many years. However there is no claim of notability in the article (which almost resembles a game guide.) Marasmusine 21:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Weak keep Seems to be notable. P.B. Pilhet / Talk 21:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Thinly-veiled advertisement for a pay-for-play text game. [89] —Cryptic 00:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • KEEP IT! I've been playing this game for years and there is no requirement to pay to play.
  • KEEP IT* I play, it's very useful to those who play, and in addition as the previous poster meant, paying is OPTIONAL to play this game.
  • KEEP IT! I've been playing this game for years off and on, and find it to be the best of all IRE games. I've read through all the information and it seems notable information and credible in entirety. Paying is optional, it is not enforced. A player can earn the 'credits' that you can purchase within the game relatively easily currently. If you do decide to pay, or buy, it is your own choice if you want to. But I know many people who have played without paying a single dime, and have instead earned credits over time and work. If you are looking for a place to roleplay that is unique, this is it.
    • Comment; the issue is not if it is a commercial game or not, but if it is notable. The article doesn't even claim any notability.
  • KEEP IT!!!* this is NOT a pay to play game.
  • KEEP IT* As one of the biggest and most notable MUDs left in the world I think the notability need not be brought up more than it has. The millions of people that play MMORPGs should be at the very least interested in a prime example of what made developers willing to produce the new, impressive, and impressively expensive games on the market.
    • With all due respect to the above anonymous users, it doesn't seem like they have read WP:Notability. Here's a bit: In order to have a verifiable article, a topic must be notable enough that it will be described by multiple independent reliable sources. No such sources are cited in the article. Perhaps as players of the game you could find some? Marasmusine 21:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • KEEP IT* The only websites associated with Iron Realms Entertainment in the External Links section are www.achaea.com and www.ironrealms.com All the other sites are not affiliated with the company in any way.
    • They are also almost entirely links normally to be avoided. Marasmusine 22:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Seems to me that perhaps all articles related to Iron Realms Entertainment need to be merged into one article then. This article, the one on Achaea, Imperian, Lusternia and all the others ought to be redirected to Irone Realms Entertainment then each mud ought to have its own section under the Iron Realms Entertainment Article.
  • Keep. There is no good reason to delete this article, it is valid information on a game not an advertisement.
      • KEEEEP ITTTT Aetolia's effing leet! It's an elaborate, complex, and yet so FULFILLING game! I keep more up-to-date with it than I do the local news! I shower more on there than do I in real life! Aetolia is a drug. Keep it.
        • Comment: Hello anonymous user, I'm glad that you enjoy it but the quality of the game is irrelevant. What we are looking at is notability. Now it's mentioned above that Aetolia is "one of the biggest and most notable MUDs", but this isn't shown in the article. It would be good if that statement can be backed up. Lt Penguins idea for merging Iron Realms Entertainment with the four games into one article is interesting but even looking at those, not a single cited claim of notability has been made. Marasmusine 06:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep though meatpuppets/single-purpose accounts have attempted to sway this AfD, the article seems quite detailed. Note I have removed many of the external links: Wikipedia is not a respoitory of links. — Gary Kirk // talk! 14:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes, it's quite detailed. Original research is like that. —Cryptic 21:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  • KEEP IT! Well apparently www.topmudsites.com thinks that Aetolia is of some note. I mean, Aetolia as well as the other IRE games have been in their top 10 for months. (in the case of Achaea a couple years)
    • Yes, and? Unless there are independent, reliable sources for the information in the article, we can't keep it regardless of how wonderful its players think it is. See WP:SOFTWARE for guidelines on the sort of software articles we include. Convincing the players to click on a button on another web site every day for months isn't one of the criteria. —Cryptic 21:14, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
      • The information in the article is about a fictional game world. How can fictional information that is made up by the creators of said game world be independently verified?
        • Comment: It's not the 'story' content that is the issue, but the game itself. From WP:SOFTWARE: Software is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria: 1. The software package has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself.... (etc) Now of the 'reviews' linked from the article, Frappr doesn't contain any information (apart from some kind of player map), and GameOgre and GameSpy merely print the cut-and-paste advertising blurb with NO user or staff reviews or scores. Marasmusine 22:22, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
          • What is the justification for all the other text muds that are listed under the MU* category then? Why is Aetolia the only one being deleted? Achaea has been the subject of an article by Dr. Bartlet, a feature on the TechTV show The Screen Savers, as well as a few other sources. Thus by your criteria I understand why Achaea MUD is an article. Aetolia is made by the same company (Iron Realms Entertainment) which makes Achaea, Lusternia and the others. I've reviewed some of the other muds listed and they do not meet the criteria by which Aetolia is in danger of being deleted under... why is that?
            • Because they haven't been deleted yet. Inclusion is not an indicator of notability. Feel free to nominate them. —Cryptic 22:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
              • With all due respect to Cryptic, this policy might need to be revised in regards to text based Muds, Mushes, Mux, etc. This sort of "software" is not "software" at all and instead describe virtual communities/games that are more often than not under the radar when it comes to reviews and your criterion of "notability" will likely only be met by perhaps one or two of these text games. Most of them do not have software that you need to install on your computer to play them besides what's called a client programme. Client programmes are standardized across the industry and you do not need a "special client" to play a particular game, although some games make clients that tailor the mud experience to their own game.
              • "The software is among the core products of a notable software developer or vendor." It seems to me that by that provision, Aetolia meetst the notability requirement as it is a core product of Iron Realms Entertainment.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Uskaarj

Article gives no indication of satisfying, WP:V, WP:RS or WP:SOFTWARE Whispering(talk/c) 21:20, 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 14:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kyle Rowe - Big Texas Duck Hunter

Notability not established beyond a brief mention in a local Texas news article. Article is also poorly named and reads like a vanity piece.--Alan Au 22:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete appears to be blatant self promotion. Resolute 22:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete (I originally prodded the article), per nom. NawlinWiki 23:42, 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 14:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Badevlad

Delete - Article about a non-notable software publisher written by its subject. -Porlob 22:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC) (comment editted by Porlob 20:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC))

  • Delete, spam.--Nilfanion (talk) 23:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, none of their products meet WP:SOFTWARE. Doesn't (quite) rise to the level of speedyable spam, though. —Cryptic 21:13, 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 (not very) speedy delete. —Cryptic 21:06, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] HTML TableFactory

Delete - non-notable article written by software's publisher. -Porlob 22:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC) (comment editted by Porlob 20:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC))

  • Delete, spam.--Nilfanion (talk) 23:41, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete spam. Gazpacho 03:26, 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 (not very) speedy delete. —Cryptic 21:08, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ScreenSaver Commander

Delete - Non-notable article written by the software's publisher. -Porlob 22:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC) (comment editted by Porlob 20:32, 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 (not very) speedy delete. —Cryptic 21:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quote on Table

Delete - Non-notable article on non-notabel software created by the software's publisher. DELETE. -Porlob 21:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC) (comment editted by Porlob 20:33, 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. Punkmorten 06:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gaston de Blondeville

Non-notable, poorly written ophan article. Expansion would be fine, but as it stands, it should be deleted. -Porlob 21:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Huh??? How is a stub on a 200-year-old novel spam? Fan-1967 22:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Check out google search Its a known novel by a highly regarded and eminently notable author, Ann Radcliffe. Its a badly written stub article, but poor writing has no bearing on the subject's notability. It needs a rewrite, not a delete. --Jayron32 03:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Note I was feeling inspired, so I did a major rewrite of the article. Referenced and everything. Please reread the article. It is stubby still, but it definately asserts its own notability now. --Jayron32 04:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep now, even though I'm the one that suggested deleting it. It's got enough "meat" to justify its existence now. -Porlob 11:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep but more cleanup is still needed. "Is notable/noteworthy ..." formulations almost never belong in an article, and this has multiple such formulations in a single paragraph. GRBerry 14:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
    • reply well, I never actually read the book. What I wrote is what 15 minutes on Google taught me. Perhaps someone who has read it, or knows more about its historical context in the life and works of the author could expand on it. --Jayron32 21:12, 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 14:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dickfor

del nonnotable joke. Wikipedia not jokebook. `'mikka (t) 22:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Knock knock. Who's there? Delete. Per nom. Fan-1967 22:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom.--Nilfanion (talk) 23:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Google doesn't turn up evidence of notability through nontrivial mention in reliable sources. — TKD::Talk 01:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • What's a deletefor? GassyGuy 08:05, 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. - Mailer Diablo 14:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Kingdom Hearts Movie

Subject is completely unsubstiantiated, and its sources are from message board rumors (in 2002) and a YouTube movie which is of a fan-made movie. Article creator removed prod. hateless 22:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as crystalballism. A movie to be released in 2010? The "kid" will be 18 by then. ... discospinster talk 23:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Uyvn 00:44, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete There have been nothing but rumors about a KH movie and no actual evidence it would happen. TJ Spyke 00:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, unsubstantiated rumours. — Haeleth Talk 13:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete with FIRE! Reason: Unbelievable casting choices. Adam Sandler as Riku? Julia Roberts as Kairi? T ConX 23:05, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete we're not a crystal ball
  • Delete Riku, Sora, and Kairi are on Destiny Islands when Heartless come and kidnap Kairi. It is up to Sora and Riku to rescue them, because they the know what the heartless will "do" to her.

And he was told by the people at the KH website? Please! And the guy admitted they were just rumours, too. Rumours shouldn't be on a factual site. 138.217.208.51 05:16, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Don't Delete What if I could Get Proof of the Film could you guys Not delete this all I need is the Deletion to be delayed cause I wrote The Kingdom hearts film site HA HA HA

By: Frill Bo

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 of notability has been presented - Alexa and Google data were dropped from WP:WEB long ago, for good reason. Credible third-party sources are required. And "smirking chimp" actually turns up an impressive 4 unique results anyway.[90] --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:10, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Smirking Chimp

  • del: a blog without evidence of notability. `'mikka (t) 22:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep How does 364,000 Google hits square with lack of notability? Disagreeing with the subject of an article is not a valid reason for proposing deletion.Edison 15:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Most of those hits are just other bloggers (and for web based phenonmena, high google hits are very common). Can you maybe show how he meets WP:WEB? JoshuaZ 20:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep A notable and widely read blog with 1324 blogs / sites linking to it as documented by Alexa NBGPWS 08:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, WP:WEB, WP:RS, WP:V, all the usual suspects. If we can get some sources in the article that show notability, then maybe we can keep it, but as it stands, it's dumping material. Vectro 06:22, 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. --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of African cities

No context, just a very barren list of...African cities! I don't think we need this. Shin'ou's TTV (Futaba|Masago|Kotobuki) 22:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

  • weak keep Should be split into multiple articles of cities by country. Include all cities in each country over predetermined population threshold (100,000? 1,000,000) not just ones already in WikiPedia. Information is valid, notable, and verifiable; its just poorly organized in this context. --Jayron32 04:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as it stands, arbitrary inclusion criteria ("major") and somewhat too indiscriminate. We could maybe have a Lists of African cities for navigation though, but we already have a template {{Africa in topic|List of cities in}}. Punkmorten 07:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete There are template and categories and other existing things that do this job much better than this sort of article could do it. GassyGuy 08:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per GassyGuy. Vectro 05:54, 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 keep. --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Holy Umbilical Cord

I can't find a reference for this article and a Google search brings up nothing. Not An IP 23:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep - holy relics include just about everything you can think of - this google search gives a few results [91] Yomanganitalk 23:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, A Google search on "Umbilical Cord" relic -Wikipedia yields 21300 hits [92] of which 815 are unique [93] and it is mentioned for example here:[94][95][96] --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 15:11, 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: the case for keeping skirts dangerously close to relying on the inclusion of other articles, but when it comes to lists there are rarely overwhelming arguments or majorities either way, as here - so, no consensus. --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Textile manufacturing terminology

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. It is also not a usage guide. Just as Wikipedia is not apprpriate for articles that are solely dictionary definitions, it is not appropriate for articles that are solely lists of dictionary definitions. This is a appropriate for transwiki to Wiktionary, as an Appendix (and the fine work shouldn't be lost) but it should be deleted afterward. Dmcdevit·t 23:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Note that this has subsequently been copied to Wiktionary at wikt:Appendix:Textile manufacturing terms, and I have been assured by the Wiktionarians that it is appropriate and wanted. Dmcdevit·t 10:27, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, has been transwikied now; no use for this article here.--Nilfanion (talk) 19:44, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Nilfanion. Vectro 06:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. The whole point of an encyclopaedia is to gather together related material about a subject. This article provides a strong mechanism for doing this, where the categorization system would break the cross-domain nature of related items. Admittedly, this has moved away from the original intention I had when I started the article: I intended that it would be a collection of prose descriptions of related terms, rather than a list. Are we now going to start working our way down the 100+ items in the List of glossaries (of which this is a member) and transwiking them? I don't envy anyone stirring up that much controversy. Noisy | Talk 10:31, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
    • "The whole point of an encyclopaedia is to gather together related material about a subject." Actually, no it isn't. That argument applies to all of our sister projects as well (Wiktionary included), and a good deal of the internet. We also know that AfD inconsistent, but only generally follows trends. The existence of other articles in the same category (especially since this is a wiki, and they would only be deleted if someone took the time) is no argument that they are encyclopedic. My argument is that this argument is not encyclopedic, but is appropriate for Wiktionary, per Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Lists of words, which concludes that articles about a category of wrods is encyclopedic, but articles that are lists of ords and definitions is more appropriate for Wiktionary. What is your reasoning for why they are encyclopedic? Dmcdevit·t 19:05, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
      • [Part duplicate of response at the AfD for Glossary of sexual slurs.] If there was a separate wiki for textile manufacturing terminology, then there might be a reason to move it there, but the whole concept of Wikipedia (behind its central purpose of gathering knowledge to make it available to the world) is to enable access to related information, and a dictionary does not provide that cross-reference facility. Ordinarily wikilinks would provide a mechanism to move from one related term to another. However, in the case where there are a set of terms related through a central theme, but there is not enough to say about each one individually in its own article, then it seems to be a perfectly valid and useful thing to do to gather the information in a glossary which can be referenced from articles that do have enough to justify their existence, but which would be cluttered by a list. It also means that those articles can all point to a single place, rather than having the information dispersed or duplicated.
This seems an entirely specious AfD listing, and harmful to Wikipedia, at that. This is another example of the arrogance and inanity that has driven me away from being a regular contributor to Wikipedia. Noisy | Talk 12:46, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Textile manufacturing terminology is a list of technical terms with their definitions, a.k.a., a glossary. The links for the terms go to Wikipedia artilces. This is a very useful resource and should stay, just like every other Wikipedia glossary in good standing. To argue against this glossary in principle is to argue against every other glossary in principle. Where is the sense in that? Rfrisbietalk 00:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Proponent has unilaterally changed policy about glossaries which was in place since March 2004. These glossaries of technical terms are useful and cannot be replaced by Wikidictionary entries which would not link back to Wikipedia articles on the terms or to the relevant article that includes the terms. Luigizanasi 04:11, 23 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, clearly no consensus to delete it. I would place a {{merge}} tag on it, but no target has been specified; enjoy the talk page. — CharlotteWebb 07:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jellyfish (SpongeBob SquarePants)

Lots of sea animals/creatures appear in the show, it certainly doesn't mean there should be an article pointing out each episode they appear in. Wikipedia isn't a fan guide, it's an enycyclopedia. RobJ1981 23:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep or Merge if there's a good place to put it. Spongebob's love of jellyfish is a fairly major part of the show... for example, there was a whole episode where Spongebob went to live with the jellyfish, etc. And a little jellyfish was one of the things included with the main Spongebob LEGO set! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:01, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep the Jellyfish are a recurring element in the program. Appearnce list was shifted down to allow greater focus on role in show. Alansohn 06:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep — Alas the show has a surprising amount of popularity, which probably makes even this minor sub-topic mildly notable. But it should be cross-linked from the main SpongeBob article. — RJH (talk) 16:53, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep or Merge per above. It was part of the Bikini Bottom article until someone linked it to its own page. -AMK152 19:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep but bring to out of universe perspective. --Spencer "The Belldog" Bermudez | (Complain here) 07:59, 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. --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Web 3.0

  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}}

Neologism without fixed meaning. it's continued recreation should be grounds for deleting and protecting, not recreating as a placeholder. Artw 23:16, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

---

Clarification:

It's the 2dn nomintaion for deletion for this specific version of the Web 3.0 entry.

There had been 9 previous instances of deletions and recreations for the Web 3.0 entry itself (not any specific version) over many months and by different people.

Per metavoid:

"The Web 3.0 entry has been created and deleted over 9 times already. The definition of insanity is trying the same thing again and again and expecting different results.

In other words, the article gets created then it gets deleted, in an infinite cycle.

There will never be a complete concensus on what Web 3.0 is just as there is no complete concensus on what Web 2.0 is.

One way to end this cycle of create-and-delete for this entry is to let the definition emerge spontaneously from contributions that can be validated against widely quoted references."

User Artw states "it's continued recreation should be grounds for deleting and protecting"

What does "deleting and protecting" mean? I can't help but notice that it does sound like censorship even if that is absolutely not the intent.

Given that the Web 3.0 entry (not the current version) was created and deleted 9 times already by different authors at different times, I conclude that it is a clear enough sign that there needs to be a Web 3.0 entry (or 'an entry about Web 3.0')

Marc fawzi 01:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what the "deleting and protecting" refers to either. I will leave a query about this on Artw's talk page. It seems to me the case for the article's existing is now self evident. Peter Campbell 02:17, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
The namespace should be closed to prevent the creation of futher iterations of the article, all of which will fail WP:NEO and require deleting. Artw 04:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
...and that's only if we concede that the continued recreation of the article has any menaing at all. I guess we could equally just decide that though every so often people will increment Web2.0 by 1 and mistakenly think it encyclopedic we're are perfectly happy playing whack-a-mole with it. Artw 04:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
The WP:NEO, while being the official standard, has not been verified to be self-consistent and self-sufficent.
If an entry is recreated by 10 different people 10 separate times over the course of many months then one conclusion would be that the Web 3.0 article versions are thus far failing the WP:NEO (note: no way to conclude same regarding Web 3.0 article versions in the future unless you have been to the future and can verify) but the flip side of such argument is that the WP:NEO itself is failing. If the WP:NEO was absolutely self-consistent and self-sufficient then, statistically speaking, it would not be challenged so many times, by so many different authors, on so many occasions, over so many months.
There are times like these when the top-down policy meets a bottom-up exception.
In such times, I believe it appropriate for the top-down policy makers to make an exception, given that the policy is itself not verified as absolutely self-consistent and self-sufficient.
Marc fawzi 06:00, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

---

  • Comment From what I can tell, this is only the second AfD nomination for this article, not the tenth. --Coredesat 23:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Oops. Sorry about that, imisinterpreted the talk page (where 9 deletions are mentioned). Anyone know how to fix that without mangling things further? Also apologies for the rather short and cryptic write up for the deletion nomination - It got edited before I could finish writing it, and I ended up not having time to recreate it properly. However I think the problems with this article are abundantly clear. Artw 04:44, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

These votes are copied from the article's discussion page[97]:

  • Keep: I think the content is now taking shape and it forms a useful placeholder for technologies that will reshape the internet. Peter Campbell 23:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
    • You're proposing to keep it for original research. Gazpacho 03:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
      • No, I am proposing that the article collect and reflect verifiable information on Web 3.0 that already exists, and as more is published. I am not proposing that the article include any original research. Peter Campbell 04:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: Deleting is beyond the pale; it just needs to be shaped up to include more detail. JohnPritchard 00:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: At this point "web 3.0" is a neologism that is not in general use and does not have an accepted meaning. To assign the term to the semantic web, or the mobile web, or the pervasive computing web, or whatever, is to endorse a speculative future and give it a premature veneer of commercial credibility.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 15.243.233.68 (talk • contribs) 12 October 2006.
  • Keep: I agree with the comment made under 'Purpose of Article' Marc fawzi 21:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: Agree with 'Purpose of Article' section at beginning of this 'talk page'. User:metavoid 12 Oct 2006
  • Keep: Agree with 'Purpose of Article' section at define of web 3.0. User:Jpaulo 13 Oct 2006 (no such user, actually User:84.77.74.235)
  • Delete I fail to see sufficient verification to satisfy WP:NEO.-- danntm T C 02:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete buzzword, there are no stable definitions of this. Gazpacho 03:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Can't find anything to prove this term meets WP:NEO. NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 03:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Technorati tag search [98] shows 210 posts tagged "Web 3.0" which meets WP:NEO criteria in my opinion
  • and a Digg post [99] discussing Web 3.0, including the Wikipedia article Peter Campbell 06:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • You should have clicked through the technorati results before mentioning them. Most contain "30" not "3.0". Besides, it's not enough to have numbers. With a term like this, there's no reason to assume people are using it consistently. Wikipedia articles cannot use themselves as sources, which I think should be obvious. Gazpacho 18:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your advice. I provided the information for everyone to assess in the interests of making the right decision on this. There are thousands of Delicious bookmarks [100] too. Peter Campbell 21:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: The article has to meet WP:NEO but the existence of so many posts and articles are proof that the term merits an entry on Wikipedia. User:Toxicafunk 13 Oct 2006
    • User's first edit. Gazpacho 18:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as a neologism, possibly salt unless the term becomes more notable. From what I can find, it's just a buzzword. Quite a few irrelevant Google results. --Coredesat 12:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: WEB 3.0 in not goint to appear from one second to another, is an evolution and need people ideas . User:JorgeA 13 Oct 2006
User's first edit. Until it has stable meanings we don't need an article. Wikipedia isn't for collecting editors' ideas. Gazpacho 18:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete what is clearly a neologism or marketing term. Note that most of the keep comments are from sock- or -meat-puppets (some are anon entries signed with a non-existant username), and should be discounted accordingly. Mindmatrix 14:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment I've also noticed that one of the cites is an artilce by 'Marc fawzi'. Artw 14:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment IMO, you should not disregard meritable arguments from other people just because they're not registered users. An admin can check their IP addresses to make sure they're not the same person, which I don't believe they are based on their comment styles. Marc fawzi 18:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment I cited Marc Fawzi when I (re)created the article (unaware that it had been previously deleted). The article was then speedily deleted - then restored to my userspace, and to its own. People then started editing it. I don't understand what is to be achieved by deleting this article, or why some are so keen to kill it. As long as WP:NEO and WP:Verifiability are met I think there is a clear case to keep the article. Peter Campbell 21:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: Web suffers continuous changes and need new ideas, agree with JorgeA User:sal00m (no such user, actually User:84.77.93.205)
  • Delete. Neologism created for effect. 4GL or 3G are at least used by journalitsts and marketeers. (I predict Web 4.0 will have direct connection to the brain and Web 5.0 will obtain consciousness.) Pavel Vozenilek 23:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I've gone ahead and tagged the article with {{db-repost}} so an admin can review it and see if it's a recreation of any of the previous versions. --Coredesat 04:23, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Neologism - also the lead "reference" was a blog entry by a nobody - as far as I can work out the article's only purpose is self-promotion for this Marc fawzi fellow. --Charlesknight 09:09, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Comment: You are incorrect. I cited Mark Fawzi, and I created the latest incarnation article (not him), as per comments above. There are other references too - including Tim Berners-Lee, who is quite notable I think. This is starting too look like a witch hunt to me. Peter Campbell 10:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Comment I have verifiable records of email exchanges with an IEEE contributing editor at Stanford U. regarding an offer to publish that blog entry in the IEEE Transactions on Internet Computing, which I had ultimately declined on the basis that I'm not interested in exposure or coverage by themselves. The reason I'm supporting the creation of a Web 3.0 article at Wikipedia has to do with the educational benefit I believe it would have, epecially as far as Wikipedia's role in the future of the Web. Marc fawzi 11:15, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
That's a long-winded way of saying "it's a blog entry", Where it might/maybe/could be published is of no interest here. --Charlesknight 12:11, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
There are many Wikipedia articles where blog entries are cited references. What makes this one the exception? Marc fawzi 13:57, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
That's always a poor hand to play - in most cases it means that nobody has got around to removing them. Generally speaking blogs by joe blownobody are not used as sources and if you see any - feel free to remove them. --Charlesknight 15:49, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
The Wikipedia policy regarding references concerns the significance of the reference itself. If the reference is widely quoted then it is a significant reference. Marc fawzi 16:40, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, or at most redirect to Web 2.0. -Sean Curtin 04:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge into Web 2.0 and Semantic Web Computerjoe's talk 19:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. The fact that this term can be interpreted as meaning 'semantic web which aims to "organize the world’s information"', 'the idea that the web will evolve into 3D' or even de:Wertschöpfungskette (or Value chain) as suggested by de:Web 3.0, and that there is no single reliable source which relates all these different meanings, prove that this is a mere neologism. Perhaps it'll have more meaning a couple of years later, but not now. --Pkchan 14:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep PureLegend 19:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC) (copied from article talk page Peter Campbell 01:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC))
  • Delete Neologism. Xdenizen 04:48, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Delete - This just rehashes ,much of what is known already about Web 2.0. Not content-worthy enough. Sriram sh 10:15, 22 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 on the basis that it is cited from a clearly unreliable source (a Bible article based on a website called "evil bible" - "This web site is designed to spread the vicious truth about the Bible."). Otherwise it is original research. These very strong points have not been addressed sufficiently by people proposing to keep this article. Though the topic probably does merit an article, it needs a complete re-write from reliable sources which do not have a blatant POV.--Konst.ableTalk 01:41, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Bible and rape

No substantial information. Related articles like The Bible and homosexuality and Biblical references to incest are full of information and examples, but rape seems out of the Bible's context. Even in Sex in the Bible there is no mention of rape. --Gabi S. 23:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. -- Em-jay-es 21:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Not a biblical scholar, or anything like that, but isn't there some stuff in Deuteronomy Ch 22 that could be read to have to do with rape? Edward Wakelin 23:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC) EDIT: Keep. Forget to put that in. Edward Wakelin 17:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm not a biblical scholar either, but I checked and there only a few references to rape in the Bible. It's not an issue anywhere there, and it certainly doesn't justify an article. --Gabi S. 23:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • keep, expand, and possibly rename as Biblical references to rape - there are several references, one or two of which are mentioned in Biblical references to incest. Grutness...wha? 00:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Biblical references to incest. If I had noticed the references there, I would have redirected the original article myself, instead of going through the AfD procedure. Currently I think that this is what has to be done. --Gabi S. 16:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I'm not sure if there will be an article developed here, but given that this seems to be Library of Congress heading [101] and there are specific books about it, I'm inclined to say keep, at least as long as we're going to keep the other bible articles. FrozenPurpleCube 01:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Subject is notable and verifiable; ergo article should be kept. Possibly renamed, definately expanded and improved. Bad writing is NOT a criteria for deletion; only notability and verifiability are. The subject is notable, and also part of a class of articles dealing with topics in the Bible. Definate keep. --Jayron32 04:09, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Verifiable yes, notable no. A handful of rape cases in the Bible don't justify an article more than Biblical references to monetary policy, Biblical references to democracy or Biblical references to joint partnerships. --Gabi S. 16:17, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep The Bible certainly talks about rape. And even if it's spoken of rarely, the very fact that rape is today considered such a heinous crime, it's nonpresence in the Bible is all the more noteworthy. I find it shocking that rape is not mentioned in the Ten Commandments. This article should exist if only to point out that the Bible says nothing about rape being bad. - ShadowyCabal 07:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: there are an infinite number of "The Bible and..." topics one can arbitrarily create. (For example, "The Bible and witches"; "The Bible and fish"; "The Bible and beards"?) This is an encyclopedia, not a biblical discussion. Just because a subject exists doesn't mean it's appropriate for Wikipedia.--LeflymanTalk 18:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep - Although I can't agree with everything Talk states, we do need to be careful about the proliferation of "The Bible and ..." articles. However, the Bible is a cultural artifact that has had an indelible impact upon western culture. This impact continues to this day in the Bible’s role as sacred scripture to various religious communities. As such, it is important to have an encyclopedic entry discussing the biblical description of rape, its varying interpretation (Jewish, Christian, Islamic), and the influence of this interpretation today (How does it effect the way modern societies view sex and violence?). Em-jay-es 21:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - This article seems to be original research for the most part, any information on this topic could easily be included in one of the related topics. -- Chabuk 21:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. It is mentioned there and it is a subject. I do not see in which way it is related to Judaism. Why should it be on the 'Judaism-related AfD list'? Then it should be about the Jewish view on rape. This way, all you get is Christian 'bible scientists' who don't care about what Judaism says. So better make two pages, for example: Christian view on sexual assault and Jewish view on sexual assault. --Daniel575 | (talk) 16:36, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as WP:OR violation with no sources. If someone wants to write a better article with this title later on, let them.--Aaron 23:00, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Rename as suggested by Daniel575. Jon513 17:10, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:OR and notability in the absence of sources, which may exist. I believe it is always original research to identify a series of Bible verses and claim, on ones own word, that the verses form a coherent whole. One has to have proof that other people have seen these verses and thought them notable enough to string them together in a similar way. Are there theologians or scholars who have written about the Bible and Rape in a manner similar to the article? If so, source, quote them, and keep the article. If not, this is not a notable non-original topic, and delete for WP:OR and failure to establish notability. --Shirahadasha 01:55, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Because so many people say that the bible should dictate all behavior, ANYTHING and how it relates to the Bible is notable. - ShadowyCabal 18:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment WP:Notability doesn't cover whether editors think a topic ought to be notable because of logical arguments, it covers whether a topic is notable based on an the presence of published sources. In order for this article to be encyclopedic it needs to be sourced-based. Best, --Shirahadasha 20:59, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, renaming to Biblical references to rape. There is also potential for there to be articles on Christian view on sexual assault and Jewish view on sexual assault perDaniel575. --Richard 18:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • "Biblical references to rape" would be the very definition of Original Research, unless a secondary source which presents such a topic is also found.--LeflymanTalk 03:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Rename as suggested by Daniel575. רח"ק | Talk | Contribs 02:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • That's four votes for my proposal already. I'm going to get to work on it tonight, b'n (without an oath). Will turn the current page into a disambig to Jewish view on sexual assault and Christian view on sexual assault, and write a beginning for the first article. --Daniel575 | (talk) 12:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
    • But the Christian view is not the Biblical view. And the Jewish view is not the Biblical view. All three articles should stay. - ShadowyCabal 14:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Sigh. ShadowyCabal, it is very easy: the 'Biblical' view is not the Jewish view. The Jewish view is based on the Talmud. The Christian view is purely based on the Bible. Thus, 'Bible view' automatically implies 'Christian view'. --Daniel575 | (talk) 17:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

  • I would say the predominant Christian view is that rape is bad. The view expressed in the Bible is not that rape is bad. Therein lies the destinction. "Christian view" is what Christians believe, based on, I don't know, some stuff in the Bible. "Bible view" is the view expressed in the Bible that, in most cases, Christians ignore. - ShadowyCabal 03:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Sigh. There *is* no such thing as 'Bible view'. There is the Christian interpretation of what the Bible says, and there is the Jewish interpretation of what the Torah says. Those are two completely different things, worlds apart. What you are now proposing is plain OR. --Daniel575 | (talk) 11:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
      • There is the Christian interpretation of what the Bible says, The Jewish interpretation of what the Bible says, and then... what the Bible actually says. I see that as three categories. Enough with the ad hominem sighs. - ShadowyCabal 12:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
How is a sigh an ad hominem argument? רח"ק | Talk | Contribs 05:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
"You are not only wrong, It's a waste of my time to correct you" - ShadowyCabal 18:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
SIGH... - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:03, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge with Lutheranism and Bestiality </facetious> Strong Delete as OR bible commentary - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:03, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
    • And let's not forget that almost the entire article in an infringement on God's copyrights (which never lapse under an exception to U.S. copyright law because He is Eternal). - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - I agree with CrazyRussian (DELETE as WP:NPOV and WP:NOR commentary), especially without secondary citations ... and I also agree that "The Bible" implies a Christian (POV) bias ... claiming that this article is about "how rape is regarded by Judaism, Christianity and Islam" is simply wrong, and highly deceptive to the readers, even if (some of) the same stories are in the Torah, the Old Testament, and the Qur'an. —141.156.240.102 (talk|contribs) 22:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Crazy Russian must be joking, as God obviously doesn't have a copywrite. The Bible is public domain. As for the whole Christian bias thing, the Bible is favored by Christians, but everyone agrees that it is a significant document. What I am trying to do is this: The Bible is often used to point a finger at homosexuals. It is rarely used to point a finger at rapists, because the God of the bible has no problem with rape. Because most Christians agree that rape is bad, this article can show that the Bible is not the basis for modern day morality. - ShadowyCabal 23:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment The reasons for the article are irrelevant, the article needs to comply with WP:OR. Statements such as "the God of the Bible has no problem with rape" particularly need to be sourced.--Shirahadasha 00:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Although a rather poor source, the linked website demonstrates this isn't original research. Add that to the fact that anyone can pick up a Bible and confirm these verses. The article needs work, but that doesn't warrant deletion. Perhaps the references can be organized more along the lines of topic. Perhaps: Prominent incidences of rape, Punishment for rape, Forced marriage, and Rape as a spoil of war. More than just a list of verses is needed in the article, though it will be tough to not add POV. The verses could use some straightforward NPOV context. --Aranae 01:00, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep One of the benefits of Wikipedia is the breadth of its content. Religion is an important component of people's lives and sets the context for how people behave in both religious and secular environments. If other articles on theology and interpretations of the Bible are worth including, then I don't see how this one is not. It is of significance that this informs worldviews, and therefore compiled information on the topic is of value to those who seek to understand such worldviews. The fact that you can make an article titled The Bible and X does not take away from the significance of this article, it only means that articles on those topics haven't been written yet. The Bible is a major force in the development of civilization in the West, and anything that adds to a context that helps in understanding it is of value. This can be especially noted in the development of legal systems through the code of hammurabi through the ancient laws of the twelve tribes of Israel through to the codes of Rome, the Middle Ages, through today (this is a rather controversial argument in American society, the extent to which the founding fathers based the fledging democracy on views put forward in the Bible). Also, there are plenty of sources to support this article that would make it not original research. Because the article is inadequate now doesn't not mean that it'll remain inadequate in the future. Everything takes work, this is just a beginning, and we should work to add more information in an impartial way.
  • Comment: www.evilbible.com clearly does not meet WP:RS criteria. But there are some reliable sources out there, e.g.:
    • Mary Anna Bader, Sexual Violation in the Hebrew Bible: A Multi-methodological Study of Genesis 34 And 2 Samuel 13, Peter Lang Publishing, 2006
    • Susanne Scholz, Rape Plots: A Feminist Cultural Study of Genesis 34, Peter Lang Publishing, 2000.
    • Note that Alton Meyer Winters, Rape and the Bible, Authorhouse, 2000 does not comply with WP:RS because it is self-published (See www.authorhouse.com ("the leading self-publishing company...")
Why not use and stick to material that's reliably sourced? It would cover less, but it wouldn't be subject to deletion. Best, --Shirahadasha 01:24, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Oh and Peter Lang Publishing is Reliable, right? Hold on, tomorrow I will incorporate Crazy-ass Russian publishing and produce ridiculously slanted pro-Bible books with an Orthodox slant... :) Will you cite them then? - CrazyRussian talk/email 12:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Comment Wikipedia's article on Peter Lang describes them as a major international academic publishing company, and their web site and title list appears to confirm this. Best, --Shirahadasha 00:31, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Unwikified article written by a banned sockpuppet who was known to dabble in Jewish issues? Not exactly Prentice Hall, y'know? - CrazyRussian talk/email 00:48, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Since this is essentially just a bunch of scripture, how bout we use The Bible as the reference. I mean that's really all you need. No one is disputing that these passages are about rape. - ShadowyCabal 04:11, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment (negative): This appears to be a WP:COPYVIO of the cited page, http://www.evilbible.com/Rape.htm (which does not meet WP:RS criteria, as well as being very WP:NPOV) ... doesn't that close the argument? —141.156.240.102 (talk|contribs) 01:39, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Evil Bible does not hold a copywrite on the bible. Those passages are from the public domain Bible. As for the research, I just didn't go through the Bible with a magnifying glass looking for mention of rape. EvilBible did. But anyone could have. If you'd like, I'll erase all this info, and repost it claiming I flipped through my own Bible. - ShadowyCabal 04:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
        • It would be too late at this point; it's clearly a copyvio as well. Jayjg (talk) 14:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Changed vote to Delete See above strikethrough. The issues here seems to be Original Research. A dry list of "Bible Passages Referencing Rape" is scanty on the notability curve. Interpretation is needed to make the passages encyclopedic; however WikiPedia can at BEST report on interpretation as published in reputable sources (those held to standards of editorial review). Shirahadasha has already posted some sources that could be used. To interpret the Bible passages on your own, even to just paraphrase what the Bible passages said in your own words is to engage in Original Research in some form. Also, as it stands, many passages identified as describing "Rape" are possible Original Research simply in the identification of the passage. For one example, the passage that starts with Numbers 31:7 only mentions women as "spoils of war" It does not imply, implicitly or explicitly, forced sexual relations. One could easily make the case that, as their men were killed, the women accepted their status as captors, and willingly went with their new masters. To assume otherwise is to possible assign modern western motives and values on a situation that may not be under that particular interpretation. So even the existance of many of the passages in the article (where rape is not stated, but interpreted as existing through the lens of modern values) could be considered Original Research. Other passages in the article suffering from this sort of problem include Judges 21:10, Deuteronomy 20:10, Deuteronomy 22:23, 2 Samuel 12:11, Deuteronomy 21:10, Judges 5:30, Exodus 21:7. Removal of those passages, which may not even refer to rape (assuming rape requires interpretation), leaves 3 passages. That's far too scanty to have an article built around. This article seems doomed to start with. Eliminate all interpretation, and lose the article on notability grounds; or keep the interpretation, and lose the article on Original Research grounds. Either way, it seems a lose-lose option. If the sources listed above could be incorporated into this article, and all original research removed, it MAY be savable. But I doubt it. --Jayron32 04:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment As User:Jayron32 points out, whether or not some of these passages are really about rape is indeed disputed, and in some passages alternate interpretations are advanced. This isn't undisputed material, and so reliable sourcing is needed here on practical as well as policy grounds. Best, --Shirahadasha 00:25, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Pure original research, copied from an unreliable source. Jayjg (talk) 14:24, 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. No credible sources or other evidence have been presented that this can be anything other than neologism and original research (very obviously politically-motivated original research at that). --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-African

Strong Delete or redirect to Racism. Neologism, see WP:NEO. Also this article's topic is covered quite well in Racism. Term does not seem to be in popular or even scholarly usage. As a neologism, it is primarily an article of origional research violating WP:NOR and thus is not verifiable or reliable, see WP:VERIFY. The term is hardly similar to "orientalism," it's closer to "anti-semitism" as it is used in this article. Note that the article claims that Darwin, Kant, and Hume were anti-African. These individuals did not concern their work with people of African descent and it's quite a stretch to imply otherwise. This article is not encyclopedic. This article is also confusing its own relationship between African and black. For instance, the article's image depicts the prejudice against black individuals, not prejudice against someone because they are of African origion. Discrimination against people of such descent is not always based on the fact that they are from Africa, so much as it is stereotyping the color of an indvidual's skin. Further, the article does not establish notability or importance and confuses anti-Africanism with racism against black people thus over-simplifying the view of African culture and ignoring the plight of blacks from areas such as Australia and the Carribean.Strothra 23:28, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. A.J.A. 05:44, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Created by User:Halaqah who is currently on crusade to spread his ideology and grow visibility for Halaqah Media company (and affiliated websites) through WP. The user is aggressively singleminded and very active to reach his goals. Pavel Vozenilek 23:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep:While the article is of poor quality, that does not mean it mustBold text be deleted. Prejudice against Africans is a very real problem with deep historical roots. The first European explorers to Africa wrote that "Black people are a result of man mating with Baboons" (I think it was Stanley & Livingstone who wrote it). Even Ibn-Batuta (himself an African from Morocco) had prejudices against "darker" Africans in the South and was pejorative to African kings like Mansa Suleiman and Mansa Musa. This establishes the historical bigotry.Slavery was a result of the belief that Africans are racially inferior to Arabs and Europeans. Also, contemporary anti-African bigotry comes from Christian missionaries in Ethiopia and other countries.Plus, the Darfur Genocide is a result of the Arab janjaweed killing the more "Black" Sudanese Africans.Apartheid is another exapmple.Hkelkar 03:15, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Er, the white Africans responsible for Apartheid were just as African as the black Africans they imposed it on. Cynical 11:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - per HkelkarBakaman Bakatalk 17:20, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keepLet me set the record straight, some people are on a mission to attack me because 1. I added the image of the white angel killing the devil, 2. I added a sub chapter on Slavery to the Christianity section. Mr Paul has been on a crusade to destroy all my contributions (validity aside). He seems to think the name Halaqah means i am Halaqah Films (a film company). It is like saying someone with the name Ford is the Ford foundation. Or Sankofa means you work for the film Sankofa or the organization Sankofa Either way to adding of correct information is a valid enterprise. You would find that in certain academic circles everyone knows everyone, there is a natural connection between people, how else would i know the details of Molefi Asante so who i am is irrelevant the work has to valued on merit and accuracy. The anti-African writing on this site is amazing. Just read the Transatlantic slave trade. History of Africa. Already there is Nanjing anti-African protests and then someone is saying Anti-African the root word in an article valid in wikipedia isn’t relevant and should be deleted because it offends their sensibility. Already the content of this have been used in many forums. Everyone has an opinion, this entire site is a collection of opinions, it is libelous to make attacks on people without any single retort to the presented facts. I would like this person to cease and desist their racist attacks--Halaqah 18:38, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and then Redirect to Racism. "Anti-African" is not only a WP:NEOlogism, it's incorrect. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:06, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • delete CarlosRodriguez 01:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • STRONG KEEP!!!100% the term anti africn is absolutely necessary a term which is used and relevant.--Sunara 15:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Please note that this comment is the user's first and only contribution to wiki.--Strothra 13:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to the article title Prejudice against Africans would be appropriate, and merging relevant info from this article into it would be fine - but most of the article seems quite sloppy, with very little keepable info. The use of the "term" Anti-African is simply combinational, just as much as the word anti-white, anti-european, anti-pokemon, or anti-startrek may also have limited currency - only relevant as a turn of phrase (ie of being against the suffix in question). Prejudice against Africans is by far a more appropriate encyclopedic title for exploring a very important and notable topic of interest. Themindset 19:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect and remove that darn picture, it is of the archangel Michael and Pope Innocent X, an Italian. KillerChihuahua?!? 12:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Anti-Africanism is a form of racism. So is Anti-Semitism. Does anyone want to redirect that too to 'racism'? There are specific historical causes for each. For instance the point of view of civilized people to admire large and lasting constructions as found in the other numerously populated continents, but used to be lacking in Black Africa, caused disregarding the value of societies that had managed to survive close to the original natural surroundings of mankind without creating great edifices. Still few people realize that such may be a sign of solid control and of success, compared to surviving by constantly and increasingly deviating from what evolution has made us be. — SomeHuman 19 Oct 2006 00:14 (UTC)
Anti-semitism is not a form of racism. In it's popular usage, anti-semitism refers to being anti-Jewish, not actually anti-semitic which has a different meaning altogether. Judaism is a faith intertwined with a culture - ie not a race. Thus, there is no reason to merge anti-semetism into racism. Further, anti-semetic is a phrase in both popular and scholarly use; Anti-African is not.--Strothra 04:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Anti-Semitism is not exactly racism, although a literal interpretation of the name would be. I suppose a literal interpretation of Anti-African wouldn't be racism, although this article is about racism. Still more reason to delete or redirect (without a merge). — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Exactly.--Strothra 14:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Both have racial and non-racial aspects. Which one is felt to be prevailing in either case, depends on which person commits it, on which person experiences anti-semitism or anti-africanism, and on whether one is not quite at that receiving end. For instance, the nazi regime did not 'discriminate' on religious basis but purely by ethnicity. Consider WP:CSB when comparing both topics. — SomeHuman 19 Oct 2006 16:31 (UTC)
You are confusing ethnicity and race. Anti-semitism, in its popular usage, refers to ethnicity and religion - not race. Anti-African refers to a people of an entire continent and does not refer to either ethnicity or race. African is not an ethnicity - the continent is one of the most ethnically diverse besides Asia - nor is African a race. Yet, the term as this article defines it regards race. Thus, this article is best redirected to racism because its definition clearly conflicts with the terminology. There are no works of literature on Anti-Africanism from which one may draw a proper definition and description which would make sense. --Strothra 21:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Not confusing: deliberately not making that kind of distinction in this respect. Anti-Africanism is rarely or never used to literally the whole continent, but mainly to Black Africa, just as Anti-Americanism is not directed against a whole continent either, and – unlike the disputed article's topic – not at all against the historically most native inhabitants. Taking terms like these literally in an argumentation is rather demagogical. — SomeHuman 20 Oct 2006 00:43 (UTC)

see discussion section for more discussion[102]

  • Delete per nomination. The article is original research and does not cite verifiable sources. Edits appear to be politically motivated with no scholarly basis. Akanksha 17:51, 21 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 07:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deafness

This keeps poping up on my watchlist and I keep wondering what to do with it. It appears on the face of it to be a POV fork of hearing impairment. Although the logical place for it would be deaf rather than deafness, deaf is a dab between deafness (which is aliased and points to hearing impairment) and deaf culture, which is a long ramble about how only the totally deaf from birth are really properly Deaf (with a capital D). This article is a halfway house and is largely subjective. As a point iof principle the lead is completely wrong anyway, asserting a minor subculture meaning on a par with the accepted definition, and as the lead is a summary of the whole article (except in this case with even more weight given to the subculture) I think that's a fair indication that there is something fundamentally wrong. Guy 23:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Merge with Hearing impairment. bibliomaniac15 01:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Some people may be offended by the idea of merging this article with hearing impairment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Superlex (talk • contribs)
    • I forgot to sign? Huh, that's so unlike me. My bad. - Lex 12:09, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I agree with Lex, let me take a stab at it to save it rather than just chucking it. JoeSmack Talk(p-review!) 16:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
    • stabbed it, hopefully this'll calm some itchy trigger fingers. JoeSmack Talk(p-review!) 17:17, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep This article (like many) certainly needs improvement, but it also needs to exist. Redirecting to Hearing impairment, with its physiological emphasis, is not sufficient. The disambiguation page at Deaf is horrible for links. We need a page on deafness in general, including physiological, cultural, and literary aspects -- probably with sections with things like "Main article: Hearing impairment" and "Main article: Deaf culture". (And yes, Deaf culture has serious POV problems now.) The proper title for such a page is Deafness (which Deaf should redirect to). The article now at Deafness (at least the stuff before the TOC) is a fair beginning. --Toby Bartels 18:05, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep in complete accord with Toby Bartels. - Jmabel | Talk 00:19, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep rather than a fork, I think that the arguments set forth here make sense. It is reasonable to have a large, clinical article about hearing impairment and to do so there will need to be subsection articles such as deafness for more general issues. As long as it is written in a NPOV fashion, deafness is an acceptable article. InvictaHOG 10:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and improve, seems like some good improvements have already been made. Deafness is certainly more than just hearing impairment, and exploring that in an encyclopedic fashion is entirely appropriate. Themindset 19:21, 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. --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tamriel Rebuilt

Article gives no indication of satisfying, WP:V, WP:RS or WP:SOFTWARE Whispering(talk/c) 00:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep All information in the article can be found on the site linked, and there is precedent for having articles on large modifications such as this one.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 18:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete until there's a assertion of notability made in the article itself. A large mod is one thing, but if it's not notable (in fact, it's still in-progress) then it shouldn't have an article. Also, using the very projects website as its only citation is inappropriate. Themindset 19:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Keep So? So are a tons of other mods on WP. I say keep because I can probably do a Google search and find tons of other gaming sites. Planet Elder Scrolls, various blogs. And it is notable. Typing 'Tamriel' on Google, the mod will be the first entry. Swiftoak 16:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment It doesn't matter if the subject is the first thing on a Google search (it comes up near the top primarily because it has "Tamriel" in both the title and the top-level domain, which helps its placement by quite a bit). I come up first on a search for me[103], but I'm still not notable enough to warrant an article. (now pardon me, but I'm going to go cry now...) EVula 15:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
        •  :( Okay. I added some new external links. Swiftoak t 18:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, clearly still does not satisfy WP:SOFTWARE. Swiftoak, if you think this page should stay, read that guideline and see if you can provide evidence that the mod satisfies it. Vectro 06:25, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Okay, so it doesn't. I still believe it can be improved. And besides, the guideline is still a proposed guideline of Wikipedia. Swiftoak Talk to Me! 23:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. A profound and all-too-common misapplication of Wikipedia. —Encephalon 06:19, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
    • How so? Of course go ahead and delete it, but I just wanna know. Swiftoak Talk to Me! 17:22, 21 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.