Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 October 14

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< October 13 October 15 >
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 Transwikied to sep11:James Debeuneure --Konst.ableTalk 11:21, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] James Debeuneure

Victims of terrorist attacks are not in and of themselves notable. Lankiveil 23:54, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete for lack of notability, mentioned in the AfD claim. Kander 23:56, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Ultra Strong Delete The only person he is important to is his three children. Talon662 00:43, 15 October 2006 (EST)
  • Transwiki to In Memoriam Tonywalton  | Talk 10:00, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki JoshuaZ 23:57, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Madchen Hoch 01:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki per Tonywalton GRBerry 13:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki per Tonywalton AubreyEllenShomo 17:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki respectfully, per Tonywalton-Robotam 17:18, 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 11:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WBXO

Nonsense, spam, fictional radio station. Kuroki Mio 2006 02:20, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Note: The first AfD discussion for this article can be found here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WBXO (result was Delete)

  • Delete - not only that, but self contradictory, too: "The station is owned by Depot Hill Media and and broadcasts at 1 kilowatts ERP from the a small tower." "ERP .25 kw". MER-C 03:24, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • An FCC FM query search brings up nothing, and the only WBXO that comes up at TVRadioWorld is a low-power television station in Rochester. A Shoutcast stream does, however, come up if you visit the station webpage listed under external links. So I offer no theories as to whether this is an Internet radio venture trying to portray itself as a real FM radio station for some mystifying reason, or whether this is a Part 15 venture (which don't have to be FCC-licensed, but also don't generally qualify as notable under Wikipedia rules.) Either way, delete unless somebody can provide better proof of notability. Bearcat 05:37, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. It doesn't seem to be fake, but it's definitely not notable. Ultra-Loser Talk | BT sites 06:20, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete Per a lack of notability. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 07:56, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete due to non-notability Matthuxtable 11:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as nonnotable, with intentionally fraudulent content mixed in to make it sound more legit. --Aaron 18:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per all above. Completely non-notable.UberCryxic 18:36, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Bearcat and MER-C.-- danntm T C 20:55, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete\ Only on lack of notability; it's just another radio station in a small market. Does not appear fake. · XP · 21:46, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • All television stations are notable (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KTFL), but radio stations might be a bit lower. Give it to the WikiProject (WP:WPRS) or weak delete. Shin'ou's TTV (Futaba|Masago|Kotobuki) 22:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Is the website not enough proof to show it's legit? You can see an FM Transmitter on their rack!mgarnes2 WBXO

18:39, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

  • SaveWBXO is an FCC part 15 radio station transmitting on 630Khz and on 102.5 FM; The station further streamlines its audio signal over the Internet via Shoutcast streaming technology. The station slogan "WBXO AM & FM" is simply that; it is not a set of call letters issued by the FCC. Much like some stations have slogans (Z-100, Power 95, 3WE, Kiss-FM) WBXO AM & FM happens to be the slogan we so choosen. The primary purpose of the part 15 operation is to provide coverage to the local population abeit the listening range is short due to restrictions based on part 15, there is actual transmission over the public airwaves, thus affording anyone within tranmission range the opportunity to listen in. The Station is privately owned; that is, no outside public interest involved in the affairs of the station. It is a primarily automated station with some live day-parts interspersed during the week and weekends. Deletion of this station would not be in the best interests of the general public as we operate under legal parameters; maintain a regular schedule of broadcasting to the public as evidenced by our continous broadcasting since 1/1/02; The station has continually streamed audio since 6/1/04 thus affording internet listeners a regular source of music, public service announcements and other pertinent information as needed. Arguements of the station being "unnotable" are compeletely without merit and should be dismissed as such. As encyclopedia's are supposed to be a source of knowledge, it appears that the proposed deletion of this page would be counter productive to the aims and goals of Wikipedia. mgarnes2 WBXO 19:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Also let me point out this website has a listing for itStands4.Commgarnes2 WBXO 20:59, 15 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 Lots of Keeps - This article is going to be kept anyway, there is no need to sit here examining each others' motives. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 02:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-Hindu

This article is based on a fictitious term Anti Hindu and its authors have tried to invent a term creating a parallel to Anti-Semitism - pls. note the (ism) ,Holocaust and possibly Islamophobia which are the terms with a lot of academic debate.An article by this name should be suitable for wiktionary being an adjective and not a noun.The issues discussed in this article could possibly be transferred to another article Persecution of Hindus, if they have not already been discussed there.An article like this is merely repetitive and maliciously put in to highlight a particular point of view Hindutva - the right wing Hindu religio- Xenophobe movement in India and increasingly abroad and should not be allowed a second to sit on the academic space of Wikipedia. TerryJ-Ho 00:23, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Note, The article lacks Reliable sources and these need to be clicked to verify their nature and if what they say is actually what has been referenced - removed on verifying the sources I am not saying the article lacks source but the article itself is denoting an adjective that is why it is used to qualify Prejudice (Anti-Hindu prejudice)in the very first sentence of the article.The term Anti-Hindu is therefore incapable of carrying the whole weight of the article.Do a dictionary search for Islamophobia,Anti SemitismAnti Hindu,You will find that both the former exist but not Anti-Hindu.I am equally against the terms Anti-Muslim being elevated to denote a movement or philosophy - which is the reason the term - fear of Muslims or Islamophobia is used to denote that state of mind or philosophy - similar is the case with Anti-Semitism.Anti-Jew does not denote a widespread philiosophy of hate towards Jews while Anti-Semitism does.The absence of a term denoting the fear of Hindus or hate of Hindus could be an indication that such a philosophy has not gained a wider ground even though in individual cases there would be definitely be people who are Anti-Hindus, in the similar way that there will be people who are Anti Buddhists,Christians or Muslims.The term Anti-Hindu does not exist in academic discourse the way it has been portrayed in this article and hence does not deserve to be used as a head for an article that discusses systematic prejudice against Hindus.TerryJ-Ho 03:43, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

* Note on Note

  • The reason why this article is put for deletion is the fact that the term Anti-Hindu falls under the ambit of Wikipedia is an encyclopedia (along with some topics that would typically be found in an almanac).Hence, articles should consist of encyclopedic information about "notable" subjects.
  • [Any article that simply defines a word, or short phrase, as you would find in a typical dictionary, and that can't be expanded into an encyclopedic entry, should be contributed to the Wiktionary sister project]' from Wikipedia's policies [1]
  • The Non-notability of this article or rather the term can be gathered from the fact that the definition of Anti Hindu does not come from any sources but is an invented one.Compare this to Islamophobia or Anti-Semitism who discuss the semantics and origins of the term in the very first paragraph.
  • IMHO - the terms Anti-Muslim,Anti-Christian,Anti-Jew and Anti-Hindu should all point to Wiktionary rather than Wikipedia whereas the academic terms Anti-Semitism, Islamophobia along with wider articles on Systematic bias against religions should exist on Wikipedia.
  • There is of course a large element of bias in this article as the concept is built upon Hindu Action Forum sources while the some examples are indeed built upon news sources but do they discuss the concept of Anti-Hindu or Anti-Hinduism or Anti-Hinduness?? Many of the articles from independent sources discuss persecution of Hindus and not biases against Hindus including the one from US State Department and Amnesty International's BANGLADESH

Attacks on members of the Hindu minority

    • Scholarly use of the term anti-Hindu is here at the Infinity Foundation in Princeton:

Hkelkar 15:24, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Rest of the article

: The reason why this article is put for deletion is the fact that the term Anti-Hindu falls under the ambit of Wikipedia is an encyclopedia (along with some topics that would typically be found in an almanac).Hence, articles should consist of encyclopedic information about "notable" subjects.

Attutudes of bigotry against Hindus is a notable subject. I believe that trying to delete this article is a bad faith nom by this user in order to promulgate the "religio-Xenophobic" Islamist bias.Hkelkar 23:08, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Bear in mind that the article has been around for months.Why, all of a sudden, this AfD?Particularly after TerryJ-Ho and his Muslim Guild buddies lost a mediation dispute regarding anti-Hindu prejudices of Tipu Sultan??Not a coincidence and a bad faith nom.Hkelkar 23:11, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • [Any article that simply defines a word, or short phrase, as you would find in a typical dictionary, and that can't be expanded into an encyclopedic entry, should be contributed to the Wiktionary sister project]' from Wikipedia's policies [2]
  • There could of course be an article on Systematic Prejudice against Hindu religion like any other religion.
This is it.But it's more than bias. It's a polemical hatred expressed in hoax books like Haqeeqat (protocols of Zion for Hindus) and others.Hkelkar 23:08, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • The Non-notability of this article or rather the term can be gathered from the fact that the definition of Anti Hindu does not come from any sources but is an invented one.Compare this to Islamophobia or Anti-Semitism who discuss the semantics and origins of the term in the very first paragraph.
See links below for the notability of the term.Hkelkar 23:08, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • IMHO - the terms Anti-Muslim,Anti-Christian,Anti-Jew and Anti-Hindu should all point to Wiktionary rather than Wikipedia whereas the academic terms Anti-Semitism, Islamophobia along with wider articles on Systematic bias against religions should exist on Wikipedia.
Well they don't, neither should this.Hkelkar 23:08, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • There is of course a large element of bias in this article as the concept is built upon Hindu Action Forum sources while the some examples are indeed built upon news sources but do they discuss the concept of Anti-Hindu or Anti-Hinduism or Anti-Hinduness?? Many of the articles from independent sources discuss persecution of Hindus and not biases against Hindus including the one from US State Department and Amnesty International's BANGLADESH
Attacks on members of the Hindu minority
They do discuss anti-Hindu views in addition to the persecution of Hindus.The refs discuss prejudices against Hindus that lead to persecution.The former is used as reference material.Hkelkar 23:08, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rest of the debate

Above is an expression of hypocrisy as TerryJ-Ho himself uses the term "anti-Muslim" rather liberally on wikipedia. See this edit summary.Hkelkar 03:49, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Can I challenge you to find more of such usage in my edits TerryJ-Ho 03:59, 14 October 2006 (UTC) Kelkar above is a serious charge you have put against me and shows the extent to which you resort to lies.Take my challenge..My usage of Anti-Muslim is as a qualifier in that link not as a philiosophy.TerryJ-Ho 04:43, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
About the rather laughable claim by TerryJ-Ho about "lacking reliable sources", go ahead, click the links and check for yourself.They are sourced just fine thank you. More bad faith assumptions from this user.Hkelkar 06:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Ah! You seem to get edgy when you get caught in an inconsistency. At least I will give you credit for trying to wiggle your way out of it with technicalities ^_^ .Hkelkar 04:45, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Or rather , you think your comments on this fora make you immune to the consequences of these charges TerryJ-Ho 06:11, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
The term "anti-Hindu" used to denote views against Hindus exists in literature per this Anti-Hindu at Google Book Search
Plus, the term is qualified as an impersonal adjective, denoting views and comments rather than people.Hkelkar 03:55, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
In your above link anti-Hindu movement,anti-Hindu animus,anti-Hindu propaganda,Indian Constitution is anti-Hindu,anti-Hindu attitudes,anti-Hindu feelings,anti-Hindu bias,anti-Hindu laws,propaganda word is not pro-Muslim, but anti-Hindu,anti-Hindu cast,anti-Hindu Zamindar all are qualifying words not Nouns themselves TerryJ-Ho 03:57, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Bear in mind that anti-semitism was originally used as an adjective only (Antisemitische Vorurtiele by Moritz Steinscneider). That was a "qualifier" too.Antisemitische==>antisemiticHkelkar 03:59, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Which is why a certain political current in India - playing on victimisation is trying to invent a word like this TerryJ-Ho 04:04, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
That is the very definition of WP:OR. Plus, are you implying that Jews invented anti-semitism to "play on victimisation" too???Sieg Heil Mein Fuherer!Hkelkar 04:09, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
No, they did not.Anti-Semitism came to be accepted on account of its own weight and the whole world witnessed it TerryJ-Ho 04:24, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
And the whole world witnesses anti-Hindu bigotry, such as the US Congress, the Simon Wiesenthal Center and others.Only anti-Hindus don;t witness it because they're the ones doing it:)Hkelkar 04:42, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
That's an WP:OR your's Kelkar .Ain't?
Nope, look at the sources for anti-Hindu and the recognition by the Simon Wiesenthal Center.Hkelkar 04:49, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but it only says what SWC says gives no source attesting what it says.On clicking the sources 7 link to Hindu America Foundation, 2 link to Indiacause.com, 2 link to Geocities, 1 to Tributeto Hinduism, 1 to Let India Develop
Please articulate your argument better.It makes absolutely no sense to me right now.All the HAF links are qualified as HAF links.HAF is an advocacy group like the Anti-Defamation League, which is allowed as a reliable source to explain their viewpoint (primary source) and to cite their activities etc. HAF is a notable and recognized group. Their partisanship may be a matter of debate, but they are reliable. Similarly, IndiaCause would not lie about the topics discussed as then they'd invite libel lawsuit. Thus, the facts are reliable.
The only worthwhile sources used are :1 educational on Wendy episode - scholarly interpretation whose comments on Hinduism were in academic perspective,few articles from rediff.com - editorial in nature.US State Department links mention the presecution of minorities in South Asian countries and are already covered in the Persecution of Hindus page.In short this is an interesting presentation of factoids and individual incidences.This page needs to go.Those who say the sources are fine and article is balanced need not look at the face value of the article - check the individual links.Most if not all are dubious TerryJ-Ho 06:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, right. US Congress is dubious? What a sick joke. Plus, the HAF report is backed by Simon Weisenthal Center and acknowledged in the Washington times so it is backed up by reliable third parties and can be sourced just like ADL articles are sourced in anti-semitism article.All my sources satisfy WP:RS. Looks like Terry is getting increasingly more desperate from being voted down so unanimously.Hkelkar 06:31, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong and Speedy Keep:Bad faith move by TerryJ-Ho for a well-sourced article.Hkelkar 00:38, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Expanding above position:Not a single statement in the article is unsourced. Per precedent in anti-semitism,anti-Christian and anti-Muslim the article chronicles historical and modern anti-Hindu views and attitudes.This is a bad faith attempt by the user TerryJ-Ho to promulgate a bias that is rapidly becoming very burdensome for many wikipedia users.He has lost out to a mediation involving anti-Hindu attitudes held by another historical figure Tipu Sultan and I believe that he is merely venting frustration at this article here. Administrators please investigate this matter.Links to the mediation dispute is here:

User:Martinp23/Desk Wikipedia:AMA Requests for Assistance/Requests/September 2006/Hkelkar .Hkelkar 00:53, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - Agreed with TerryJ-Ho. This information would all be appropriate in Persecution of Hindus. BhaiSaab talk 00:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment:BhaiSaab was also part of the mediation which emerged in my favor and I question his motives here as well.Hkelkar 00:53, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Hkelkar is a likely sockpuppet and I question his motives here as well. BhaiSaab talk 00:55, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
The argument for moving anti-Hindu to Persecution of Hindus has been refuted in the talk page as the two articles discuss different topics (attitude vs action). Plus, below is a representatiom of reliable sources used in the article:

http://magazine.uchicago.edu/0412/features/index-print.shtml http://www.sullivan-county.com/news/pat_quotes/hindus.htm http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2006/71443.htm http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/engASA130062001!Open http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/2310359.stm

All of them are notable and describe anti-Hindu views and attitudes.Hkelkar 01:02, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Apart from Anti-Semitism, the other two terms are not commonly used apart as an adjective and could possibly be removed. anti Muslim points to Islamophobia rather and is a commonly discussed term at the time.I have never come across a term Anti-Hindu used as a phenomenon TerryJ-Ho 01:15, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Look at the sources in the article that frequently mention the term.Islamophobia is a neologism.Hkelkar 01:16, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
If we are discussing Anti-Hindu , why not discuss Pro-Hindu as a phenomenon and all the Pros and Anti's possible.Say for example Pro-Communism, Anti-Communism. These are not ideologies but point of views and any person in the world will always have one or the other attitude or none at all TerryJ-Ho 01:19, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Immaterial to the issue at hand. We are talking about anti-Hindu views and prejudices here.Hkelkar 01:22, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Most of the sources that use "anti-Hindu" are referring to specific incidents, not a phenomenon. BhaiSaab talk 01:20, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Bigotry against Hindus are definitely a systemic phenomenon in many countries per the US congress report itself.Hkelkar 01:21, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Another point of note: Anti-religious activities are not reserved for one religion or another, even though it's more visible in the Jewish community. Systematic discrimination of others over their religious views will happen regardless of who is discriminating against whom. This is a significant part of religious fanaticism and it's been happening for centuries, and it still continues today to a lesser degree. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 01:25, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment:Frankly I do not know how to react to this AfD. Personally I am so utterly disgusted I could retch. TerryJ-HO is deliberately conflating the issue of Hindu Nationalism with the hate and bigotry against millions of Hindus who have nothing to do with any goddamn nationalist movement.Many anti-semites also conflate the issue of anti-semitism with the issue of minority Jewish Fundamentalism, does that mean antisemitism should also be put up for AfD?This is utterly disgusting!Hkelkar 01:40, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Well you've already reacted by soliciting six votes. BhaiSaab talk 01:43, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
No different than what TerryJ-Ho has been doing.Plus, informing users is no crime.I do not know user:Torinir and have never met him before.Hkelkar 01:45, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
One can expect you not to call the Hindu Nationalists as goddam on your after these edits but anyhow let us remain within the realm of discussion rather than out of it.TerryJ-Ho
Yes, the pettiness of this AfD is becoming eminently clear after the views of User:Martinp23 in the Tipu Sultan debate here addressed to my side of that debate.Hkelkar 02:19, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
If you are bent on discussing issues that have no relevance here note that Martinp23 wrote these comments as your advocate and not as a judge.I would appreciate if you continued to comment on the article at hand and not the editors.TerryJ-Ho 02:33, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
To use your own words:"They all are relevent as they put into perspective TerryJ-Ho's position" from here as anon ip 82.44.188.125.Hkelkar 02:40, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep I sense bad faith here. The topic is quite well documented in the article. It is a fact that some people/organizations treat Hindus with contempt due to their views on Hinduism. That is documented in this article. Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 02:37, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I see nothing wrong in this well-cited, balanced article. --Incman|वार्ता 02:54, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep - The reasons cited by User:Terry Jo are not good enough to delete a well-referenced article like this one.-Bharatveer 03:32, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Which is why I have been careful to avoid potentially partisan sources unless backed by reliable sources.Also bear in mind that anti-Hindus often hide their bigotry behind claims to oppose Hindutva (like the user who filed this AfD), so any claims of "Misuse of anti-Hindu by Hindutvaadis" need to be carefully sourced lest we don't let anti-Hindu prejudices enter the anti-Hindu article itself.This is similar to many haters of other religions who mask their hatred behind opposition to radical sects in the religion (anti-semites who claim opposition to Jewish nationalism, anti-Muslims who claim opposition to terrorism, anti-Christians claim opposition to Christian Fundamentalism etc.).Hkelkar 03:46, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Oh sure. That said I'm Catholic, but I'd concede some Catholics have used the term Anti-Catholicism in an improper or overly broad way. As has Anti-Semitism or what have you.--T. Anthony 03:49, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Read those Google Scholar links again Anti-Hindu never comes across as a philosophy but as an adjective "anti-Hindu movement,anti-Hindu animus,anti-Hindu propaganda,Indian Constitution is anti-Hindu,anti-Hindu attitudes,anti-Hindu feelings,anti-Hindu bias,anti-Hindu laws,propaganda word is not pro-Muslim, but anti-Hindu,anti-Hindu cast,anti-Hindu Zamindar...etc." TerryJ-Ho Nowhere does Anti-Hindu stand on its own.YOur link proves my own point.Thanks TerryJ-Ho 04:31, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
You read all 240 articles at Google Scholar? I think you need something better to do with your time. Besides that I wasn't only going by Google Scholar.--T. Anthony 14:15, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep I'm amazed how a term that returns so many search results can be called fictious. Delta Tango | Talk 03:53, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
All are qualifiers - anti-Hindu movement,anti-Hindu animus,anti-Hindu propaganda,Indian Constitution is anti-Hindu,anti-Hindu attitudes,anti-Hindu feelings,anti-Hindu bias,anti-Hindu laws,propaganda word is not pro-Muslim, but anti-Hindu,anti-Hindu cast,anti-Hindu Zamindar not a Noun TerryJ-Ho 04:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Nonetheless the term is notable.Hkelkar 04:10, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Anti-semitism is an academically accepted term, Anti-Muslim points to Islamophobia and Anti-Christian says in bold Anti-Christian Prejudice while Anti-Hindu is standalone.Or is it like they say in India "do the needful" [3] TerryJ-Ho 04:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
On it being kept we can rename it "Anti-Hindu sentiments" if necessary. You want it deleted because it didn't add an extra word?--T. Anthony 04:40, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I have no problem with this suggestion.Better rename it to anti-Hindu prejudices and redirect anti-Hindu to it (because many articles wikilink anti-Hindu).Hkelkar 04:47, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep.--nids(♂) 05:35, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep per Shyamsunder and Deepak. I advise the nominator to study the subject a bit more and not speak with prejudice and sarcasm. His comment about "do the needful" breaks WP:POINT. Sorry, I took his comment out of context. I apologize. Rama's arrow 06:04, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep per above. It's a well-written, well-cited article. Ultra-Loser Talk | BT sites 06:31, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep A well researched article covering a real problem. — Joshua Johaneman 06:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep Inline citations, well written, I see no reason to delete.

Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 08:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep A good article, which could stand to be a bit more NPOV, but definitely not deleted. Elijahmeeks 08:02, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Mereda 10:11, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Bryan 10:25, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. Wikipedia has also articles on anti-semitism, anti-muslim sentiment, anti-christian. --Bondego 10:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per comments above. Well-referenced, not necessarily neutral but that is a criteria for revision not deletion. --Antorjal 14:06, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - bad faith nom by Muslim users.Bakaman Bakatalk 16:07, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. Bakaman Bakatalk 16:08, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep per Bondego. But, it hints at original research(even though references are there), since this is a term not usd by the media or academia. --Ageo020 (talk • contribs • count) 18:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment:Use of the term can be found by media/academia here: http://books.google.com/books?q=%22anti-hindu%22&btnG=Search+Books&as_brr=0Hkelkar 23:03, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. It brings together collection of unrelated events and classifies them under term coined here. I see very, very disturbing trend to create "anti-everything" articles on Wikipedia. If this gets free I expect to have Anti-Andorraism one day. Pavel Vozenilek 19:17, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - There are 1 billion plus Hindus, you are taking this out of context like the Muslim Guild above.Bakaman Bakatalk 19:21, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Move - "Anti-Hindu" reads as a discriptor. Perhaps Anti-Hindu prejudice should be used, as the analog of Anti-Christian redirects to; or Anti-Hinduism; or another title that is clearly a subject. I believe that the content is worthy of keeping. ENeville 21:00, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Obvious keep Per all the above. · XP · 21:46, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Move per ENeville above. I dont want to say it, but I hadnt heard this phrase before I came on WP, and that makes me suspicious, especially since I hear it on WP all the time now. Be that as it may, I think that prejudice against all faiths deserves an article on WP. So,a move. Hornplease 23:11, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
See book links above for the use of the term in media and academia.Hkelkar 23:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
About hornplease:Look at his edit history to see a pattern...Hkelkar 23:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
err... what pattern? could you be more explicit, please? Could the fact that you have been asked to justify your edits on a few pages have caused you to make that statement? Remember, any edit you make, you should be prepared to defend without losing your temper.
I did look at the links, which is why I voted move. The use of the term in the media is largely limited to rightwing groups. I think we have to be very careful about such terms, like extraordinary rendition or islamofascism. That's all Hornplease 23:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
C. C. Yang, K.C. Ho, Kluver, Yang,Glenn J. Ames,William F Fisher,John Leonard etc. are "right wing"? Laughable! False propaganda again.Hkelkar 23:48, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Please be civil. That was a remarkably incivil statement, and a violation of WP:AGF. The names you mention are based on a superficial reading of the results. For example, the Yang, Ho, Kuver and Yang edited book is a collection of essays, in which one by Muthu Selvan uses the term in the context placing the motivation of flame wars on Hindu newsgroups. Note that you could equally well have mentioned Sumit Sarkar, who also uses "anti-Hindu", and is hardly rightwing. The point is not irrelevant that the term is used as a single adjective. Consider the following representative quote from Ashok Kapur "The British India government was acting on anti-Congress, anti-Hindu and

anti-majority rule premises." This hardly suggests that the term is in widespread use. Please note that I do not object to the content of the article, but the name strikes me as something of a neologism. Also, dont lose your shirt. If you have put work into editing the article, and your edits are sourced and NPOV, the work will not be lost. Hornplease 00:43, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I find the reason for delete funny. I never heard of Jimbo Wales during my life, so does that mean he doesnt exist? Bakaman Bakatalk 00:53, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
I didnt vote delete. I merely noted that I was 'suspicious' of the use of a term that I, even after having observed these debates in the real world, had not seen before. That suspicion crystallised on reading the linked results. Please note that I have not disagreed with the content of the article, only, mildly, with the article title. I find it extraordinary that it should provoke such anger. Hornplease 01:03, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree with you here. I don't see how it being renamed "Anti-Hindu prejudice" would be worthy of a fight. I'd think renaming Anti-Catholicism to "Anti-Catholic prejudice" would be unnecessary, but not worth fighting over. Only issue is that moving it is a separate issue, this is more of a delete/keep discussion. Although possibly rename could start being an option as it is with categories.--T. Anthony 14:20, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep The article is very well written. There is absolutely no reason why it should be deleted. Syiem 05:06, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong and obvious keep per most above. --דניאל - Danielrocks123 contribs 00:44, 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 Speedy delete a7 and a1. Not listed on IMDB. NawlinWiki 00:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zacharia Caley

Ridiculously unnotable actor, ridiculously written article. Speedy tag was removed twice even though it's rather clearly an nnbio candidate, so I'm taking it here. My vote is Delete, of course. Danny Lilithborne 00:33, 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. I have imaginary friends. They're real people, I just like to imagine they're my friends. the wub "?!" 16:29, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Imaginary friend

This article is woefully junked. It is devoid of any encyclopedic worth at this point and serves only as a playground for rampant vandalism and attacks at religion and anyone's favorite 'make them an invisible friend' subject matter. ju66l3r 01:41, 14 October 2006 (UTC) The correct tools for the job have been given to me below. Thanks everyone. ju66l3r 16:09, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep, The topic is encyclopedic. There is plenty of information in this article. It can be improved. A poorly written article on an encyclopedic topic is not grounds for deletion. —Pengo talk · contribs 02:21, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep the Subject itself is somewhat notable, with movies and TV shows about them, and there are even books on the subject. There may be problems with vandalism, but that's not sufficient grounds for deletion. If you're concerned about that, I suggest seeing about it being protected. FrozenPurpleCube 02:23, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and Clean-up - a legitamate verifiable topic --T-rex 02:33, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is a medical condition for people with autism. This article should be classified and explained scientfically, though. Sr13 03:15, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, verifiable and significant subject. Gazpacho 03:59, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Mybe could do with some sources (*opens up google*), but the topic itself is well worth an article. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 08:03, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: As the proposer, I just want to make it clear that while I find the topic valid, I find the current text is so useless to what valid text on this topic should look like that deletion of the article is the first step to making it better in this case. In my mind I saw this akin to how a copyvio would act upon an article (delete everything and rebuild from anew), but maybe it would have been better just to do just that sans the AfD discussion. I don't see the current text as being any better than a blank page (and in many ways it's worse than if we had no article at all: weasel words, unsourced allegations, POV, and just plain jibberish). That is why I proposed it for deletion. ju66l3r 08:20, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup per per T-Rex.
  • Keep and cleanup per T-Rex.Matthuxtable 11:50, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup per T-Rex --ASDFGHJKL 12:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup - Yet the article sounds really wrong to me, I don't know why and I don't know how to fix it. Michaelas10 (T|C) 12:41, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and I've tagged it for rewrite. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 15:12, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 23:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hinduism in Azerbaijan

Since this article starts with a negation - it hardly has a chance of developing further at least till a further few years.The contents described could adequately be covered in a larger article on Hinduism. TerryJ-Ho 00:45, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Some editors have since changed the content, however, to be noted that it claims Atashgah as a Hindu temple when the sources used mention that Atashgah is the temple of Fire of Zoroastrianism which was the dominant religion of Azerbaijan and Iran at some point of time in history which might imply that there is some controversy to the exact nature of this structure.TerryJ-Ho 20:03, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Reply - There is no controversy, only that this bad-faith AfD nominator has tried to create one. The facts calling it a Hindu mandir are sources and backed up in historical journals and the like. The atashgah was not even built until the 16-1700's.Bakaman Bakatalk 01:34, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete-- the only notable part of this article, the Atashgah mandir, has its own article. Dar-Ape 01:22, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep in light of recent article additions and points brought to the table. Dar-Ape 02:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete Seems fairly specific, can maybe be merged into a more general article, not sure which one though. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 08:38, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • delete why not just make a section in Hinduism? ST47Talk 11:23, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep with recent changes ST47Talk 21:53, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - ITs part of Hinduism by country and this is a bad faith nom Bakaman Bakatalk 16:05, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. Bakaman Bakatalk 17:56, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Bad faith nomination.nids(♂) 16:20, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • comment: See Islam in Armenia.--nids(♂) 16:25, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep unless Hinduism in Central Asia is created. I think the arguments for deleting contradict the rationales for having stubs and "Religion by country" articles. Rama's arrow 17:25, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Comment - Azerbaijan is not part of central asia, but Hinduism in Central Asia would include Turkmen, KAzakh, Uzbek, Tajik, and Kirghiz - stans.Bakaman Bakatalk 17:56, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Central Asia includes Azerbaijan mapTerryJ-Ho
Perhaps some maps say its in central asia. Wikipedia places it inb the Caucasus, and since this is meant to link and add to wiki articles, per the main caucasus article its part of the caucasus. Fringe maps made by nn geographers dont figure into this, as I could find a myriad of maps to counteract the map you found.Bakaman Bakatalk 00:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletions. Bakaman Bakatalk 17:56, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Expand per precedents History of the Jews in Uzbekistan--Ageo020 (talk • contribs • count) 18:35, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and Expand per above.UberCryxic 18:42, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per comments above. --Antorjal 19:04, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and Expand per above --Amxitsa 21:43, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Bakaman.Shyamsunder 11:56, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep it's part of Hinduism by country series of articles. But it should be expanded. --Ragib 00:58, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Religion by country is an accepted series of articles. Frequently countries with small current populations had historical significance; countries with no historical presence have a small, growing population of believers that cause social concern; etc., etc. Hornplease 01:09, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Conditionally,I accept to close this AFD if Religion by country is an acceptable series on Wikipedia.TerryJ-Ho 02:41, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Admins may kindly wrap up this discussion if Religion by country is proved to be a Valid seriesTerryJ-Ho
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:15, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lali Watt

Non-notable local politician, see guidelines at WP:BIO Ronnotel 01:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

As per WP:BIO:

Major local political figures who receive (or received) significant press coverage.
Just being an elected local official does not guarantee notability.

Lali Watt has not received significant press coverage - just some minor mentions in connection with a zoning issue she was involved in. Ronnotel 01:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. --Aaron 01:30, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete Firstly, allow me to state that this subject exist. However, it does not meet verifiability content, which is a key policy of Wikipedia. The article in question lacks material that has been published by reputable sources. A google search clearly supports my statement. The 6 unique google hits which link to this subject is of questionable sources. This clearly shows that the politician has not received any significant press coverage yet. --Siva1979Talk to me 02:07, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nothing notable including group (CALM) she founded.Glendoremus 06:00, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete - The Wilmette, Illinois article seems to indicate a lack of notablity here --T-rex 06:38, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, fails WP:BIO. --Dhartung | Talk 08:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Fails WP:BIO, not enough press coverage to pass. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 08:45, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - per nom --Amxitsa 21:46, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Madchen Hoch 01:58, 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 11:01, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stub categories

Disambiguation page that contains only self-references and cross-namespace links. Khatru2 01:40, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment this doesn't seem to be an article issue, but a question for admins to see if anybody actually uses it, for whatever reason. FrozenPurpleCube 02:20, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as the only links are from User pages. They may as well link to the WikiProject. --Dhartung | Talk 08:37, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Has no place in the mainspace. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 09:25, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, Wikipedia internals should not have articles in the main namespace. JIP | Talk 11:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Avoid self-references. the wub "?!" 19:09, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete In addtion to everyone above, I just can not fathom why this is in existence in the mainspace.-- danntm T C 21:03, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --- RockMFR 21:35, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above Cynical 21:48, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above --Amxitsa 21:50, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Huh? And no, this is nothing to do with WP:WSS. Grutness...wha? 00:34, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - not for mainspace per M.B. self-reference. Jpe|ob 03:32, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:01, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Air Traffic

At the moment this article constitutes vanity/promotion. They have been mentioned by a few reasonably high profile people, but this alone does not make them notable, therefore the article should be deleated.

Of course if they do ever become notable i.e. by releasing a charting single/album and winning awards etc. then the article could be remade at this point. Hgiffy 02:11, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete in current state, but if it could be changed to be an article about air traffic at airports, keep and expand. Shin'ou's TTV (Futaba|Masago|Kotobuki) 03:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep but I'm tagging. Meets WP:BAND on the basis of the UK tour. Kotobuki: See air traffic control and air traffic controller. --Dhartung | Talk 08:41, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete Per the only references being their official website and myspace page, there are a lot of unverified statements in the article too. It may still be verifiable however, so if anybody manages to dig up sources for it I'd change my stance. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 09:46, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Neutral The name of the article is a little misleading. If an article related to air traffic could be formed then keep, if not then delete. Matthuxtable 11:48, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete their notability is not asserted and they haven't even gone on their tour yet. If they become notable, then the article can be recreated. Until then, scrap it. Ultra-Loser Talk | BT sites 14:07, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per the above, then redirect to Aviation. Sandstein 16:22, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Based on a Google search for "Air Traffic" and 'band', it appears to be an up-and-coming band, but hasn't met WP:BAND yet. As WP is not a crystal ball, we can't have an article based on what some commentaters think they will become. -- Donald Albury 17:24, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Most of the article is speculative and their tour has not even begun. I think it would be best to delete and then see how their music charts. I would redirect the page Air Traffic to Aviation as per Sandstein and if the group become a success reassess this or whether it would be more appropriate to have an article Air Traffic (band)--Amxitsa 21:57, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete needed for redirect Aviation Widefox 01:42, 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 Speedy Keep per unanimous consensus. Eluchil404 06:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Buccal exostosis

Procedural nomination; AfD tag was placed on article without follow-through. No comment from me. ... discospinster talk 02:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep - a real medical condition, see here. The given URL provides a number of primary sources. MER-C 04:23, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, legitimate article; needs some sources and copyediting. --Kinu t/c 05:33, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep This is a fairly acceptable stub article, it seems fine to me, not really any reason to delete, seeing as the nominator didn't even open the discussion with a reason to delete. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 10:02, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - a reasonable stub. ENeville 21:06, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - Article needs references but there is a separate tag about that and it shouldnt be deleted as it is clearly a genuine medical condition --Amxitsa 22:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - genuine article. --Esteban F. (con.) 00:29, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Needs some work, but is a real condition. Pursey 10:00, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - a real condition, just needs a good expansion and referencing. InvictaHOG 10:38, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per above comments. —Brim 13:26, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 23:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Corki's Corner

Non-notable business. Doesn't have any references, doesn't pass WP:CORP. Probably should have been speedy-deleted per {{db-spam}}, but the speedy deletion was declined[4], and the prod was removed [5], so no choice but to proceed to afd. --NovaSTL 02:36, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Probably should have been speedied. TheRingess 02:37, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. MER-C 03:26, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete A7.--Húsönd 04:06, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete of the speedy type.Glendoremus 06:02, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete — And watch out for the AfD notice as well, the user may try to remove that as well. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 10:17, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable business. JIP | Talk 11:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable business Matthuxtable 11:43, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, fails WP:CORP QuiteUnusual 19:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom --Amxitsa 22:03, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete " Widefox 01:39, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Madchen Hoch 01:59, 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 speedily deleted by JesseW. MER-C 05:50, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Just Jordan

Procedural nomination; AfD tag was placed on article without follow-through. No comment from me. ... discospinster talk 02:37, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete - no context whatsoever. So tagged. MER-C 03:27, 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 holy stub keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 23:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Christy Hui

Procedural nomination; AfD tag was placed on article without follow-through. No comment from me. ... discospinster talk 02:38, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment - The article was tagged for AFD within three minutes of the article's creation. I'm going to Abstain pending possible cleanup. If the subject is indeed the Chinese creator of Xiaolin Showdown as mentioned in that stub, it's notability and would warrant expansion, but it needs verification. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 03:32, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand The creater of the show is indeed named Christy Hui, at least according to TV.com [6] TJ Spyke 03:55, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. See the sidebar on Xiaolin Showdown or the producers section on the IMDb profile for more info. Ultra-Loser Talk | BT sites 07:41, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep And attempt to expand, there is potential in this article. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 10:24, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per User:TJ Spyke Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 16:16, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Article needs to be expanded but a simple search on google establishes her as the creator of the show and sources such as this provide a basis to start expanding the article. I think she is sufficiently notable to warrant an entry --Amxitsa 22:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. The article is extremely short and needs to be expanded as soon as possible. However, it is 100% genuine and doesn't need to be deleted. --Esteban F. (con.) 00:31, 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. Deizio talk 13:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Null (scanlation)

Non-notable scanlation group, does not meet WP:WEB. They translate the One Piece manga into english, a couple other minor series, and... that's it. Precedant supports this deletion, as the Dattebayo fansub group (they do Naruto, a far more popular series) had their article previously deleted. It's also unreferenced and probably unreferenceable. tjstrf 04:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

  • If it's not clear, I'm saying Delete as nominator. I've also informed the WP:MANGA WikiProject of this AfD. --tjstrf 04:32, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete, non-notable and unverifiable. Mushroom (Talk) 04:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - Null is one of the most known scanlation groups on the internet, and very old for a scanlation group. They scanlate a lot of manga, have a fansub subgroup, are probably second to lurk in terms of their irc channel and the bots they host, and run the scanlation wiki. The article is not unreferencable - although it does lack reliable references (e.g. things like newspapers and books). But i should point out that scanlation itself is a internet phenomonen that doesn't have much of a real life presence. It's internet notability can be verified by a google test. Searching for null + "one piece" + manga gets over 40 thousand results. Searching for null + scanslation also gets about that many (although null + scanlation doesn't...not sure why.). Dattebayo isn't really a precedant...since the article Dattebayo wasn't actually about the group, it was about the word (here is the article before it got redirected. Dattebayo group was mentioned for their explaination of what the word meant) --`/aksha 04:46, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Reply The discussion that took place on the Dattebayo AfD was over the group, not the word. The group and their site both fail WP:WEB horribly (to say nothing of WP:V) as they are not "subject of multiple non-trivial published works", nor have they "won a well known and independent award", nor are they "distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators". --tjstrf 04:55, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment i'm not commenting on the validity of deleteing Dattebayo. Just that i don't think it's a precedant, since the article Dattebayo itself was not about the same thing as the article null now is. --`/aksha 05:05, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:54, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete fan scanlations and fansubs are by default non-notable. _dk 05:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Perhaps not well known or notable to the average person, but the group is pretty well-known in Manga circles. — Joshua Johaneman 06:56, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Trooof 07:04, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. 11,700 ghits, a poor alexa ranking, no verifiability, (an entrance on another wiki does not make it verifiable and the other link provided has barely any information on it), and a failure of WP:WEB. Ultra-Loser Talk | BT sites 07:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment i don't think those numbers are valid. Google test for Null using "one piece + manga" instead of "scanlation" (but still with -wikipedia) gets 38,400 results, and just null + manga -wikipedia gets even more. The alexa ranking is not really valid since Null's primary headquaters are on their irc channel, and they distribute through their irc channel too. If there's any ways to test hit counters for irc channels, then someone should do a test for #null on irc.irchighway.net --`/aksha 08:14, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment Well searchirc could probably be used to get an idea of the popularity of the channel, only irchighway has blocked them, anyone know any other sites? — Joshua Johaneman 08:43, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment The thing is, all searches for "null" anywhere receive far more hits than are actually related to the subject of this article, because of their name. The closest thing I found was a channel called #null-indo on irchighway with irc.netsplit.de. Ultra-Loser Talk / Contributions 15:32, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and above. Groups like this are awesome for the work they do, and lets face it, without them at lot of us who only speak English would be at a huge loss. However, even if an individual group is notable, it's hard to even say what that group is. They change people all the time, different people in the groups will claim different levels of involvement, etc etc. Lets say we even get past that we still need to reference it. As tjstrf, said it's pretty much unreferenceable. I doubt we'd be able to get reliable sources for such an article. As WP:V says, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." Other than individual reader testimony, I don't even see how we'd get past the first step I mentioned, whether or not the group is notable in the fist place (and not violate WP:NOR), let alone the other hurdles. -- Ned Scott 08:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete as was said by all supporting, it's only of importance to those deeply into manga, making it fancruft, also noting the precedent above ST47Talk 11:29, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Ned Scott: unverifiable = unkeepable. — Haeleth Talk 11:37, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete until verified. People Powered 12:07, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per the reasons given by nom and Ned. The nature of fan translation groups generally makes then non-notable and unreferenceable. This is mostly original research. --Kunzite 14:46, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable, vanity, etc. - mako 15:59, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment I wouldn't call it vanity. Null is notorious for trying to keep a low profile. --tjstrf 22:42, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Eh, perhaps it was true in the past, but these days, compared to some other groups, they're hardly trying to stay hidden. Their "this ___ doesn't exist" refrain strikes me as somewhat tongue-in-cheek. - mako 01:18, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above comments. Their website is a better resource anyway; anyone who hears about them and is interested would go there first, not there. --Masamage 00:13, 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 speedily deleted by Grandmasterka. MER-C 08:18, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Poké World

Contested prod. I hold to my original argument that this is a non-notable forum that fails WP:WEB; even the article admits it's small and "growing". Crystallina 04:44, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, doesn't meet criteria outlined in WP:WEB. The article seems to assert the site's own insignificance, so it probably meets {{db-web}} criteria. Might as well let the AfD process finish though, since this is a contested PROD, and also so it can be deleted via CSD G4 later if needed. --Kinu t/c 05:31, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete - fails to assert notability. So tagged. MER-C 05:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Trooof 07:04, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete Unverifiable (it cites the forum itself for all its refs) and non-notable. If it continues to "grow rapidly", it'll eventually gain the necessary notability and the article can be created then. Ultra-Loser Talk | BT sites 07:56, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:03, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Overlap.org

1. WP:NOT soapbox 2. Self-promotion 3. Advertising of their website Overlap.org, 4. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information: Internet guides, 5. WP:COI Editing from too close "little-known musician or band should preferably not be by the musician, no verifiable notoriety given 6. NPOV, 7. style, 8. unreferenced Widefox 04:48, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Almost a speedy. MER-C 05:53, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Wow, that's a nom with attitude! Delete per it. Ultra-Loser Talk | BT sites 08:29, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Per every one of the 8 points the nominator has put forward, I agree completely. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 11:06, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete just because I had to join in ST47Talk 11:29, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete point 9 "no verifiable notoriety" Widefox 11:31, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete per every point put forward above and also no citing of sources Matthuxtable 11:41, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I think the nomination says it all --Amxitsa 22:17, 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 as patent nonsense. -- Hoary 05:23, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lackasushi

This article is a joke. Fg2 04:50, 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. theProject 23:03, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deer Fang

1. WP:NOT soapbox 2. Self-promotion 3. Advertising of their website Overlap.org, 4. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information: Internet guides, 5. WP:COI Editing from too close "little-known musician or band should preferably not be by the musician, no verifiable notoriety given 6. NPOV, 7. style, 8. unreferenced Widefox 04:54, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, non-notable biography, does not meet any of the requirements on WP:BIO of wider mention, and the article is lifted bodily from here. You could probably have just prod'ed this. --tjstrf 05:07, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, - admin - please group with Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Overlap.org and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jon_Phillips (He's been deleted before but right this second, just couldn't workout how to create new AfD page). There are other members and a new one is being added today Solsken . Best to clear that new one out if it arrives in next few days. Widefox 05:25, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete - I don't really see an assertion of notability. "Affiliated projects" doesn't count: we're all affiliated with Wikipedia as editors but this doesn't allow us to have an article about ourselves in the main namespace. So tagged. MER-C 05:55, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Funky name though. Ultra-Loser Talk | BT sites 08:35, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete (recycled message) Per every one of the 8 points the nominator has put forward, I agree completely. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 11:07, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable --Amxitsa 22:19, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 23:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dan Sandor

Unelected candidate for Toronto City Council; Wikipedia precedent has already established that the municipal level of government is not a field of endeavour in which a person can be considered notable for merely standing as a candidate. Article was previously deleted in 2005 (see first AFD) and subsequently recreated after he declared his candidacy. I don't consider it a G4 since the political candidacy, while not inherently notable per WP precedent, is at the very least a different claim of notability from the earlier article. Delete. Bearcat 05:18, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

C&E doesn't seem to address municipal politicians very well (or even at all, actually). I've offered a summary on the talk page of where the precedents for municipal politicians and candidates have generally gone, as a start toward potentially adding such a section to the policy proposal itself. Bearcat 22:55, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Esteban F. (con.) 00:35, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Not that I agree with Sandor's political views, but he is notable for things other than his municipal candidacy. In particular his association with a group that advocates for something called "Brigadier's Law" which is an amendment to the criminal code that would make it a crime to harm an animal being used for the purposes of law enforcement. Brigadier was the name of a horse ridden by a mounted policemen that was hit by a driver (allegedly on purpose). Brigadier was so seriously injured that he had to be put down at the scene. The driver was charged with reckless driving, but there was no additional charge that could be levied against the driver for what he did to the horse. "Brigadier's Law" would be a remedy for this to allow an additional charge, be it for police horses or dogs. I think that Sandor deserves to be recognized for this. Atrian 04:40, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Bearcat, article reads like an election brochure. -- Chabuk 19:11, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Madchen Hoch 02:00, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 23:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Counter Stick

Appears to be a non-notable fan-made parody of Counter-Strike. Prod was removed, but article has not been significantly expanded. --Alan Au 05:42, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 06:06, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - no assertion of notability. Fan games aren't notable by default. I seem to remember seeing a Pokemon fan game up for deletion, but I can't find the deletion debate. MER-C 06:12, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable parody. 1ne 07:08, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Fan-made parody? eek, fancruft. Not notable at all. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 11:16, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator. Also remind the author not to write Wikipedia internal comments in article namespace. JIP | Talk 11:41, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. I deleted what JIP was talking about and about to contact him. --ASDFGHJKL 12:43, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - No assertion of notability, spam, no reliable third-party sources. The Kinslayer 16:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - non notable fan game --Amxitsa 22:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, not even worth a mention in Counter Strike. GarrettTalk 21:44, 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 Looking at all the arguments / checks myself Delete. Tawker 17:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sahaja Yoga International

  ATTENTION!

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}

Non-notable cult, does not pass WP:CORP. Fewer than 1000 Google hits, and no references from credible sources. --NovaSTL 06:57, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Note: Google search for "Sahaja Yoga International": 82,800 hits. [7] Sfacets 03:53, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Only if you search for any site that contains the words "Sahaja", "Yoga", and "International". When you search on the actual name of the organization, "Sahaja Yoga International", it's fewer than 1,000 [8]. --NovaSTL 08:44, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Note: "Vishwa Nirmala Dharma" - 14,600 Hits.
  • Sahaja Yoga is NOT a cult --Sahajhist 17:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Regardless of what it is, is it notable? -Will Beback 07:43, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
According to Dr. Michael Langone, editor of Cultic Studies Journal, Sahaja Yoga is a cult, it is preoccupied with money, the group has an "us v. them" mentality, and techniques are used and encouraged to suppress doubt about the group or its members. [9] (see the section on "Issues and Controversies). My own concern is that many of these mis-information techniques seem to be being used on Wikipedia, as members of this group appear to be creating articles here to promote the group and its activities. --NovaSTL 23:26, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
So based on your one source, you brand your POV onto the organisation? Again, how does Sahaja Yoga International aim at promoting the goup? And here I was, certain that your concern was that the article didn't fit Wikipedia guidelines (which was the reason you gave when you nominated this article. Your edits show that since your account creation four days ago you have actively prevented sources from being added to the article, in particular any sources that could identify SYI as an organisation independant from Sahaja Yoga meditation. Your edits are obviously being used to push your own POV (expressed above) and aim at the removal of the article which you placed up for deletion. The fact that you do not reveal your Sockpuppeteer account name casts further doubt on your position in this matter. Sfacets 23:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I think we've already gone over this, but to repeat: I have no bias in this matter. I am not a sockpuppet of anyone involved in this discussion, as I have already explained here (though considering the number of pro-SYI sockpuppets and meatpuppets that have been trotted in, I actually find that charge fairly ironic). Anyone interested in reviewing my contribution history for themselves is welcome to do so, and if the closing admin has any genuine concerns, I am happy to verify my identity in private email. As for "preventing sources", that's an absurd claim, as I would actually welcome anything which would prove that SYI had independent notability. See Talk:Sahaja Yoga International for details. In short, I'm not trying to attack SYI, I am simply trying to prevent the creation of poorly-sourced vanity articles on Wikipedia. At this point, my recommendation is that any relevant information from the Sahaja Yoga International article be merged into the article at Sahaja Yoga, and then the SYI name can be set up as a redirect. --NovaSTL 00:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Well so far you have attacked the organisation by refering to it as a Cult, by ravaging the article - removing sources attempting to prove SYI is in fact a Worldwide organisation [10] placing your own without prior discussion (despite the long discussion mentionned in the previous edit)[11], removing claims without waiting for forthcoming souces (so instead of using a {{fact}} tag for example). All this seems to indicate bias, if not against the organisation, then at least in regards to this afd. You are altering the article to suit your interests, in this case winning this afd proposal. It shows bad faith that you would hide your Sockpuppeteer identity from the rest of us, even if your other Sockpuppet(s) were not engaged in this discussion. As for the assumed 'Meatpuppets', I'm sure many of them have contributed to articles anonymously over the years, just because they are required to create a User account to be able to have their say doesn't make their arguments (when given) less valid. Sfacets 00:52, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. MER-C 08:00, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete religioncruft. Danny Lilithborne 08:10, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Seems to be a small religious movement/cult that practises this. It fails WP:CORP and without reliable sources of information this article will forever be a conflict of interest/spam/POV magnet. The above comment by Sahajhist is testament to this. -- IslaySolomon 09:44, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect To the above-mentioned link. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 11:19, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Sahaja Yoga is NOT a cult and is merely brandeed one by memebrs who have been asked to leave or people who have not expeirinced sahaja yoga —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marathigt (talk • contribs)
  • Keep as a stub or move to Vishwa Nirmala Dharma (currently a redirect). -- The guru (and I think founder) of the organisation, Nirmala Srivastava has had significant press coverage, either keep or merge into Nirmala Srivastava article -- Paul foord 13:08, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge to Sahaja Yoga. As far as I know the practice and the organization are closely related and the term "Sahaja Yoga" (306,000 ghits) may refer to either or both. --KFP (talk | contribs) 14:59, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - Sahaja Yoga practicioners are counted in their hundreds of thousands. You can go anywhere in India and people will know about it. Non-notable? It has appeared in many leading newspapers. Sahaja Yoga international differs from Sahaja Yoga in that it is a registered NGO whereas Sahaja Yoga is a form of meditation. Nirmala Srivastava has had considerable press coverage both because of the NGO side of SY as well as the spiritual/meditational. Sahaja Yoga is a registered organisation and NGO in quite a few countries. Calling a spiritual practice a cult is POV. And besides, if you consider SY a cult (as is your right) - it shouldn't be a reason for exclusion. note:I strongly suspect bias in this AFD proposal - why is User:NovaSTL, a user who signed up a day ago nominating an article for deletion? [[12]] Sfacets 20:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Nope, not a biased nom. I'd never heard of this organization until yesterday when I was on newpage patrol, and ran across Vishwa Nirmal Prem Ashram, which appeared to be spam, so I tagged it with {{db-spam}}. The tag was removed with a rude comment, so I proceeded to a prod, which was also removed [13], so the next step was AfD. Rather than submitting just that article though, I decided to proceed to the "root" article, which is this one, which also appears (in my opinion) to be spam. Now let me be clear that the practice of Sahaja Yoga appears notable, but the organization known as "Sahaja Yoga International" does not. This article also appears to be a hub for multiple other non-notable entities, such as Vishwa Nirmal Prem Ashram and International Sahaja Public School, other spam articles (go read it, you'll see what I mean). These all appear to have been created in an ongoing campaign to use Wikipedia to create articles on these peripheral activities, even though they are not independently notable. The articles should therefore either be deleted, or merged into the article about Sahaja Yoga. --NovaSTL 23:40, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
      • The article is a stub, having been created just a few days ago. Editors haven't even had time to add content to it. How have you determined that it was spam? Your edits are counterproductive. Sfacets 06:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I fail to see how a religious organisation with an attached hospital and ICSE school and with a notable founder is less notable than, say, the average parish church that gets on, or, for example, the Federation of Damanhur. Consider also the Brahma Kumaris. Unless someone can point this out, consider this a vote to keep.Hornplease 01:16, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
    • The Federation of Damanhur has been the subject of two books that look to be credible sources. The Brahma Kumaris article also has an extensive bibliography. However, the SYI article has no sources except its own websites, and other non-credible sources. --NovaSTL 03:17, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Valid sources have been added. Sfacets 06:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - From the comments presented here, and considering the articles already present on various other faith-based spiritual movements, I cannot detect an actual problem with having this separate Wikipedia entry, nor any separate entry pertaining to Sahaja Yoga for that matter. To enable citing sources, particulars for Wiki precedents and/or Wiki accepted definitions and criteria for ‘reputable sources of information’ and ‘credible sources’ are required as these relate to the highly personal subject of spirituality (spirituality is subjective by nature). The comment referencing ‘religioncruft’ infers unfamiliarity with the subject, and as for ‘non-notable,’ Sahaja Yoga International is well-known in many circles of society, Sahaja Yoga being unique, therefore completely differentiated from every other sort of meditation technique. Generally speaking, the society of Sahaja Yoga International is a branch of the not-for-profit grass-roots, non-hierarchical Sahaja Yoga movement carrying out many international activities such as NGOs, charitable projects, non-commercial educational and social community services, duly registered active SY societies and SY charities around the world, and significant documented medical research on the many varied and widely recognized benefits of the Sahaja Yoga technique. As such, it should not be considered for deletion. Ewarrior21 03:19, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Above post is the first-ever comment by Ewarrior21 (talk · contribs), who has no other edits. --NovaSTL 03:36, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
NovaSTL- How many edits have you made on wikipedia in the last two days since you signed up? You should know that according to Wikipedia:Spam an NGO-related, not-for-profit establishment doesn't qualify as spam, as you marked it. (Vishwa Nirmal Prem Ashram). According to your comments above this afd does in fact seem to be a reaction to other contributor's edits, and therefore biased. Mentions of SYI as an NGO appear frequently in media, such as the Times of India, the Indian Express, there is medical research documentation done in connection with the hospital in Mumbai... there are plenty of sources. Feel free to add htem to the article. Sfacets 04:55, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Comment. There may be sources available, but we are not free to add them, as some users appear to be exerting ownership of the articles.[14][15][16][17][18][19] -Will Beback 21:18, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
I believe NovaSTL was asking for 'Valid Sources' - something that wasn't established in this case. See Talk:Sahaja YogaSfacets 03:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually, that link to "Religion facts" from the University of Virginia looks like a credible source[20]. In my opinion, it should not have been removed. --NovaSTL 08:44, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I believe that you are unaware of the recent additions to WP:CSD concerning what is defined as spam. For more information, please read: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2006-10-02/More CSD. In any case, if you believe that there are references which assert this topic's notability, by all means, please add them to the article. Without such sources, I stand by my opinion that this article does not make an adequate case for the notability of its subject, but instead is written in a self-promotional manner, and is almost certainly in violation of WP:AUTO (please note that the primary editor on the Sahaja Yoga International article is Sahajhist (talk · contribs), who is obviously associated with the topic).
Instead of attacking me, I think that your energy would be better spent on addressing the obvious WP:AUTO problems with this article and the related self-promotional sub-articles, instead of fighting the attempts to request citations, as you have been doing in the past . For example, when someone added a {{fact}} tag, and you removed it, saying "not needed here."[21] --NovaSTL 06:17, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
I wasn't attacking you, I was remarking on the fact that either you are a sockpuppet or a newly signed up member, and have already placed an afd. A fact you seem to be avoiding. How is removing 1 (one!) request for citation "fighting the attempts to request citations"? As I have been doing in the past? What, with my one tag removal? The tag in question wasn't required there (in my opinion) since the sentence was self-explanatory. The removal wasn't contested. But why am I justifying my old edits to you? according to the link you posted above: "Pages that exist only to promote a company, person, product, service or group." The template {{Db-spam}} can be used on pages that fit the definition". In what way do you feel an NGO project that affects hundreds of people and is well know in that part of India exists only to promote itself? Also note that it is a stub, having been created 3 days ago, so sources haven't even had the time to be included. Sfacets 06:43, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
First, your removal of that {{fact}} tag most definitely was contested, with the very next edit [22], followed by back and forth reverts, and finally the questionable statement's eventual removal. Next: My own account's status can be clearly determined by taking a moment to read my userpage. As is stated there, the primary purpose of this account is new page patrolling, as part of which I have nominated several articles for deletion, usually without much controversy (for example, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corki's Corner). For other pages I have nominated for deletion, via WP:CSD, Prod, and AfD, you and anyone else are welcome to review my contribution history to see that I have not been specifically targeting this article. I am most definitely not a sockpuppet of anyone else involved in this debate, and I have no bias for or against articles about yoga. I do, however, have a bias against poorly-sourced self-promotional articles. If you truly believe that this subject is notable enough for its own Wikipedia article, then, per WP:V, please provide sources which prove this. It's not about saying that something is well-known in India -- you have to provide sources which prove this. Please review WP:CORP. --NovaSTL 08:07, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Though there seem to be several new references that have been added to the article, it seems that most of them are either to personal/promotional websites, or are to sources that talk about the practice of Sahaja Yoga itself, but are not about the actual "SYI" organization. As such, I believe this re-emphasizes the fact that SYI is not independently notable, and that this article should be merged into the article on Sahaja Yoga. --NovaSTL 22:44, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
I have added more sources on the VND/SYI Organisation, looking up more references for Organisational status in various countries. Sfacets 03:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • sahaja yoga is NOT a cult....there are thousands of peoples who are physically, mentally, emotionally and even spritually benefited by sahaja yoga... their health is improved, their way of thinking is changed(positive changes)..so what else you want from sahaja...if you want to make money out of it..sorry to say we are non-profit orgainzation...adeshjoshi.. those who dont want to believe, follow sahaja..its ok..no arguments...but they are not supposed to talk against sahaja without any reasons... !!! adeshjoshi...—Preceding unsigned comment added by Adeshjoshi (talk • contribs) 22:15, 15 October 2006
    • Note: Account's only use has been to participate in this deletion discussion
  • Please do not delete this useful piece on a movement for inner spiritual growth and liberation that has many thousands of adherents from all walks of life. This is not some barmy cult that grabs money from the unsuspecting and gullible seekers. It is a path that works and gives great joy and peaceful direction to life, and if there are those who have suffered because they were asked kindly to leave the movement, because they had done something extremely unkind or not in keeping with normal decent behaviour, want this page removed it would be a great shame and a very backward step. We accept anybody who asks for their self-realisation, and so there will always be discontented people who could not 'make it'.Very few indeed have been asked to leave or have left because they were unsatisfied. Why should this deprive others of the opportunity to experience the possibilities of self realisation? I have followed this wonderful path for 27 years and my life has been miraculously blessed, and those of my wife and children too. Kingsley Flint —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.165.175.230 (talk • contribs) 22:32, 15 October 2006
    • Note: Account's only use has been to participate in this deletion discussion
  • => Donot delete this as I know Wikipedia is a open site for giving useful information to all. This page seems to be correct and useful in all regards as far as I know. I know many of my friends and they all have benefitted from this simple meditation technique. The most important point I have noticed is that they do not charge you a single pie. What I feel personally is that the persons who are asking for deleting are those who are at least aware of Sahajyoga. It is something like this that you go to Swimming Pool and by someone's mistake if one drowns then you say close all swimming pools. They might have tried to use it for their personal needs or some ego hassles with some local Sahajayoga persons. So I feel it is just some human reaction which seems to be very natural. But Sahajyoga as a whole as i have seen is quite beneficial, so no point in delting it. Yes you can verify the facts from independent agencies. I know thay have an NGO for Destitute Women in India and one Hospital also in Mumbai. So seems to be good organization. - Rajesh —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajeshhwr (talk • contribs) 23:36, 15 October 2006
    • Note: Account's only use has been to participate in this deletion discussion
  • Donot delete this article.Sahaja yoga isthe only organization in the world through which you can get your self- realization and feel vibrations.It is widely prcaticed in many countries and lot of people are interested in it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Avinash82 (talk • contribs) 02:55, 16 October 2006)
    • Note: Account's only use has been to participate in this deletion discussion
  • Keep or merge to Sahaja Yoga. It seems to me that the problems that NovaSTL has with this site are being rectified. People are adding in citations but these things take time. Primarily I would like to point out that Sahaja Yoga International is a worldwide organisation that is a registered charity hence it does not fall under the definition of a company or corporation. The practice of Sahaja Yoga gives thousands of individuals a means to connect with themselves. There are numerous cases of individuals who have practiced this form of meditation and have found improvement from conditions such as ADHD, (see link to published papers). The stabalizing benefit of Sahaja Yoga meditation is the reason that it is being offered in many prisons around the world with positive outcomes. What proof do you require if not verification from links to external sites telling you about the individual organisation activities ie the music school in India and the internation school, links to newspapers articles discussing the merits of Sahaj Yoga in reference to drug abuse recovery and also regarding studies on Sahaja Yoga meditation carried out by a well know Australian hospital? Willia 09:37, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Do Not Delete This article should not be deleted. The alternative name "Vishwa Nirmala Dharma" has ~15,000 hits on Google and provides ample background information and evident proof that such organization exists in multiple countries and has positive impact on everyday lives of the practitioners. There is also a significant amount of press coverage around the globe which is slowly added to provide more evidence. Also note that "Sahaja Yoga International" is an official name of the organization which denotes the international nature of it and is not frequently used. If you search for "sahaja yoga meditation" on Google you get ~28,000 hits. So the argument is of technical nature and has no basis. If you search for "International Business Machines" which is the full name for IBM, you will get 48 million hits versus 348 for IBM because the abbreviated name is used much more frequently. Denism 18:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • To believe and claim that Sahaja yoga is a cult is the same like to believe all the rest of religious chuches and organizations are all fake cults.Despite that SY is helpfull for thousands more than the few ex-practicioners needed an anger managment because they didn't felt SY inside. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 05:18 16 October 2006 (talk • contribs) Georgi svet
  • DO NOT DELETE Sahaja Yoga is a teaching of Her Holiness Shri Mataji Nirmala Devi based on the ancient knowledge of the traditional Indian yoga which is described in the Vedas and Upanishads. The new in Sahaja Yoga is the awakening of the energy Kundalini on mass level. The word yoga is a Sanskrit word and means union or connection. Yoga is the union of our individual energy Kundalini with the all-pervading energy of the Universe - Paramachaytaniya. For many thousands of years spiritual seekers were trying to raise this energy but only a few could achieve it. The unique contribution of H.H. Shri Mataji Nirmala Devi is that She could help the spiritual seekers in their quest for truth and awaken some strings of their Kundalini. Now a days thousands of people from all over the world are practicing Sahaja Yoga meditation and experience on daily bases it's tremendous benefits. Sahaja Yoga is one of the most practical systems of self-knowledge and self-improvement. That's why it is funny, even pity if some people try to present it as a cult. The only way to understand where is the truth is to experience it. Please visit [ http://www.sahajayoga.org] and get your self-realization online. E blagoeva 16:55, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • PLEASE DO NOT DELETE. Before doing Sahaja Yoga, I too was of the belief that many a cults and faiths are surrounding the humanity and none of them have anything inside. This assumption kept me away from Sahaja Yoga for a long time...until one day I said to myself, "Why Don't I try it?". And when I tried it, I felt the cool breeze in no time and effortlessly achieved the thoughtless aware state. 1. This state has been well defined in different words in different holy scriptures of ancient religions of the world. 2. This is a distinct experience and NOT a matter of faith. 3. The continued practice of Sahaja Yoga has actually, NOT Assumptiously, brought much improvement in my health and personality. 4. As I have seen, almost 80% of people can have experience of this kind in first sitting itself. 5. No money is ever charged for doing Sahaja Yoga. 6. It is voluntary. 7. There is no membership of Sahaja Yoga. 8. It has high potential benefit for the humanity as a whole. 9. No loss of any kind can be envisaged for anyone trying or doing it. 10. No real or potential harm is caused to society. I request all the dear brothers and sisters of the world not to discard Sahaja Yoga as a cult. It is a happening thing...not just faith. Thank You Delpraveen 17:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Apart from the controversial areas, I believe Sahaja Yoga has an organizational aspect which deals with the facilitation of needs of yogis. VND (Vishwa Nirmala Dharma) functions on national levels, but for international projects, I have seen the increasing use of Sahaja Yoga International as a term. There are many projects in joint collaboration with non-affiliated entities having presence in multiple countries which has prompted the use of this term (SYI).havanhelper


The Argument for afd was tat the article didn't pass WP:CORP. According to WP:Corp,

A club, society, or organization is notable if it meets any of the following criteria:

1. The club, society, or organization has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the club, society, or organization itself.
  • This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations6 except for the following:
  • Media reprints of press releases, other publications where the club or organization talks about itself, and advertising for the club, society, or organization. 1
  • Works carrying merely trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply announce forthcoming club meetings or the publications of telephone numbers and addresses in directories.
Sahaja Yoga international
IS Subject of non-trivial published works - see article for sources.
Sfacets 03:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Sahaja yoga is practised in hundreds of countries...there are lots of peoples who have been benefited from sahaja yoga..it is the method of awakening our own motherly energy and knowing ourself..it is free and no one is bound to practise forever..one can come and if he/she doesn't likes then can leave..Adesh Joshi 02:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Sahaja Yoga is not a cult. It is rather a method that makes people more true to their own religion, as it awakens the kundalini energy inside them, and thus, gives them Self Realisation, therefore bringing them closer to their Self, their roots, the truth inside them. Shaja Yoga, and its recent name Vishwa Nirmala Dharma is known and practised in almost 100 countries at present. For people who are reading this and have not heard about it, try to explore a little bit around, you'll find it in your city, for sure! You can check our official site: www.sahajayoga.org, and you can find there the adresses of most of the Sahaja Yoga centres around the globe. Sahaja Yoga, through its practice, offers the individual relief not only from common diseases, but also from psichosomatic diseases, field in which the alopathic medicine is not effective. The most spread disease that attacks more or less each and evry individual nowadays is STRESS! Sahaja Yoga is very effective in combatting stress. These effects have been scientifically proven through medical tests on practicants, such as brain scans, galvanic skin resistence, etc. I have personally participated to some of them. In CBD Belapur, New Bombay, India there is a Health and Research Centre in which patients are treated for any disease only through Sahaj techniques by using the beneficial effects of the Kundalini energy. In India Sahaja Yoga is attested as alternative medicine by the government. Also I am a little bit amazed by the persistence and perseverence with which some people use their wrong, truncated and out dated information to denigrate Sahaja Yoga. If one checks theis site, there is no name of the authors there. In their own words, they are only about 25 ex-members of the group. The Sahaja Yoga organisation numbers many thousand yogis only in a country like India, but it is present in almost 100 countries around the world. In this way, I am very sorry, but this ex-members group constitutes a petty minority. In Sahaja Yoga people are absolutely free to come and to go whenever they wish so. We are conducting free entrabce programs for new-comers and free means not only free of cost, but the netrance is absolutely free, irrespective of the religion, cast, colour of skin, gender, social status, etc, there is no point for any kind of discrimination. In the same way, nobody is stopped from leaving the organisation whenever and however he wants. There have been very few occasions of expellation from the organisation, and they were on serious grounds of either financial fraud, or violence, or sexual misconduct. And they were decided by Shri Mataji herself after according the culprits several occasions of improving their behaviour. As regarding marriages in Sahaja Yoga, I am myself a person married by Shri Mataji in the Sahaj custom, and I can say that not only I was never forced to do so, but I am very happy of the decission taken. I know many people in Sahaj Yoga for many years who opted for not marrying in this way and nobody ever forced them to do it or opposed to the decission they have taken. Everybody is free to choose the way he or she wants to marry. Moreover, maybe only 10% of the people who are filling the marriage forms are finally married. It is our desire to have a life partner that shares the same beliefs that prompts us to request for this kind of matching and not anybody forcing us. Also the percentage of divorces is very low in such marriages. Also I have two children and I can say from my own experience that nobody evr put pressure on me to send them to the Sahaj School in Dharamshala and I am not doing it either. There are several families like mine, of Sahaj Yogis who are not sending the children to the school without having any trouble at all because of that. Around the world there are thousands of yogis and there must be tens of thousand of school going Sahaj children, but presently there are only two Sahaj schools. So, it would be practically impossible to accomodate them all. People must have wrongly understood the initial messages of Shri Mataji, from the time when this school had just started and She was encouraging Sahaja Yogis to send their children to this institution. In fact the whole image that some people give about Shri Mataji is very weird to me. She has never been bossy or ordering anybody. Like a real mother She only advises people. And everybody, on any level of Sahaj Yoga practice, is absolutely free to follow or NOT in his own life. She exerts absolutely NO control NOR takes any decission in anybody's life!!! She has filled our lives with so mach joy and happiness, with so much fulfillment, without ever asking for anything in exchange! The money matters of Sahaja Yoga are so transparent that every cent is dully accounted for. Yes, we are contributing for the advancement of this organisation, because we want that this awareness reaches as many people as possible, so that they can also enjoy the benefits of it. We can give as uch as we want, nobody is asking for it, and we do it for financing the diverse projects that this organisation has undertaken. The money have been invested in properties in different countries, that are not used by Shri Mataji, She hardly lives in those houses(maybe one week a year when She visits the respective country), but they are donated for the use of Sahaja Yogis. Sahaja Yoga practicants live there throughout the year. Also there are some social projects. like helping the destitude women and children in India, that are getting nominally financed. Everybody is giving as much as he wants and feels responsible for and every cent is well accounted for, with name and date dully noted. Also nobody is forced to do so if he does not want to. He can still come and attend te programs, even if he does not pay, and there are many doing it! So I feel Shaja Yoga is verily a non-profit organisation that has transformed the lifes of milions of people, including those who are no more its members, and therefore deserves a mention in Wikipedia! User:Cristina Matache 11:55am 17.10.2006--61.14.15.65 06:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
— Possible single purpose account: 61.14.15.65 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
  • Stubbify, organisation is official body of the movement, keep information specific to the organisation here, as an internet based encyclopedia there is value in keeping a short article specific to the organisation. Move any material not already at Sahaja Yoga to that article, have copyedited to do this. Paul foord 13:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Erm, are you aware that you already weighed in on this discussion, on 14 October? I recommend keeping your comments in the same location to avoid confusion. --NovaSTL 17:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Commentary

  ATTENTION!

If you came here because you want to argue for the fame of Sahaja Yoga, 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}}

Comment This discussion is not about the notability of Sahaja Yoga, If you have been directed here by someone else, please be aware that this discussion is not a vote, and is not about the question of whether or not the practice of Sahaja Yoga is notable. There is already an article on Wikipedia about Sahaja Yoga, and it is not in danger. The reason for this discussion is about whether there should be a separate secondary article about the organization known as Sahaja Yoga International. In order for there to be a second article about this subject, it needs to be proven that the organization known as SYI has independent fame as a company. If not, it is more appropriate to merge information about SYI into the already existing article about Sahaja Yoga. Please limit comments to this topic. --NovaSTL 19:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete or Merge with Sahaja Yoga. Article fails WP:CORP but content is worth moving to Sahaja Yoga, and expanding on criticisms to comply with WP:NPOV. And all the single-purpose accounts created to engage in the debate here should be counted as one voice. -Amatulic 21:56, 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, time for all you keep voters to get busy on the content issues. Deizio talk 13:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of unsolved problems in Egyptology

List of ancient Egypt mysteries was nominated for deletion on 2005-05-27. The result of the discussion was "no consensus". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of ancient Egypt mysteries.

As noted on the Talk page, this list is mainly a list of questions with no answers due to gaps in our knowledge of the past. They may never be answered. This list can go on and on in that regard. Furthermore, most of the questions smack of "educational" sensationalism that appeal to TV viewers but not serious research. They beg for Original Research and are POV. Also as stated on the Talk page, those questions which are legitimate can be asked and discussed on their respective articles pages. There is no need for this list. —Flembles 08:32, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Unsolved problems in physics, and indeed the other articles in Category:Lists of unsolved problems, are lists of questions with (as yet) no answers, too. The important consideration is not whether the questions have answers, but whether they are verifiable and not original research — in other words whether they are properly documented as being unsolved problems and gaps in our knowledge, and more than just one person in the field of egyptology regards them to be unsolved problems. Given that the article cites four books as references and lists six more in its further reading section, it appears, from that alone, that the problems with the article are mainly ensuring that all content is properly verifiable from multiple sources, ensuring that the article isn't overpowered by the speculation of just one source by ensuring that each individual item has multiple sources, and ensuring that the summary at Ancient Egypt#Open_problems matches the article. This is a content problem, that can be solved by ordinary editors doing ordinary editing, communicating on the article's talk page, and not one that requires an administrator to delete the article. AFD is not cleanup. Keep. Uncle G 09:44, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
    • It lists four books with the word "mystery" in the title. There are a host of these in print. "Mysteries of Egypt/King Tut/Ramesses II/the Great Sphinx/etc." sells better than "Problems and Priorities in Egyptology". It has nothing to do if there is, in fact, an unsolveable problem but marketing. Most of the questions posed are either answerable but not sexy ("where did the Egyptians come from?" Egypt); not knowable ("Was King Khufu (Cheops) a good ruler or a tyrant, as later tradition described him?" never going to know that without a time machine and what is a "good ruler" anyhow? Good according to whom? Us or the Egyptians?); or require a long answer that is better handled in an article ("What were the origins of the Egyptian pyramids? When and where was the concept of pyramids conceived? What were the pyramids used for? How were the pyramids built? When and why did the era of pyramid building end?" all answerable to one degree or another, but not quickly). The list is pointless. Delete—Flembles 10:06, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
      • ("where did the Egyptians come from?" Egypt That was pretty funny, but kind of misleading. Example the Egyptians of today are partly or largely Arab so they do not originate from Egypt. Hence the question asks if the ancient Egyptians originated there or were also from elsewhere. In context this is rather clear. Still many of the questions in it now are too subjective or meaningless, but there are legitimate unsolved questions in Egyptology.--T. Anthony 16:22, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
      • You have still described nothing more than a content problem, that is solved by doing more of what has already been done over the past year at Talk:List of unsolved problems in Egyptology. AFD is not an easy escape for editors who don't want to address content problems head-on. And as you can see by Unsolved problems in physics, linking to the longer articles that address the unsolved problems in detail is in fact one function of lists such as these. Uncle G 10:29, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete with my little experience, it looks like listcruft to me ST47Talk 11:31, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep Because the concept and title could be used to make a valid article. Skimming this article though it is poor to awful. However total rewrite is preferable to deleting and starting over.--T. Anthony 12:24, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and rewrite. -- That Guy 14:00, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and peer review and rewrite --Ouro 15:35, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete (as no expert). Could be good for the Sunday edition in a tabloid. Does not mention things like studies of agricultural economy of ancient Egypt, based on preserved farm records. These studies are not as sexy as who killed whom but allow to get insight into the society and its structural changes over time. They take years or decades and hardly ever get mention in sensationalistic media. Pavel Vozenilek 19:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I do not believe rewrite is realistic solution, looking at the history of the article. It was requested in last VfD in 2005 as well. Pavel Vozenilek 19:31, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep What we have here is a content issue, not a deletion issue. Multiple reliable sources are available; the sheer number of popular books on the subject makes the topic encyclopedic. The content is not obviously so bad that a total replacement is required. If anyone wants to do a total replacement, go write one as a user subpage, then use the bold, revert, discuss method of replacement. GRBerry 14:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and rewrite -- This list would obviously be useful to people that are interested in Egypt and anthropology, and some of the questions are enough to pique interest. It might not be too difficult to bring the article up a little bit standards-wise. -- pie4all88 09:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:03, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Marissa Mazzola-McMahon

Fails notability: "Marissa McMahon (née Mazzola) is the wife of World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE) Executive Vice President of WWE Global Media Shane McMahon." Mais oui! 08:38, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Being married to/related to notable people does not make one notable. Delete per nom. --Daniel Olsen 09:10, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment She has an imdb profile [23] and has appeared in one mainstream film [24] and several wrestling titles. -- IslaySolomon 09:24, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Marissa McMahon is also credited as Producer for Anamorph, scheduled for release in 2007.[25]. -- Donald Albury 17:43, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Daniel Olsen. By the looks of it, her role in The Scorpion King was merely a cameo/bit part. That's not enough, IMO. Resolute 14:38, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Despite her film role and upcoming producer credit, I think her notability, such as it is, is dependent on her family members, and not on her accomplishments. -- Donald Albury 17:43, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Unsourced content on derivative notability. ENeville 21:31, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Dalbury and Olsen. Fails notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Consequentially (talk • contribs) 03:23, 15 October 2006
  • Delete per nom. Madchen Hoch 02:01, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 23:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] White Hut

Non-notable small burger bar. Links in article are to its own website and to a directory. No independent citations or sources. Google check brings up lots more restaurant directories, but little else. Emeraude 09:47, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Strong delete per nn, pn ST47Talk 11:32, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Matthuxtable 11:37, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable restaurant. JIP | Talk 11:41, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable. Davewild 15:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - per nom. ENeville 21:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Not notable and almost reads as an advertisement. Pursey 10:02, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete Knowing Is Half The Battle 20:31, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Larry Lucio

Aparently an independent music producer from St. Paul. Does not obviously meet WP:MUSIC and has no sources. Google turns up lots of hits but nothing obviously notable. Eluchil404 10:08, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete WP:MUSIC, does not assert notability ST47Talk 11:32, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete As per nomination. Pursey 10:03, 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 speedy deleted by author request. Mackensen (talk) 15:33, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chirgilchin/Temp

An almost near duplicate of the Chirgilchin page. Matthuxtable 10:12, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete it was created accidentally, see Talk:Chirgilchin ST47Talk 11:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Article has been tagged under CSD-G2 per author request at talk - [26]. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 15:25, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 23:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Henri Poutine

This appears to be a sneaky vandalism article. Most of the text is copied outright from Henri Chretien; the editor who started the article has this page as his only edit. Both Poutine and the award named after him only get hits in Google for pages based off of the Wikipedia database. Even an Amazon text search shows absolutely nothing for Henri Poutine. This man likely does not exist, and even if he does, there is absolutely no verification at the moment. Girolamo Savonarola 10:21, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. No sources provided. No google hits. Single edit editor makes it all look rather fishy. Megapixie 10:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete yeah, seems like vandalism ST47Talk 11:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per the above. Someone who speaks French might know for sure, but I feel as though the surname might even be a vaguely offensive word, which could clinch the deal. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 12:42, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Probable hoax. Comedian Rick Mercer once fooled George W. Bush into accepting an endorsement from Canadian Prime Minister "Jean Poutine", rather than Jean Chretien. The similarity in last names leads me to suspect this is a joke. Resolute 14:43, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Oh, and Poutine is a french-Canadian food dish, not an insult, heh. Resolute 14:44, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete as vandalism. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 19:25, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete hoaxalicious. Danny Lilithborne 21:41, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Joke. (And kudos to the article's creator for a sly and clever joke.) Wavy G 03:59, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Matthuxtable 13:10, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Madchen Hoch 02:03, 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 11:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Larry Walther

Acedemic who does not come close to meeting WP:PROF. Prod was removed, see discussion on talk page. In all honesty, I think that it probably meets speedy criteria A7 and G11 (for the book), but given the good fiath effort to improve the article, I thought I would bring it here for wider consensus. Eluchil404 10:16, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - Does not meet WP:PROF as per original deletion reason Matthuxtable 10:32, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete - Searched for other sites that link to the free online textbook, and google returns only 36 pages that link there, only three of which are not the textbook linking to itself. Not only does Walther fail WP:PROF, but the textbook itself fails notability based on the lack of links. It is truly an admirable project, but not notable yet. SkerHawx 11:50, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per SkerHawx. He may be notable enough for an article in the future, but he is not at the current time. -- Kjkolb 12:07, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • As the author of the article, I can not find any facts to contradict the above assertions. Hence I will refrain from expressing any opinion on this matter. Jayanta Sen 06:36, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jemuel Carty

Does not appear to meet inclusion guideline for humans. Goole search returns three hits, notably "owner of a new company names Street Ballaz INC..." I would think that the review of "Tru 2 Da Game Vol. 2:Return of the King" by pinball10 [27] does not constitute non-trivial coverage. This could with some justification be seen as advertising. Delete unless reliable sources for information can be found.
brenneman 10:35, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete another easy delete ST47Talk 11:35, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 15:25, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Got two (count them, two) relevant hits on Google for "Jemuel Carty", both appear to be blog posts by the subject. Looks like self-promotion to me. -- Donald Albury 17:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 21:42, 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 & redirect to Weird Al Yankovic. Deizio talk 13:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Weird Al" Yankovic on Television

It's already in the Wierd Al main article, word for word. No need for this fork. People Powered 12:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Merge per nom. Besides, you do not usually see articles like "Jennifer Lopez on Television". Michaelas10 (T|C) 12:26, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge with Wierd Al article. --ASDFGHJKL 12:37, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete My failed attempt at splitting out an article which was getting too large for the Weird Al page. The weirdal.com link on the Weird Al article fulfils the duty of this page.Gromreaper 15:18, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect without merge to Weird Al article. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 15:25, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, w/redirect if necessary. Eusebeus 00:45, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • 'Redirect with possible merge of guest appearances. Weird Al Show and Weird Al Yankovic sufficiently cover what is mentioned in "Regular Apperances," and the remaining information is more a list of trivial apperances that could be converted to prose and mentioned within Weird Al Yankovic. Consequentially 03:29, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per above. Not neccessary. 23skidoo 17:25, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. RobJ1981 22:26, 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 keep. Deizio talk 13:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bellydance Superstars

No evidence of notability. --Peta 23:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment I added a couple of links to international press about the Bellydance Superstars. --Jon Silpayamanant 20:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per added links establishing notability. Themindset 03:56, 11 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, Bobet 12:16, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Themindset. Davewild 15:31, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Notability per article in The Times, London. Need subscription to read article in Le Parisienne, so could not check that. Edison 21:08, 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. It was a borderine case for A7/G11 speedy deletion in any case; non-sock votes were overwhelmingly delete; save everyone the hassle of this attracting a further 100 sock or meatpuppets in the next 24 hours which it looks set to do. The Land 19:12, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rational Response Squad

  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}}

"small radio production group founded in 2006", the stations which air this radio show are all redlinked, and their own website has an Alexa ranking of 4,442,813. Punkmorten 10:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

  • delete per nom. MER-C 11:06, 6 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, Bobet 12:20, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • delete' Lots of Google hits, but nothing I would call a reliable source. It doesn't look verifiable to me. -- Donald Albury 18:02, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • delete'. The information presented on the page seems to admit its own non-notability by focusing on the notable people who have been featured on the program, and not the program itself. The fact that its two main members use MySpace as a home page is also indicative of the notability problem. Most of the reading about its notable guests fail to mention their connection to the program, or do so in a very limited way. Consequentially 03:35, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • delete'. I have been working with this article recently, and I've been continually deleting comments that seem to be promotionals. If it is not to be deleted, (which is also completely fine) then it needs to be seriously cleaned up, allowing non-biased claims, removing self-praising claims in the article. (sorry for not having a wiki account, I haven't taken the initiative to make one). 75.18.189.236 03:58, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. The atheist community is obviously going to be a smaller subset of the population that that of christianity. The Rational Response Squad is a notable entity. They play as one of the two most popular shows on the largest free thought internet radio station. If you base the minority of the population which subscribes to such a station, any atheist internet radio show would not qualify as "notable". I would say that endoresements by people like Richard Carrier, Sam Harris, and Brian Flemming would be enough to consider them notable. The Rational Response Squad carried out a "War on Easter" last year, distributing copies of The God Who Wasn't There, an atheist dvd exposing reasons christ couldn't have existed, all across the nation through various members. Their genesis of this event alone qualifies them as notable, and the article is definitely encyclopedic. --Cbenard 16:32, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment User's first edit in seven months, thirteen total edits. -- Donald Albury 18:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Various reasons to keep this include, and are not limited to, many hits on google and other sites, hundreds of thousands of listeners weekly, thousands upon thousands of myspace friends, and an intruiging yet thought provoking glimpse into Atheist America. To delete this, we must also delete Sean Hannity and his radio show, as well as Rush Limbaugh. Deleting this is like deleting the Bill of Rights.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.70.43.90 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep. Following what Cbenard said, the "War on Easter" was talked about on Fox News XM and Sirius Radio. "RRS" has about 20,000 friends on their myspace account, and they don't use "myspace as their homepage" as another person said. Their site is RationalResponders.com which is a thriving community. Furthermore the Alexa rankings for the site are innaccurate, as Alexa often is. The site seems to not be registering traffic since they changed their site, as you can see they used to be much much higher in Alexa rankings but for some reason in a time period when they are experiencing more traffic, Alexa says their experiencing less. On their website you can note their traffic fluctuates from 200-1000 visitiors at any given time. --Infidelaholic 16:45, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment This appears to be a single purpose account; 17 out of 19 total edits have been to the article Rational Response Squad, its talk page and this deletion discussion. -- Donald Albury 18:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. The RRS is one of my most visited pages. They make an argument that is growing exponentially across this nation and world. Its points are phenominal, and logical, and worth pondering. As an Atheist, they give me a voice towards the "Christian" world that now "Believes" it controls this country. I was not aware of Wikipedia being a practicer of Censorship!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.78.50.10 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep. As a Christian I feel its good to have the point of views of both sides, not matter how extreme. It makes for good discussion and debate. (why was this comment deleted and replaced with "keep?")
  • Keep."....anyone who wants to verify our page can take a few minutes to research. Another charge is that we use myspace as a homepage, however RationalResponders.com is our website which gets 30 new members per day and represents the largest growing atheist community in the world..." I believe that right there is a good enough reason to keep. It's a rather large & fast growing network and will continue to do so. They are reliable for real information & radio shows, they always keep everything up to date, and they are just a great orginization overall, which makes me proud to be a member of it. Even if they do happen to get a bad rating from alexa.com or wherever else, they're relatively new, and need time to cut into a groove and learn & form themselves entirely. For an orginization that's as new as they are, they're doing incredibly well & better than most groups would at their stage of development. --LacunaSerenity, member of the RationalResponders.com.
    • Comment User's first edit. -- Donald Albury 18:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I agree that the RRS needs to replace the self-promotional marketing text with a simple, factual representation of who and what they are. There're a legitimate topic for a wiki article, it just shouldn't be a mouthpiece.
  • Keep It seems the first few delete votes were vandalized and changed by the following address: 68.232.151.145 Also Alexa doesn't work, it relies on unintelligent computer users to keep a spam toolbar on the browser. RRS asks people to switch to firefox, and many users with firefox don't have the bar. --Infidelaholic 17:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment User's second vote. -- Donald Albury 18:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • delete. I suggest that anonymous "keep" votes be taken with a pinch of salt. There're now mobilising their MySpace drone army to vote here with several bulletins. Niall Jackson 17:30, 15 October 2006 (UTC) (Yes, I apologise about forgetting my name first time. :D)
  • Keep. The myspace "drone army" represents verifiability. However, anonymous votes are always taken with a grain of salt, including yours.Infidelaholic 17:26, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment User's third vote. -- Donald Albury 18:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. --Frenkmelk 17:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Several of the 'delete' comments appear to be an expression of negative bias. I suggest simply editing their entry to make it conform to the site rules, and leave it at that. - User:Hanniballecturer 13:37, 15, October 2006
    • Comment This user's first edit. -- Donald Albury 18:09, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep.Livecontra 17:38, 15 October 2006 (UTC) RRS Is a a lugit. article, but needs to be cleaned up quite a bit. Deleating it is not going to help anything.
    • Comment This user's third edit. -- Donald Albury 18:09, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep There is nothing self-promotional about this article. I DARE any of you to find something that is. You can't. It is purely factual. The "HamuROOKis" list is defined and explained. All data is clearly and obviously verifiable, their website is right there, and anyone who took half a second to look would realise that. It would seem this entire "argument" is forged purely on bigotry. And you're right, this shouldn't be a vote. Just because most people are bigots, doesn't mean this find article should be deleted. Solar II 10:43, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment This appears to be a single purpose account; 21 out of 27 total edits have been to the article Rational Response Squad, its talk page, and this deletion discussion. -- Donald Albury 18:09, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, They are opening a valid debate. Okay, so they're a little hardlined, perhaps evern rambunctious about it, but it is legitimate.
  • Keep. If you need verification for anything just visit their site...
  • Keep.The only reason this page is considered for deletion is that fundie pastors don't want anyone jeparodizing their cash flows. Educate the public with liberating reality, and their congregations shink.18:02, 15 October 2006 (UTC)~
  • Keep. There is no reason to delete this page as much there is a reason to delete for any organization, company, or belief.
  • Keep The minority of people who list delete give crap reasons, and seem biased. --68.46.79.43 18:09, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Closing this page will do more damage than letting it exist. There is no reason to close it.
  • Delete.. Not encyclopedic. The Land 18:26, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Now, all the IP voters and anonymous voters above, if you think your vote is going to count, you are all very wrong. This article is nothing but non-notable and spam. Michaelas10 (T|C) 18:28, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep ---74.117.48.11 18:38, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is information someone might want to find. The group is legit and the people asking for delition are just threatened, but that is no cause for delete

Keep This is just for a difference in opinion, people may want to know about this and other peoples opinion is no reason for deletion

  • Keep ---67.87.25.91 18:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC) they are allowed to keep their opinion open and to share it with others.
  • Keep ---62.136.156.247 18:47, 15 October 2006 (UTC) pshah, london, uk
  • Keep --- First Amendment.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.80.224.117 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep ---70.174.170.164 18:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. There is not a reason to delete their page. It is a good page with valuable information on a well known internet organization. How much deletion would occur on wiki if this were to go? What is next? --Sleepr 18:50, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
    • User's first edit. Misza13 18:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Self-promotional drivel. Also, I'll thank the anon-a-voters to not put words into the mouths of others; nobody feels 'threatened' or is voting for deletion because they're a 'bigot', or anything else of the sort. This article is simply non-encyclopedic promotion that has no place in Wikipedia, as others have pointed out above. →DancingPenguin 18:51, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Non notable. Non encyclopdic. Advertising. IrishGuy talk 18:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete (after 3 edit conflicts), nothing notable about this, as evidenced by the MySpace links being so prominent. The article reads as spam and is unencyclopedic.--Nilfanion (talk) 18:53, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. ---66.74.189.246 18:58, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep -Deletion for notability reasons doesn't pertain to this article. The group that the article describes is cross-referenced in a multitude of places on the internet. Searching for the term, "rational response" (sans quotes) on Google gives 18M+ results, and at the top of that list is the "Rational Response Squad." That said, I am not too humble to admit that there seems to be a neutrality issue with the article. However, deletion of the article based on that is silly. The article needs to be revised, not deleted. ---Dumpy Dooby 19:00, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - Clean, not kill. PandaKnight 19:02, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - This organization exists, is notable, is active and has an effect on society and culture. There is information to be retained and catalogued about such an organization. I have been under the impression that Wikipedia exists to catalogue, in an encylopedic fashion, the entirety of human knowledge and experience. I see NO reason to delete this entry simply because a few seem to think that it is unnecessary. What is unnecessary to some is invaluable to others.-=The Believer is Happy; the Skeptic is Wise=- 19:07, 15 October 2006 (UTC)Moloth
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:08, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Death shriek

Expired WP:PROD for an article that had a no consensus result at AFD last year. PROD reason was "uncited, vague, pov article, essentially overlapping with death grunt, minor elements may be integrated in death grunt". Previous AFD here. This is a procedural renomination, so I abstain. Kusma (討論) 12:32, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Delete The article cites no sources, and the only Google hits I can find for "death shriek" with this meaning are WP and its mirrors. It therefore appears to be unverifiable. -- Donald Albury 18:09, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per Prolog. Nothing notable or verifiable...--Nilfanion (talk) 18:19, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

DeleteNot a real term while metal lyrics often contain shrieks etc, this is not valid here, and does not describe true metal properly anyway.

  • delete per nom Spearhead 19:47, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. IronChris | (talk) 20:38, 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 Keep article has been much better referenced since the start of the AfD.--Konst.ableTalk 11:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sporting Options

Notability appears to be marginal, at best. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 13:33, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Might be worth a paragraph in an article about on-line gambling, but sources are thin on the ground. The best i could find is this. -- Donald Albury 18:21, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Given the Daily Telegraph references that have been added, I withdraw my 'delete' recommendation. -- Donald Albury 19:24, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, or merge to Betfair. Obviously notable and met WP:CORP and WP:WEB when it existed. I have no clue about the previous comment as five seconds of research can find BBC and Register articles. It was the second largest betting exchange. I would encourage User:Nlu to stop making these afd's without doing any research at all on the subject. The historical notability here is plainly obvious. The nomination should be withdrawn, and if someone wants to discuss merging the content to the Betfair article that should be done on the article's talk page. 2005 20:49, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment I saw those two sources, but I do not consider the Register to be a reliable source, and the BBC report is prior to the collapse of the company, barely mentions Sporting Options and so does not support the contents of the article. And I did spend considerably more than five seconds researching this. -- Donald Albury 11:47, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. The article is well-referenced, and the company is clearly notable. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 03:24, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I added three references from The Daily Telegraph which talk about the administration itself. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 17:17, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable enough I'd wager. -- technopilgrim 01:55, 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. --Coredesat 06:38, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Phil Callaway

I suspect copyvio, since the style of the text is similar to articles written by/about Callaway on the Christianity Today Web site, but I can't find a direct article there or elsewhere that this is a direct copyvio of. Otherwise, notability appears to be asserted and somewhat established, but only somewhat. Delete if copyvio shown (and I admit I can't show it, but it still seems to be there), weak keep if not shown. --Nlu (talk) 13:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete (See comment below.) I haven't been able to find anything about him that was written by an uninvolved third party. I find lots of stuff he's written, his web site, publishers' blurbs about him, promos for his speaking engagements, but nothing that meets WP:RS. Without reliable third-party sources, we can't use what's on his web site. -- Donald Albury 18:32, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I have a theory as to why it looks so much like a copy-vio. I think the original author used the John Bevere article as a template and then just plugged in stuff for this guy. ScottW 23:38, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Incidentally, the version of the John Bevere article that was used, was actually a copyvio (I've since reverted). ScottW 23:45, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep He had (today) two books in the 45K-55K range at Amazon.com, a third in the 125-150K range and there are enough reviews out there to meet the WP:BIO criteria "Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work". The best independent biography I found in a few minutes of effort is here, which looks like a reliable source to me as the online version of a print newspaper. GRBerry 16:06, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per GRBerry. Eluchil404 06:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I've written a total replacement article version at this point in time, so if there was any copyvio I believe it is gone from the current incarnation of the article. GRBerry 03:36, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Given GRBerry's rewrite, I am inclined to withdraw the nomination. If there is an objection to withdrawing the nomination, please state so soon. --Nlu (talk) 06:00, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment As there is no consensus for deletion, the article will be kept by default anyway. Given the re-write, I'm withdrawing my 'Delete' recommendation. -- Donald Albury 12:19, 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 11:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 7th Cheltenham (Charlton Kings) Scout Group

This article should be deleted, as with all other scout groups articles. Please put your efforts into Scouting in Gloucestershire. Jt spratt 16:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:11, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, no assertion of notability, unlikely to have any. Sandstein 15:08, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Agreed, nothing in the article indicates sufficinet notability to have an article. -- Donald Albury 18:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. Rintrah 10:44, 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. - Mailer Diablo 11:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cybergrind

Non-notable ultra-fringe genre Inhumer 21:53, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

  • delete and redirect to grindcore; nonnotable genre Spearhead 22:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and redirect per above. No sources and it's not notable enough to have its own article. Prolog 05:53, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:11, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MyTinyPhone

Non-noteable/advertisement/spam Jtrainor 19:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Delete I'm only finding directory listings and blog mentions (of dubious sources) of this company. As of now, I don't see it meeting WP:CORP standards.--Marriedtofilm 22:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:11, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Sorry about that, the instructions for how to do it are a bit confusing. :( Jtrainor 17:09, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:CORP --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 15:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:CORP. Davewild 15:45, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - WP:NOT: spammy. Basically the only contribution of Testike. ENeville 21:45, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Hard Delete This is spam and spyware Talon662 0:50, 15 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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 12:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WWE New Year's Revolution

Pure fancruft. Will consider removing other annual pay-per-views depending on the results of this debate. Aaru Bui DII 10:03, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:11, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Fancruft. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 15:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, such stuff belongs on niche interest wikis. Sandstein 15:07, 14 October 2006 (UTC) No vote. On second thought, this does seem to be a big thing. I was too hasty, but there's just too much wrestling content of dubious notability on Wikipedia, and a clearer claim to notability would help (is anything on pay TV notable per se?) Sandstein 19:58, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
    • We (the members of WP:PW are trying to keep rid of some of the less notable stuff, and things like the WWE Homecoming look like they will be deleted. TJ Spyke 20:05, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep Bad faith nomination. This is an annual PPV from the biggest wrestling company still open. TJ Spyke 18:41, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep An annual major event from a multi-billion dollar company that is shown on PPV. Why was this even nominated? Edgecution 18:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Seriously, why is this even being nominated?!! This is a pay-per view put on annually by the largest pro wrestling promotion in North America. Every other annual pay-per view by the WWE has an article dedicated to it -- as they should. Stephen Day 18:57, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Why is this even an issue?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.111.49.123 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep. Unless you're planning on mass deleting some of the other yearly WWE events, this one stays like the rest of them. --Jtalledo (talk) 20:05, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per the above. Darren Jowalsen 20:29, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. --

Oakster (Talk) 22:00, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

  • WTF? Keep Why is this nominated? — Moe 22:46, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Results of matches are unnecessary. Important storyline development and title changes are already recorded in the pages of the individual wrestlers and the championships. --Aaru Bui DII 23:38, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • You're obviously horribly mistaken to what meets the criteria for deletion. I think it's obvious to everyone here that this is not going to be deleted. Unless you plan to delete every WWE pay-per-view, this has no merit for deletion. Really, deleting an active PPV from the most notable wrestling company on the Earth doesn't really fly here. — Moe 23:43, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I do plan on deleting other pay-per-views. At least the card shouldn't be included in the article. --Aaru Bui DII 23:55, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment PPV's are an annual occurance, so they should have their own article. I agree that results are not all that important, but there are other things that make it worthy enough for an article due to the annual nature of it. James Duggan 00:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • We are NOT getting rid of PPV articles Aaru Bui. The only reason we were putting the special episodes of RAW up for deletion was because they were only season premires and didn't warrent thier own articles. All PPV's by WWE are notable and should have articles. Your borderline WP:TROLL if you keep this disruptive behavior up. — Moe 04:08, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment without regards to the merits of this AfD. Wrestling is a topic whose inclusion limits are still being defined and are in fact being actively tested at the moment (as the above-mentioned season premieres). Just as that scrutiny is identifying topics on the deletion side of the acceptable threshhold, so too must it indentify topics on the other side of the threshhold. That doesn't mean that a nomination such as this, or active debate over it, is necessarily trolling or disruptive. The purpose of AfD is better articles and a better encyclopedia as a whole. Serpent's Choice 07:49, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, it is trolling when the obvious outcome is going to be Speedy Keep or Keep. It's like putting George W. Bush up for AFD and expecting it to be deleted, it ain't gonna happen. — Moe 16:58, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. -- bulletproof 3:16 23:14, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep It's an annual event, and a PPV to boot. James Duggan 00:44, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep and reject the crusade foretold in nomination. Str1977 (smile back) 06:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Like everyone else says, It's an annual event and a part of a WikiProject. John cena123 14:14, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep --Mikedk9109 17:51, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep Per above reasons. ---SilentRAGE! 20:38, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Kepp Per above--Unopeneddoor 19:03, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per above THL 14:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Long Live The PPV KingOfDX 04:32, 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. - Mailer Diablo 11:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Australian Democratic Republican Party

Completing a nomination. See the talk page of the article for rationale. Tizio, Caio, Sempronio 14:20, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - not really notable and verifiable. Would've been a good CSD-A7 candidate first up. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 15:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Seems to have been written by the person trying to found the party. Until the party exists in more than name should be deleted as non notable and unverifiable. Davewild 15:59, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - per Davewild & article Talk page. ENeville 21:50, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. An unregistered Australian political party with no parliamentary representatives and no media coverage see Google News [28]

Might be notable in the future but isn't yet.

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 05:03, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, support the ideas behind this party, but not notable enough yet. Lankiveil 07:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC).
  • Delete, per nom. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 10:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable. Perhaps when they are a registered party and have ran in elections we could revisit it. --Roisterer 19:59, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is just a prospectus for a possible future party, and is therefore just advertising. --Grahamec 01:51, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete (regrettably) I must concur with this debate. Although I'm the original page author I find that the above comments are logical and irrefutable. Based on above objections I propose only reinstating the page at a future point in time where the following are all met: a) content is verifiable, b) party is officially registered with Australian Electoral commission, c) there is some degree of media coverage, d) have contested an election. All up 'notable'. I thank you all for your time and appreciate your comments. Regards, Miles Gillham 10:35, 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 of the debate was to Delete the article. No references to show that it is even true.--Konst.ableTalk 11:10, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Postal Orders of Diego Garcia

A doubt has been raised on whether these postal orders have been actually issued or not (see the talk page of the article). Tizio, Caio, Sempronio 14:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:V and WP:RS unless sources start to appear; although I have no knowledge whatsoever about the subject, a Google search yields no immediately useful sources for verifying the article's assertions. Sandstein 15:05, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Well, I don't know if any of the claims in this article are correct, but it seems as if the BIOT (and Diego Garcia) is of some interest to philatery folks. But since there doesn't seem to be anything describing philately in the article on money order, I don't think this article is that ripe either. FrozenPurpleCube 16:22, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
OTOH, Postal Order is a bit better on this subject. FrozenPurpleCube 16:25, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Delete No sources cited, and I can't find anything in Google that isn't derived from this article, so it may well be unverifiable. -- Donald Albury 18:54, 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 KEEP, withdrawn by nom. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jesus Can't Play Rugby

An unsourced drinking song that gets 159 Google hits. No apparent notability. Sandstein 15:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC) -- Withdrawn, see below. Sandstein 16:08, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep Regardless of Google hits, this song is sung in Ireland, Wales, England, and the US by nearly every club, regardless of level. A no brainer. hoopydinkConas tá tú? 15:26, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
    I just spent five minutes aedequately sourcing the article. It still needs work, but it'd be silly to delete it outright hoopydinkConas tá tú? 15:37, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
    OK, I see it's popular. Nomination withdrawn. But I do object to you editing my nomination, Hoopydink, by striking through "unsourced". I've reverted this; please see WP:TPG. Sandstein 16:08, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep and clean up. Seems to be a fairly well known rugby song. Davewild 15:38, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep Needs a good copyedit, but not deletable. Yanksox 16:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. The quality of the article notwithstanding, the Google search seems to indicate that every rugby club with a web site considers singing this song to be part of the game. It needs to be improved upon, yes, but it meets notability. Consequentially 03:45, 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 - Yomanganitalk 09:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A Thousand Falling Skies

A band which existed for a while and doesn't now. They released a couple of EPs, one of which sold a couple of thousand copies. They used the money to tour a bit. And that's about it. There is nothing to say about this band other than what they say about themselves, as far as I can tell. Guy 15:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep. They do meet one WP:MUSIC guideline, which is enough to warrant notability and an article on Wikipedia.:
    • Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable; note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such. (Kevin Boutot is in The Acacia Strain, Brendan Kane Duff is in Dry Kill Logic and was a member of 100 Demons [source]. --GVOLTT 17:04, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete No evidence of notability.Edison 20:48, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn, fails all but the most generous reading of WP:MUSIC. Eusebeus 15:20, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yanksox
Comment, not a vote: Note that WP:MUSIC says, in the above-mentioned keep criterion, note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:21, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
How would a redirect work when the various members have gone on to work with three different bands? Wavy G 16:01, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Notability isn't everything: here, there just isn't anything interesting to write. Since the band doesn't exist anymore, I'm unwilling to endorse what would become a permanent stub. Mangojuicetalk 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 delete, redirect to Uppingham School. Deizio talk 13:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] West Bank House

Not notable Addhoc 15:03, 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 - Yomanganitalk 09:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Craft Beer Radio

This just seems like blatant spam about an insignificant website, possibly speedy delete under CSD A7. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 22:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete fails WP:WEB. It obviously doesn't meet criteria 2&3. And as far as 1, all I could find is this. Mitaphane talk 06:23, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yanksox
  • Delete as per Mitaphane. Davewild 15:21, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Tonywalton  | Talk 10:09, 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 this would actually qualify for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#A1.--Konst.ableTalk 11:36, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Raccolta

Raccolta means Collection in Italian. It is not the title of Vivaldi first Opus. Any collection of musical pieces, or of anything else, is called Raccolta. Eubulide 15:11, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep if rewritten as per [29] otherwise Delete. Davewild 15:24, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, with no prejudice against creating an article on the general meaning. -- Donald Albury 18:57, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 06:40, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Squats in ...

Nominating the following pages for deletion: Squats in ex-Yu, Squats in Italy, Squats in Spain, Squats in France, Squats in Poland, Squats in Germany, Squats in Switzerland, Squats in The Netherlands, Squats in USA, and Squats in Canada. These pages are basically identical to Squats in the UK, which was deleted by the discussion Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Squats_in_UK. I had added these pages to the original nomination, but the closing admin felt it would be better procedure to list them all. Leuko 15:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Note - The articles about Spain and Netherlands were not, imo, added to the UK AfD debate correctly, hence the reason they were not included in the original decision. I offered no opinion on whether those or any other articles should be listed. To say these articles are "basically identical" to the UK article does appear to be fair comment but I'll abstain from making a vote here. Deizio talk 16:21, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all. These would be better as categories. --Aaron 18:18, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Propasal I'd suggest maybe List of Notable Squats as a page to start with, then if some country starts to have a lot of entries branch off. I don't think that most of the entries now are valid, so there's little reason to merge them, but maybe there's something worth saving. That said, Squatting certainly has a list already, so there may be no real point to branching, unless people think that article is too long?? FrozenPurpleCube 18:19, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all the articles offer no context. Danny Lilithborne 21:44, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all but for different reasons:

- USA list - delete becuase we already havea list under punk house

- germany - we already have the bluelinked places listed in the squatting page under notable squats

- netherlands - reluctantly, i like it as a list, but see comments below

- lack of verification takes care of the rest

  • Comments

I mean, i think there are lots of lists here on wikipedia which i personally find a lot more worthless than these, but then squattign is an interest of mine and i appreciate that the lists are not verified at this time, although perhaps Mladifilozof, who recently created most of these pages and perhaps is still learning the ropes of wikipedia, will provide verification. There is already the list of notable squats on the squatting page and i hope i have moved all the blue links to that list, which can be expanded as necessary. I find it a shame that Squats in The Netherlands is also going to get deleted, becuase it is a list which has existed for quite a while and i personally find useful. moreover, i am slowly working through the squats making entries out of them, but i guess for now they can stay on the notable squats list. Further, I think its a shame Leuko is going about the deletion in this way, as i have already pointed out here and here. And finally it would be nice at least to have a real proposal for deletion of these pages Mujinga 22:59, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete all per Danny Lilithborne. Also, I just don't think we need to organize on this kind of thing. It's good to organize information to allow for easier browsing, but there are limits. Mangojuicetalk 20:38, 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. -- Steel 15:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mel Gibson and Anti-Semitism

Procederial nomination, contested PROD. Yanksox 15:59, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Everything in the article is copied from Mel Gibson. No reason to have sperate article. Davewild 16:06, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. The brief overview in the Controversy section of Mel Gibson suffices. Yes, the incident gained a lot of press attention, but it really doesn't need its own article, in my opinion, just like the Britney Spears driving-with-baby-on-lap incident doesn't deserve its own article. The main focus, after all, is on the person, not the incident. Additionally, there really isn't enough (encyclopedic) information about the controversy that it requires its own article. Srose (talk) 16:37, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Delete - completely copied. SergeantBolt (t,c) 18:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Srose. --Aaron 18:16, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not a political tribune. Pavel Vozenilek 19:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - not article relevant. --Alex (Talk) 21:38, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 21:45, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and Redirect to Mel Gibson Cynical 21:49, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and Redirect to Mel Gibson --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 00:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Srose's reasons are my own, but Srose said it better than I would have. Blue Tie 00:55, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Whatever has to be said about his antisemitism can be covered in his Wikipedia entry. EliasAlucard|Talk 06:46, 15 Oct, 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. We don't have an Adolf Hitler and Anti-Semitism article so no need for Mel Gibson. Capitalistroadster 05:08, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
    • LOL... Very good point! Srose (talk) 14:56, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 05:08, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • 'Delete per Srose. (JROBBO 06:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC))
  • Delete, but first Merge anything relevant to Mel Gibson. Lankiveil 07:47, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Not worthy of a separate article. Emeraude 09:25, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Does not add anything to the main article. --Grahamec 01:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Open Source BI

Little more than a collection of external links. Delete per WP:NOT. ZimZalaBim (talk) 16:02, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Collection of links classified by vaguely defined marketing term. WP is not Freshmeat. Pavel Vozenilek 19:36, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Even though I contributed to this article in the past, I always felt uneasy with it, since it offered no content, but just collection of links to various projects, most of which are not important enough to earn a place in Wikipedia to begin with. Wikiolap 20:32, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, linkfarm, virtually no content whatsoever. Resolute 05:42, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Do NOT Delete!! This content is VALUABLE and not replicated in the entry on Extract,_transform,_load (ETL). If the links in this article were replicated there, in the ETL article, then deleting this article would be OK, but not otherwise. Nearly all of the links in the ETL currently point to _proprietary_ tools, not open source tools. Please replicate the links in another article!! Paul D. Bain 15:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Wikipeia is not a link directory. If there was content about such open source ETL tools - it definitely should've stayed (probably inside the main ETL article), but Open Source BI doesn't provide content - this is why it is nominated for deletion. Wikiolap 05:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Do NOT Delete!! WHAT IS THIS COMMENT - "most of which are not important enough to earn a place in Wikipedia to begin with" I guess it is fair to say that wikipedia started out as a tier1 enterprise application?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.161.180.173 (talk • contribs) .
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 12:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] High school subcultures

Prod'd, but obviously needs a wider audience for deletion decision. UtherSRG (talk) 16:09, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep I'm really uncomfortable with deleting an article with all of those sources cited, even if I can't check them right away. The reason given for prodding, that it 'may not represent a worldwide view', also seems inapproriate to me. It seems to imply that we can't write about a subject that applies to only one country. UtherSRG did the right thing bringing it here. -- Donald Albury 19:44, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Conditional Keep The article has a number of notes and references at the end, but they are not tied to the statements in the article as footnotes. Please see an article which uses footnotes and place references in the text so a reader can tell which reference is supposed to substantiate which statement in the text. Otherwise there is a huge task for the reader which should have been done by the editor. Edison 21:21, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per the above. Cynical 21:53, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Cleanup The references are wonderful, and would make a strong framework to an article about perceptions of high school age cliques and stereotypes. This article is not that though, failing NPOV with almost every sentence. This needs peer review by some sociologists. -Markeer 22:35, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and rewrite as above. This article would be much better of it was rewritten to NPOV and included some other countries. Beno1000 19:43, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep unconditionally. I agree with Edison, though, that the references should be tied to statements in the article itself. Before the article was completely overhauled (it was about ten times this long), this was the case to my recollection. The references still seem pertinent for the most part, but do need to be tied into the statements. --Czj 09:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Needs work, but its legitimacy is beyond dispute imo. Merchbow 15:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep but, agreed, it does need some work Michaelritchie200 16:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep', plenty of sources. Andman8 20:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and Complete Rewrite, this information doesn't belong in wikipedia, if there is going to be a page titled High School Subcultures, it should DEFINE what a high school subculture is an explain on that subject only. Lordofchaosiori 06:34, 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. - Mailer Diablo 12:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Morton's list

This was previously AfD'd and deleted. The current article is much shorter than the old one and I don't believe the creators are the same, so it's not a repost, but the current article reads like an ad (listing the price??) and is still about a non-notable meme. Opabinia regalis 16:09, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Delete, per nom. SergeantBolt (t,c) 18:00, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete The verification problem doesn't seem to have improved. Lots of chatter on the web, but kind of hard to find a reliable source. -- Donald Albury 19:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Spam. No real content whatsoever (article doesn't even explain what this is), but they sure got that price in there. Wavy G 17:22, 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. Deizio talk 14:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Netjak

Was on prod, but contested. Prod concern: No claims of notability, per WP:WEB UtherSRG (talk) 16:16, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Um. Contested by whom? Didn't you just replace the prod template with the AFD template? Anyway, delete, per my prod reasoning. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:49, 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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 13:01, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] United States military nuclear incident terminology

This article was originally speedy deleted because all of the terms had been individually transwikied to Wictionary (under CSD G5). A DRV consensus overturned, reasoning that -- while dicdefs aren't permissible on Wikipedia -- glossaries are sometimes permitted. Please consult the DRV before commenting here. This is a procedural listing, so I abstain. Xoloz 16:32, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep. Transwikied individually doesn't mean a thing here, since there is an actual context for the terms which requires explanation and also provides a useful context to have the terms put together for comparison. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 17:02, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Per khaosworks He says it all !paradigm! 19:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC)!paradigm!
  • Weak Keep the article could use some work, but I don't have much of a problem with this logically related list of definitions.-- danntm T C 23:14, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Article needs fleshing out for context and detail, but is expandable beyond definitions. Bwithh 01:21, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per khaosworks. The entries are more than just definitions, and wouldn't make sense at Wiktionary. -- Renesis (talk) 03:55, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 22:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Community Middle School

School vanity page with no alumns of any note whatsoever. EntropyGuardian 16:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: EntropyGuardian (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.

  • Keep how is it vanity? It's written in a neutral tone all the way through. I suggest, however, that it gets some sources/references. --Alex (Talk) 21:41, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. The science olympiad accomplishments are enough to pass WP:SCHOOL criteria #3. --- RockMFR 21:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per RockMFR, the article is quite decent as it stands. Yamaguchi先生 11:00, 15 October 2006
  • Delete non notable school. Knowing Is Half The Battle 20:34, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, school with 1000+ students. bbx 21:24, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Alex, Yamaguchi, bbx. --Myles Long 23:01, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep Vanity!?!?!? This is a well-constructed, thoroughly-researched article for a school that has an explicit claim of notability in a Science Olympiad championship. Why on earth does a notable alumnus having attended a middle school -- let alone virtually any school, at any level -- make the school notable? And why does the absence of such a notable make the entire contents not even worth merging into a district article? All the more disturbing coming in the third edit ever from the nominator. Alansohn 02:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • keep please this is a good article about a notable school Yuckfoo 20:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per the above, the accomplishments section of the article establishes notability, sockpuppet nomination, etc. RFerreira 00:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep same reasons as above. --Vsion 04:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, pointless nomination considering the votes Schoolwatch can turn out --ForbiddenWord 14:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Let me just say that what is important is the consensus among all Wikipedians, not among schoolwatch this is a very alarming statement and not at all in the spirt of wikipedia goals. I visted the link to Schoolwatch and found no discussion as to what are notable or what is not. All I found were a list of AfD's current and a past AfD's with results totaled by month list with totals by month. As to its point of view I found this statement right at top of page "the terms 'keep' and 'no consensus' are used interchangeably (as no consensus defaults to keep)." TheRanger 16:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per above, please do not feed the trolls. Silensor 17:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, lacking notability. Some sentences may be mergeable to Science Olympiad. —ptk✰fgs 20:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge & redirect to Pickling. Deizio talk 13:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pickling spice

Not noteable. Wikipedia is not a recipe book Blood red sandman 16:42, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

  • keep but needs expansion, wikipedia is not a recipe book, true, but pickling as a method of food preservation and the spices involved in pickling, which vary across regions and cultures is a very important topic, both in terms of general knowledge and in terms of the history and development of food. I say let this one be, tag it for expansion and see what happens over time. --Buridan 17:00, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to Pickling. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:24, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge into pickling. Definitely "notable" and verifiable, but there is not enough content available to merit a separate article. --Ginkgo100 talk · e@ 20:25, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect per Ginko100 and Zoe. Could be a good article if it had content. ScottW 23:55, 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; AfD is not a vote, it is up to those arguing for deletion to address claims of notability when they arise. They didn't, so we have to assume that Hit's evidence proves the book's notability in the absence of any argument whatsoever to the contrary. --Sam Blanning(talk) 23:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Loudness of Sam

Seemingly non-notable children's book. Claims to have been made into a TV programme, which seems equally non-notable --Dangherous 17:05, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, per nom. SergeantBolt (t,c) 17:57, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. hard to verify. Jpe|ob 05:55, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and improve. Verifiable book by a notable author, published with a reputable publisher (i.e. Harcourt Trade Publishers).[30] The TV adaptation (by Nelvana) is also pretty easy to verify.[31] The book has good library presence (two LOC copies, and 400+ on WorldCat[32]), and a LexisNexis search turns up print reviews by Booklist(7/1/99) and Kirkus Reviews(3/1/99), among others. Easy, easy keep. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 14:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Spotted another review when I was looking for info to start an author stub: the Chicago Tribune (2/28/99). Posting it here in case someone with archive access wants to dig for it. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 14:33, 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 - as the nominator isn't actually arguing for deletion, nor is anyone else, it seems pointless to relist this. Discussion of moves goes at Wikipedia:Requested moves. --Sam Blanning(talk) 23:24, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of U.S. government designations for places

The information seems OK, but I don't like the name of the page, it seems a bit vague. Maybe I should put this on "requests for rename-age", but I don't know the template for that. So it's here instead. Plus, the page has gone nearly 2 years without any editting, so I've a feeling the info is somewhere else anyway. --Dangherous 17:10, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment Hmm, the article's name does feel a little awkward, but the information itself probably isn't entirely a bad idea. I just wonder if it's redundant to some more promienent article? FrozenPurpleCube 17:54, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment It appears to duplicate Category:Protected areas of the United States. -- Bpmullins 18:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, not entirely, as there are some remaining redlinks. FrozenPurpleCube 00:01, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • More Comment It looks like this article pre-dates the category. I'm generally in favor of categories over lists, but if your only objection is the name, I wonder if it wouldn't be better if you just moved it to a more appropriate name. Incidentally, the related category had had a similar debate. ScottW 00:06, 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. --Sam Blanning(talk) 23:25, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of universities in Lahore

Seems deprecated what with Category:Universities and colleges in Lahore. In this case, cats at end of articles are less maintenance-y than having to update the list. --EEMeltonIV f17:23, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, has no incoming links other than AfD material. --EEMeltonIV 17:35, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Lists are useful as a way to indicate what does and does not have an article. They are NOT superseded by categorisation. -- Necrothesp 18:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete lists of redlinks are useful for article building purposes but as such they belong in the project space not the namespace. As far as readers are concerned it is redundant to the category. Eluchil404 07:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. First, there are more bluelinks on this list than redlinks. Second, I'm presuming you can quote a policy or guideline or this anti-list statement? Well, actually you won't be able to, since our guideline is that lists are perfectly valid. -- Necrothesp 13:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Vectro 01:56, 24 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 to delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 23:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Star Trek Armada II: Fleet Operations

Article gives no indication of satisfying WP:V, WP:RS, or WP:SOFTWARE. Whispering 17:53, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Merge into Star Trek: Armada II as a mod of the game. [33] Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 18:11, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete -- non-notable, doesn't meet WP:V or WP:RS. Worthwhile material from this article can be summed up in a paragraph in the Armada II article. --EEMeltonIV 19:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per Torinir Cynical 21:50, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Trim and Merge to Star Trek: Armada II, an unverified and unsourced mod of a game does not need its own article.-- danntm T C 23:07, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - There are PLENTY of computer game mods that have their own articles [34]. This promises to be a very large and important modification for this valued game. -- TheOneCalledA1 22:35, 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 speedy delete --Durin 12:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MSN Messneger , Previous

There is already an article pertaining to MSN Messenger at MSN Messenger. This article is not useful in any way, and serves no purpose. I nominated it for speedy deletion, but its author objected. Martin 17:54, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Delete - pointless, and its title is misspelt. SergeantBolt (t,c) 17:56, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per SergeantBolt and complete redundancy with MSN Messenger.--Húsönd 18:16, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • There is NOT an article pertaining to msn messenger, just WLM (Windows Live).
Ther is an article on its history though. But thatz not the point. I posted the narticlefor users who use systems that cannot run WLM, and if this is put back correctly, I will have a link to a site where people using slow or junky computers can find out more about the product that actually works for them, not one that doesn't. Besides, all the products are splitting;soon you might be arguing with someone who wants to write an article about Hotmail not Windows Live Mail.
--I saw the article and liked it so i wish you would leave it alone. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sam798 (talk • contribs) .
    • User:Sam798 wrote the entirety of the above, and I propose he/she is a sock puppet of User:Ethan.hardman. Martin 18:31, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
      • This page has been moved by the author copying the contents into a new article. Accordingly, the new article is up for deletion here. Martin 18:48, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete redundant. Resolute 05:47, 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. Deizio talk 14:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Foothill horizons summer camp

Non notable camp. Prod tag previously removed by article creator. cholmes75 (chit chat) 13:20, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, no notability. Full disclosure: I put the initial PROD tag on the article. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:33, 8 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, Whispering 18:14, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, I have to say, insofar as the information appears verifiable and I could see a prospective parent wanting to look up information. --Ginkgo100 talk · e@ 20:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
    Comment - WP:NOT a directory. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 20:53, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. No notability or encyclopedic value. Wikipedia is not a directory of summer camps. Agent 86 20:54, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I don't see anything here that demonstrates notability. ScottW 00:12, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Notability is inherent: hundreds of kids pass through these camps each year, and over years become legendary. People will look these up for both current info and nostalgia. As well, the off-season use means hundreds of adults use the site each year as well, kids summer camps are popular corporate retreats. SchmuckyTheCat 16:03, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
    Comment - Hundreds of kids pass through my local Chuck E. Cheese's every year, that doesn't make that one any more notable than the hundreds of others. Additionally, nostalgia is not a criteria for notability, and WP:NOT a directory. If anyone can cite evidence of this camp's "legendary" status then I will gladly switch my opinion to Keep. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 20:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a directory. --Maelnuneb (Talk) 17:48, 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, redirecting to Youtube. Deizio talk 14:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Emmalina (3rd nomination)

DELETE - PASSING FAD THAT SERVES NO IMPORTANCE —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.18GB (talk • contribs) .

Previous AFDs here Yomanganitalk 18:09, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I have split the history so that they are now at 1st 2nd. -Splash - tk 23:59, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per previous AfDs.--Húsönd 18:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually I'll just change to Neutral as I also did on the Crazy German kid AfD.--Húsönd 18:26, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Temporal notability (which she never really had in the first place) != permanent notability. --Aaron 18:15, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

— Duplicate vote: 4.18GB (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above.*Delete - flash in the pan. Would you find this in Britannica? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.18GB (talk • contribs) 14:40, October 14, 2006

  • Delete. Does not meet WP:BIO and is no more notable than any other youtuber, blogger, or internet user. Agent 86 20:55, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
WP:BIO is not at stake here. The previous AfDs have already established that. (JROBBO 12:44, 15 October 2006 (UTC))
That's not a reason for deletion as already established by the Daniel Brandt controversy. (JROBBO 06:09, 15 October 2006 (UTC))
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 05:18, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete She had her moments of fame on youtube, but posting videos to youtube is not notable, nor is getting a few interviews at the moment. GassyGuy 05:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
There is a list of notable YouTube users, which have established her as a notable YouTube user, and she has survived a deletion review twice. (JROBBO 06:09, 15 October 2006 (UTC))
Excuse me? Being in a category is not justification for having an article kept. GassyGuy 06:29, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, bad English. My point is that this has already survived two deletion debates and there hasn't been any real change in circumstances warranting a third. Secondly, there are plenty of other YouTube users with their own articles who were less notable than this user, but whose articles are still regarded as notable. I really don't think this is a reason. (JROBBO 06:36, 15 October 2006 (UTC))
  • Delete short term notability has expired. The only people who will ever be notable because of youtube will its creators. Resolute 05:51, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
By that logic, every politician should be deleted once they retire. WP is not just about the present, you know. You can't argue this. (JROBBO 06:09, 15 October 2006 (UTC))
Not really analogous. In the real world, politics are central to the workings of the nation. Politicians played key roles in something very important, so they are notable and worthy of encyclopaedic reference; in contrast youtube is... well... a website, and not exactly central to the world. Being involved with youtube is hardly being a government official. GassyGuy 06:29, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
My point still remains - just because you stop doing something that you achieved notable coverage for doesn't mean that you automatically become non-notable. In any case, there is enough precedent on WP to make this sort of argument unfounded. (JROBBO 06:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC))
Perhaps, but, the point is, just getting press coverage isn't the same as establishing notability in the first place. I, too, have gotten press coverage, but good luck finding my article, which also doesn't belong here. The point being made is that, if having some press coverage is all that can be said to support keeping the article, it is unlikely to be worthy of inclusion in an encyclopaedia. I'll also note that the presence of even less worthy articles does not justify the keeping of this one. GassyGuy 06:37, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
No, WP is not just about the present, but it is also not an indiscriminate collection. She got a little press for being momentaraly popular on a website. Big deal. By your logic, anybody who receives any press is automatically notable. Right down to every minor criminal who is locally newsworthy. Nobody is going to remember this girl in six months, let alone 100 years. Resolute 14:58, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps, but it does give notability to the prominence of internet memes on YouTube. Perhaps some (but not all) of this information would be better served on a "Notable YouTube memes" page which is there to establish YouTube memes that have made significant coverage in particular countries. That would make this page defunct but the new article would serve YouTube's notability and not Emmalina's. (JROBBO 04:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC))
  • Strong keep if not Speedy keep - Wikipedia is not just about what is fashionable. Emmalina received significant coverage in Australia, probably almost as much as lonelygirl15 in the US. Whilst that doesn't make her extremely notable in itself, it certainly does point that way. I ask the person that started this - what makes this not notable now compared to other AfDs? You must remember that Wikipedia is not just about what is present, even if it is not a static encyclopaedia. Other YouTube users are arguably less notable than Emmalina was, and yet we still keep their articles. This is a pointless vote by an unsigned troll and the request by the subject does not equal deletion. It should be kept. I would, however, support a merge to a Notable YouTube users page if that were suggested. (JROBBO 06:09, 15 October 2006 (UTC))
  • Delete Finally, someone nominated this crap again. I don't know whether the subject of an article is allowed to vote for it's removal, but I don't particularly care. I don't want it here. Doesn't the fact that it's been nominated three times tell you something? 124.177.40.147 06:27, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
The subject wishing deletion to take place is not a reason for deletion, as already established by the Angela Beesley and Daniel Brandt issues. But to protect their interest, perhaps someone can get this article protected to stop unsigned users from adding incorrect and libelous information? (JROBBO 06:31, 15 October 2006 (UTC))
Meh, no one said that WAS the reason for deletion. The reason is that I'm entirely unnotable. 124.177.40.147 08:38, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
That's not true - you gained significant media attention. That establishes some notability at least. Anyway, her notability has already been established here and doesn't need going over again. Why doesn't someone stop this discussion? It is pointless going over the same debate again for no reason. (JROBBO 12:42, 15 October 2006 (UTC))
What!? Three news articles in the "Tech" section of online news sites counts as "significant media attention" these days? One of which was a follow-up article, and the other written without my consent? You have to be kidding me. I'm NOT a public figure nor do I want to be. Oh, and why "stop the discussion" when at this point over half of the voters agree that it requires deletion? 124.177.40.147 07:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, fadcruft. Her fifteen minutes of fame are over. Lankiveil 07:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC).
  • Delete per Agent86. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:28, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep news coverage establishes notability per WP:BIO. Hbdragon88 06:28, 16 October 2006
  • Delete. A bunch of video views on Youtube over a few months doesn't make a person notable. The "press coverage" consists of a few little fluff articles in the "Web" or "Tech" section that are of no real significance. Do we really need an article for every person who was popular on Youtube at a certain point in time? WarpstarRider 09:38, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete with redirect to YouTube - I've changed my mind - the user's notability are better established under the YouTube page or a subset thereof, not in their own article. There's no question of their notability, however. WP:BIO is more than established, and there are FAR more than 3 articles around. I can do a Factiva list of articles if people would like. (JROBBO 10:29, 16 October 2006 (UTC))
  • Strong Delete "The basis of the previous keep votes seems to be the press coverage. Press coverage =/= notability, and vice versa." Quoted for emphasis. (And I was the second person to nominate this article for deletion. It has no place in wikipedia.) subliminalis 10:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Because repeatedly nominating an article for deletion bothers me. The first one was keep, so, ok. The second was no consensus because people said the subject didn't want the article, but that's no reason at all. That sets the bar to keep. SchmuckyTheCat 16:08, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Reluctant keep Even if she weren't notable for her time as a youtube personality, I feel that the harassment she received afterwards is notable. Something that future youtube personalities may want to think about before showing themselves to the world. I'm sad that this is against Emmalina's wishes though. Andjam 22:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Getting hacked makes you notable now? A whole lot of my acquaintances are now worthy of articles. GassyGuy 00:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Have any of them received newspaper coverage of their harassment? Andjam 00:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Some have received coverage via incident reports in papers, but does coverage in a newspaper automatically make a person notable? GassyGuy 02:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
What else exactly would you use a measuring stick? Notable people--even if notable for a time--get in the press. Notable once, they merit inclusion. · XP · 03:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Basically, I'm saying that, while not having any press coverage at all may be grounds for deletion, having some isn't automatic grounds for inclusion. Do you really think everyone who has an article in the special interest sections of newspapers should be included here? This is a basic summary of what happened: She had some videos on Youtube that people watched. She got hacked. It got a bit of coverage in minor newspaper sections. The end. It's not really the sort of thing that belongs in an encyclopaedia. Press coverage might make it a borderline case, but really, there's little to push her over into celebrity status. Think of it this way - every paedophile who gets caught and convicted by Perverted-Justice.com will have people on the web reading their story and also get newspaper coverage of the conviction. Does that establish encyclopaedic notability? (Note: I apologize to Emmalina for using the example of criminals in comparison to her, if she is reading this. I do not mean to imply that she has done anything at all to be held in a negative light. It was just the only other case I could think of that involved extensive website coverage and minor newspaper coverage.) Anyway, I think I'm rambling, so I'll quit trying to explain myself and let the AfD carry on its normal course. GassyGuy 07:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
In a local paper, or a specialised website, maybe not, but if you read about it in a paper on the other side of the world? Andjam 09:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
The article is focussed on events that happened on the Internet. You know, the World Wide Web. It's not surprising or special in the slightest that it was covered (by what, ONE media company?) in a country other than my own. EmmalinaL 05:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, her 15 minutes are up. I concur with GassyGuy, having a brief period of press coverage doesn't automatically equate to WP:BIO notability.--Isotope23 14:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. This happens all the time on YouTube. Videos enter top lists and get a lot of views over some time especially if it's covered by media. The problem is she just got hacked and that was more the reported news than her as an influental Internet personality. How about just covering the event as e.g a blurb for notable YouTube events in the YouTube article? I can not even agree with the article's main premise about her becoming a "virtual star". -- Northgrove 22:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Update - Good idea. I've put a shortened version of the article under Notable YouTube memes (a subpage of the main YouTube page), which derives its notability from YouTube (as it is YouTube that makes the publicity out of people) rather than they being notable in themselves (let's face it, this article wouldn't be here without YouTube). Some of the articles were too long so they can have their own page, but this one is not worthy of its own page - but a small mention under that article is more appropriate. (JROBBO 05:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC))
  • Delete "who?" Guy 09:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment It's this kind of mentality "I don't know who this person is, so his or her article must go" that makes me wince. Just because you don't know about it doesn't make it a good reason to delete. Hbdragon88 22:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Also bothered by the 3rd nom. A contendor for the Harold Stassen afd award. And the Washing Post writing articles about her at least twice shows notability. --Marriedtofilm 22:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Youtube fad --† Ðy§ep§ion † Speak your mind 23:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Obvious keep, meets WP:BIO. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. I heard of him. Washington Post is a very reliable source. Should meet WP:BIO. AQu01rius (User | Talk | Websites)  02:52, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
"I heard of him" is not a very convincing argument toward notability when the subject is female. GassyGuy 04:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 02:55, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Indomitable (Star Wars)

In my random merge project in Category:Star Wars spaceships, this one pops out like a sore thumb; it's an attempt at a disambiguation page, listing several very minor star wars vessels. I don't think a dab is necessary; this page as a whole is unnecessary, and can't really be redirected appropriately. — Deckiller 18:10, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom, or possibly transwiki parts to Wookieepedia if they want any of it (their version doesn't list all five, and only has one blue link). All are minor ships that aren't notable enough for Wikipedia. BryanG(talk) 20:12, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. "What links here" is barren of relevant articles. Caknuck 06:31, 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 - the main thrust of the arguments from those arguing to keep is that she is notable enough to have an article (I know there are other arguments but I'm summarizing) and that the circumstances surrounding her death confer that notability. Although that is obviously (from the sheer volume of argument below) debatable it is secondary to the policy of WP:NPOV. This article, while cited, cannot be regarded as having a neutral point of view - look at the Joe Scarborough article to see the incident is covered in a far more balanced way - and since no attempt has been made to remove bias during the course of the AFD it must deleted under that policy. Yomanganitalk 11:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lori Klausutis

First Deletion Reason: Pursuant to WP:BLP regarding Non-Public Figures: “Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. It is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives.”[35] Subject of the article is non-notable, except for a flurry of speculation in 2001 regarding Joe Scarborough’s involvement in her death, and mention in a local Florida newspaper, and that time has long passed. Article seems to be created for the sole purpose of disparaging Joe Scarborough. I don’t care for Scarborough, but having this article gives undue weight to a story which has been thoroughly discredited, and as such violates WP:NPOV#Undue weight -- there is no investigation of Scarborough, and the Coroner said Klausutis did not die under suspicious circumstances – its inclusion here is sensationalist and tabloidic, not encyclopedic. This article was deleted once before. Only 842 hits on google, most of which are blogs. If this information is notable at all, put it in the Scarborough article, and leave sensationalism to The National Enquirer. Wikipedia is not a battleground Morton devonshire 18:18, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

History Okay, to clarify on the deletion history of the article, it was nominated for deletion twice in the past for different reasons than it is being nominated for this time. The first time, the result was delete, because it was a useless and possibly POV redirect to Joe Scarborough. The second time, the main reason was lack of notability, and the result of the debate was no consensus. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 23:56, 14 October 2006 (UTC), 00:12, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment It was not already deleted once; that was just a redirect. Have a look at the debate, or total lack thereof. Derex 18:49, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete G10 and salt page; attack page on Joe Scarborough. Also possibly speedy delete as G4 recreation of deleted material.--Aaron 18:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC) (Modifying vote per Glen S's recommendation below.) --Aaron 19:03, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • G10 does not apply here per derex above. You may want to change your comment or it may be disregarded by closing admin Glen 04:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete as it was already deleted. Still non-notable person in a non-notable event. Delete per Fred Bauder below. --Tbeatty 18:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Again speedy delete does not apply here so per above you may want to change your comment or it may be disregarded Glen 04:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, and it's not eligible for a speedy; no article on her has ever been AFD'd; see comment at top. Derex 18:49, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Attack pages are deletable by an admin on sight. --Aaron 18:53, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Reply: Absolutely, which is why this one is not eligible. Give me a break, it may be misguided, but it's not an attack page. Further, I find the nom's arguments to be wholly unpersuasive and irritating in tone; nom seems to view AFD as a POV battleground and routinely spams to friendlies on votes. This one, for example, was pre-discussed among a little group of early voters. That last said, and I've been wanting to comment on this longstanding abuse of the AFD process for a long time, this person has no notability beyond Scarborough. So, there ought to be about 3 lines in his article mentioning the hubbub. Derex 18:49, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • There was a pre-meeting on the AfD? And I missed it? Rats. That means my sockpuppets Rex/Merecat/Morton/172/TDC/MONGO/Tom/Aaron missed it too. <that was a joke for the humor impaired folks> --Tbeatty 03:41, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh, don't be coy T. You even alerted me of the listing[36], because you knew my opinion. You are quite prolific enough by yourself without imaginary socks, anyway. The repeated behavior of the nom here is the problem, not you. I've seen him spam as many as 50 friendlies (based off conservative user-boxes) over an AFD. Derex 09:39, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually I alerted you because you had previously expressed interest in voting delete before the AfD and I thought that was a noble thing that you had done. --Tbeatty 17:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Sure, you knew what I thought, because you had asked me to nominate it for AFD and I refused. That's not the point, but it is indicative. I am here participating because of private communications off the talk page; a one-off or two is no big deal, but it's becoming systemic at least with this nom. The point is that there has recently been a tremendous amount of pre-discussion of AFD's among politically like-minded editors, crucially this is off the article talk pages. These voters are quickly informed of the nom's and swarm in to create a snowball before disinterested editors ever have a look. I don't like it. If an article truly deserves to go, it will go without a lot of lobbying and spamming and otherwise un-wiki techniques. Derex 23:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete As per nom, merge relevant material into other articles. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 18:50, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I agree with this nomination. We have to be careful of what is presented in this encyclopedia. This project has already been slammed by Kim Komando per this statement. We need to protect ourselves with presenting only proper articles. Therefore, delete. JungleCat talk/contrib 19:11, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Expunge i vote delete per all above !paradigm! 19:30, 14 October 2006 (UTC)!paradigm!
  • Delete She is only notable because her death was used by unscrupulous mud-slingers as fodder for scurrilous aspersions. Fred Bauder 19:33, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete G10, protect from recreation - Article appears to attack as many as three living persons. The last source in the article links to a probable copyright violating copy of a newspaper article, hosted on POAC, which is a left-wing blog that has an entire attack sectionon this subject. - Crockspot 20:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I see some criticism of the medical examiner in the article. Which other 2 persons are attacked? Any unsupported or POV statements, or statements violating WP:BLP should be edited out.Edison 07:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Is this a serious question? Try Scarborough and Harris. Crockspot 19:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and rewrite any violating data. Widespread media citations warrant inclusion. · XP · 21:44, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable with 862 Google hits and numerous newspaper articles. The story also had a bearing on Katherine Harris's present senate race, per the article. A healthy woman in her 20's, working in a congressman's office, was found dead from a whack on the head, and the medical examiner decided she fainted from an undiagnosed heart problem (she was a runner) and fell and hit her head on the desk? The Florida papers raised serious questions about the lack of openness in failure to release the records of the investigation, and about the medical examiner's past. Keep this along with the Chandra Levy article. Many of the Delete votes have the apparent subtext that nothing casting doubt on right-wing media figures is allowed in Wikipedia, a policy I have not been able to find in the rulebook. Edison 21:47, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment The fact that the article has led you to believe that it "casts doubt" on a right-wing figure is exactly why it should be deleted. There is no fact that should have led you to that conclusion but the intention of the article is to do that and is exactly why it should be deleted. --Tbeatty 04:37, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Well said. It seems like editors have regularly manipulated the wording of this article to make it sound like there is room for doubt. (Note: I'm on the left wing and don't much care for Scarborough) — BRIAN0918 • 2006-10-15 17:13Z
  • Speedy Delete Speedy Delete (but with no prejudice towards recreation if supported by the dispute resolution process in the Joe Scarborough article) per WP:BLP. Also note that the husband of the subject of this article requested it's deletion. See Talk:Lori_Klausutis#Why_write_this_article, diff — Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 23:07, 14 October 2006 (UTC), 01:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • The husband of the subject requesting its deletion is not relevant to the process. *Sparkhead 01:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
    The subject may not be a living person, but the husband is. WP:BLP does have legal concerns, but if it weren't ethical as well, it probably wouldn't be as strict. The letter of WP:BLP may not apply, but the spirit does. The article may not affect the actual subject of the article, that person being dead, but it does affect other people - those who cared (care?) about the subject, and other living people mentioned in the article. It can affect those people's lives, and it is affecting some of their lives. Two of those people have attempted to intervene in the articles in ways WP:BLP suggests subjects of articles might. The fact that the husband is not in fact the subject of the article does not make the impact on his life any less real.
    Regarding my change in vote, I hope that the article is deleted and not recreated, but dispute resolution, which is already occuring for the Joe Scarborough article, is probably a better outlet for deciding that than AfD. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 03:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Edison and XP. The article is also well referenced. Mujinga 23:14, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Again with the apparently bad faith AfD's. A simple review of what was claimed to be the first deletion nomination of the article wasn't an AfD, but an RfD. If you're going to propose AfD's, let's try to get the history correct. Not voting yet, but what is Chandra Levy's claim to fame if not for Gary Condit? *Sparkhead 23:48, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
    It's not bad faith. It's an easy mistake to make if you don't actually read the discussion, which would be quite likely if you just read the note on Essjay's talk page. Besides, the redirect deletion does mention the Joe Scarborough controversy: if anything, actually having it in the article, instead of just redirecting to Joe Scarborough, is worse. Also, it was technically an AfD that should have been an RfD, but was deleted anyways. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 00:12, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I read the discussion. An article didn't exist at the time of the delete. Since the item in the Aug05 AfD was a redirect, handled as an RfD in an AfD discussion, this article was never deleted. It was an AfD that resulted in a deletion of a redirect. A little intellectual honesty would be appreciated. *Sparkhead 00:42, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • There's not much point in posting to Essjay's talk page about anything; he hasn't made a single edit anywhere on Wikipedia in two months. --Aaron 01:03, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
    I meant that Morton devonshire might not have read the discussion. In any case, although "recreation of a deleted article" is not a good justification for deletion here, the *fD still has historical interest, especially considering it does mention the Joe Scarborough controversy. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 00:47, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't see a lot of merit in this article, but I would like to keep the history accurate. This may be the third nomination, but is only the second time the article itself is being considered for deletion, and it was never deleted. Just a nuance, but it is more accurate. Catch me on my talk page if you want to discuss it a bit more, no use cluttering this up. *Sparkhead 00:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: There is no logical comparison between this article and Chandra Levy. Gary Condit was having an affair with Levy, and lied about it during much of the search for her. There is zero evidence that Scarborough and Klausutis had anything other than a standard employer-employee relationship, and he has an iron-clad alibi that proves he was uninvolved in her death. --Aaron 00:59, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • There's plenty of logical comparison. A young woman worker of a congressman died with no known witnesses present. How often does that happen? Also note the very recent Miami Herald mention of the incident with respect to Katherine Harris, which is not a small town paper. *Sparkhead 01:29, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • No one knows how many times it happens because no one cares. It's not notable. But people die in the workplace for natural causes all the time. That's all that happened here. And the smear is trying to compare someone who was murdered and that's having an affair with a congressman vs. someone who is unknown to a congressman that dies of natural causes. 'Female' and 'dead' is about the only comparison but the innuendo is something more and is a violation of BLP.--Tbeatty 03:49, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • You can generalize to "any workplace" but when something happens related to a Congressman, whether it's tax evasion or death of a worker, it is more notable than it happening to Joe Public. *Sparkhead 12:27, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitrary break for ease of those editing (1)

  • Comment There has been plenty of discussion of this controversy in the Joe Scarborough article. See Talk:Joe Scarborough. There was a request for mediation to MedCab, and there is discussion of bringing it up to Arbitration. WP:BLP even links to Joe Scarborough. User:Joe Scarborough attempted to modify the article to remove slanderous content and replaced it with an official bio, presumed to be a copyright violation. For an example, see this diff. There was an RFC accusing User:Joe Scarborough (talk | contribs) of being an impersonator. Why not limit all of this controversy to just one article, Joe Scarborough, and delete this one? Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 00:38, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination.--MONGO 03:55, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Merge relevant material, if any, into other articles. Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:06, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Essentially an indiscriminate collection of innuendo and non-sequiturs intended to fabricate an attack page. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:47, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Flawed Nomination contradicts itself in the first sentence. You can't argue WP:BLP regarding non-public figure. The non-public figure is deceased. *Sparkhead 12:27, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
    It's not the subject of the article, it's some of the other people in the article - mostly Joe Scarborough, but also Michael Berkland, and possibly a few other people. It's not necessarily impossible to cover this material in a way consistent with WP:BLP and WP:NPOV, but it belongs on the Joe Scarborough article, where there are plenty of interested editors who want to make that happen. (Unless, of course, it is decided through the dispute resolution process that the best way to meet WP:BLP and WP:NPOV is to put it on this article.) Take that all that out, and you have maybe one or two uninteresting paragraphs in this article. Even so, the husband of the subject of the article requested its deletion - showing mercy would do no harm. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 14:22, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • The BLP is joe scarborough and the problem is false light defamation. You have already stated that you believe that this article reflects negatively on scarborough and that is prima facie evidence of "false light" as there is no reason Klausutis' death should reflect anything on Scarborough. --Tbeatty 22:01, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • The first deletion reason is not applicable in this case: "Pursuant to WP:BLP regarding Non-Public Figures". Other BLP issues may be in play, but to focus on a non-public figure BLP violation is not correct. *Sparkhead 22:50, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
    We can delete it for reasons other than the reasons listed in the nomination... assuming sufficient consensus, of course. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 01:21, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, that's why I mentioned other issues may be in play. *Sparkhead 01:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and Redirect to Joe Scarborough. This has been used as a smear against him often enough that a source of verifiable information on it would be valuable. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 14:53, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Comment In fairness to Scarborough, especially given that Katherine Harris reportedly brought this up in her campaign, if it is shown to be a tragic but non-notable death unrelated to Scarborough, the facts that show that to be so should be laid out somewhere, and it seems too much space would be required in the Scarborough article for an adequate treatment, which it does not have at present. For comparison, the death of Marilyn Monroe (certainly notable) was officially ruled to be suicide by drug overdose, but there is another long article Death of Marilyn Monroe about it being suspicious and possibly due to murder, far more tabloid than anything in this article. The Vince Foster article bandies about tabloid theories that he was murdered by the Clintons, despite official findings of suicide, so there are precedents that a coroner's ruling does not prevent conspiracy theories being discussed in a NPOV way on Wikipedia.Edison 07:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge This is only notable as inasmuch as it applies to Scarborough. Let's make it a section in his article - the article itself is not that long and it's well-done, so it should be an easy no-brainer merge. --Gwern (contribs) 17:05, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
    • This is already covered adequately in Scarborough's article. --Tbeatty 22:01, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or Merge. This article exists only to throw up piles of FUD. It's one of the worst examples of tabloid gossip. Having a lot of sources and Google hits is not what is being argued here; it's the quality/purpose of the content that is in question. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-10-15 17:13Z
  • Keep and de-POV - The whole affair is indeed FUD, but the FUD itself has become notable. There should be a separate article to keep this stuff out of the Joe Scarborough article. --Bletch 22:16, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep The only issue at question here is notability. WP:BLP#Non-public_figures does not apply. The Moore actions, Scarborough talking about it on Imus, the Vanity Fair article and subsequent apology, and the fact that Katherine Harris recently mentioned it to potential campaign donors which warranted coverage in the Miami Herald all support notability. As long as the page sticks to facts and makes clear that Scarborough was not found to be guilty of anything involving the death, which it does seem to do at the moment, it should be kept. *Sparkhead 22:50, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and remove POV and unsourced stuff. Unfortunately the fact that her death has been politicized means that we should have an article, but only one that states the official conclusion and the controversy. The detail on the coroner seems unnecessary and an attempt to tie two unrelated facts to a certain conclusion, which is not our job here. --plange 23:25, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. There are some issues with the content, but that can be edited and fixed. The article's topic itself is perfectly notable and valid. By the same rationale given, Lee Harvey Oswald could also be deleted, since he did nothing notable in his life prior to the "flurry of speculation" in 1963 surrounding his shooting of JFK and his own subsequent death. wikipediatrix 00:08, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete. The arguments presented so far in favor of keeping this article are not remotely persuasive. The argument just prior to my vote was the argument which prompted me to actually vote, something that I very seldom do, because it is such a non sequitur. Lee Harvey Oswald has been the subject of hundreds of hours of television, dozens of books, thousands of articles. To try to use that as a comparison with the current case is... well, let's just say not persuasive to be kind.--Jimbo Wales 02:54, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
You've misinterpreted my comment, then, Jimbo. I was not literally comparing Oswald to Klausutis. Obviously, Oswald has been the subject of far more media attention and study than Klausutis, that goes without saying. The only reason I invoke Oswald's name is as a hyperbolic example, extending the logic of a previous poster's fallacy - which is basically that Klausutis didn't do anything notable before she got her share of posthumous media attention. wikipediatrix 13:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - the reference by Katherine Harris alone makes the subject article-worthy - but make clear that there is no serious suspicion to be cast on Scarborough. bd2412 T 03:38, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable is non-notable, no matter how you spin it. Sandy 03:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Jimbo Wales. Akanksha 04:01, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - Jimbo Wales aside, she's involved in a notable event - something that drew media scrutiny and controversy, getting the likes of Michael Moore very involved. Seems relevant. -Patstuart 04:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • keep: Per Plange, bd2412, et al. Although the issue of the subject's unfortunate demise has caused undue strife on the Joe Scarborough article (and which, sadly, will likely continue on the new article), the arguments presented in favor of deletion are not persuasive. Ombudsman 04:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Brimba 05:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable enough. The article also violates WP:NPOV#Undue weight, with the numerous mentions of "critics". These critics are not referenced to reliable sources, but are links to editorials in a lesser-known Florida newspaper. I have tried searching "Lori Klausutis" and having difficulties finding reliable sources needed to write this article properly, in compliance with Wikipedia policies. Once we remove the POV, unsourced or improperly non-RS material, not much of an article is left. She just isn't notable enough to have needed coverage in reliable sources to merit an article. --Aude (talk) 06:42, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, not notable enough. --Peephole 06:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete If this belongs anywhere it merits a single paragraph in Joe Scarborough’s article, and only there. This is tabloid journalism, not encyclopaedic writing. Fiddle Faddle 07:11, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete per the good reasons provided by Morton Devonshire and Jimbo Wales himself. -- Huysman 11:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Fiddle Faddle and common decency. CWC(talk) 11:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and per Fiddle Faddle. I just read through this and followed some links and it seems to be a highly unencyclopedic page and seems to be arguing that Scarborough could have killed the person in question. Fiddle Faddle is right, this is an encyclopedia not a tabloid. --NuclearZer0 12:11, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - the page is not really about the subject, who is not notable, but is a way to attack Joe Scarborough by innuendo. Tom Harrison Talk 12:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment At The article talk page I have "rewritten" the article as it should be to reflect just Klausutis. This shows precisely how she fails WP:BIO. The "rewritten" article contains just the facts, and is wholly inappropriate to be here. The current article has a load of irrelevant material which has no place in her article should it be judged to be keepable (Lordy I so hope not). Just to put it into perspective, I was also, like Scarborough, "not in Florida" when the poor lady died. But I don't merit a mention in this article either. Fiddle Faddle 12:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Although the husband's request holds no weight with me (how do we know it's the husband?), I think the only notability here rests on giving undue weight to a conspiracy theory. As Timtrent said, without the unfounded speculation, there's nothing left to support her notability. It's an accusation from a small minority, and doesn't need it's own article. Certainly not one in the guise of a bio. Kafziel Talk 13:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep it.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.126.139.90 (talk • contribs) 14:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC). — Possible single purpose account: 204.126.139.90 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic..
  • Delete, article really has no notability outside of the context of other articles, and most of the information in it is better suited in the articles on Scarborough, Harris, Moore, or what have you. If it ever develops notability large enough to be forked from one of these articles it should be an article on the controversy not the woman.--Rosicrucian 14:43, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
    • <ouch>. Please remember her relatives when commenting. Sandy 14:49, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Her relatives have likely long since come to terms with her tragic and by all reasonable accounts accidental death. Save your ire for vultures like Harris.--Rosicrucian 14:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
        • Ire? Sandy 15:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
        • Perhaps your insensitive and rude comment about another human being ought to be edited or refactored by an admin. It's just rude, obscene, and WILL be picked up by search engines. · XP · 15:00, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
          • I have removed the comment myself. It was perhaps ill-advised, but it was a direct result of my anger at dredging up this woman's death for political gain, and at allowing Wikipedia to be a vehicle for the PoV of such sentiments.--Rosicrucian 15:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
            • Understood, agreed, don't see any "ire" in my comment, though, and none was intended: just a reminder that relatives could be reading. There's a lot of that "dredging for political gain" throughout Wikipedia bios. It needs to stop. Sandy 15:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
              • Please can we take this individual issue to a talk page if there is more to be said? Relatives or no relatives, this discussion on wording in a delete/keep rationale belongs off the AfD discussion. This AfD is way long enough already. Fiddle Faddle 16:40, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
            • Wikipedia is not dredging anything for political gain, Wikipedia is reporting on the existence of an individual whose death has been dredged for political gain by others - and it is that which makes her sufficiently noteworthy for an article - an article which debunks the myth that any competent authority has suggested that her death was anything other than an accident. bd2412 T 18:03, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
              • Comment Then write that article. However I suspect it is only worth one paragraph in the article on each those who sought to abuse her name or death, and those who were the objects of the defamation. Her biography fails WP:BIO and thus has no place here. Fiddle Faddle 20:37, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitrary break for ease of those editing (2)

  • Delete Despite the brief media attention, the subject of this article doesn't have encyclopedic notability. Deli nk 18:21, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment As I said in my previous comment, while Klausutis herself might not be notable, the (admittedly fringe) brouhaha is notable. Part of me believes that this could be under a non-biographical article (maybe like Klausutitis affair), but the problem with that approach is that it seems inappropriate to have Wikipedia coin a name for the whole brouhaha/affair/whatever. --Bletch 23:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Jimbo Wales and Sandy. Madchen Hoch 01:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete per Jimbo Wales. 172 | Talk 06:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Request to Admins - this seems to fall within Wikipedia:Snowball clause, in that a consensus is already wholly apparent and appears (in my own view, which may be biased since I also favour deletion) to favour deletion consistently. While Jimbo Wales's opinion carries, rightly, the same weight as any other ordinary editor, it is significant that he has posted it. But I would suggest we may well now be at the point of at least considering the snowball clause with a view to early closure. Fiddle Faddle 08:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually, since an AfD is NOT a vote count, there's no indication that the outcome is a foregone conclusion. wikipediatrix 13:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
I was not counting "votes". I was looking at rationale. But I am also asking for an uninvolved admin to take a look. While I see a potential snowball they may not. Fiddle Faddle 13:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a memorial, this person has done nothing of note and the whole thing is simple tittle-tattle, in very poor taste. Is there any reason for this to exist, other than to insinuate something about Joe Scarborough. Nuke it now. Guy 13:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Fiddle Faddle's compression showing non-notability. AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:52, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as nominated. AuburnPilotTalk 19:08, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Merge back into Joe Scarborough. The article as it stands is far more focused on the reaction to her death and the impact it had on Scarborough than on the subject. Therefore they should be merged. I also agree with the common decency argument. --RicDod 19:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Ramsquire 21:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I agree with Fred Bauder that "She is only notable because her death was used by unscrupulous mud-slingers as fodder for scurrilous aspersions." I don't see that as relevant, though. The statement concedes her notability. There are lots of people who become notable for bad reasons. They're still notable. (There's apparently been no attempt to delete our article about a fairly run-of-the-mill criminal named Willie Horton, who became notable only because his story was used by others for political purposes.) As for merger, I think that would be much more unfair to Scarborough, because giving this much information about the incident in his bio article would be undue weight. The one paragraph it has in his article now is about right, with a link to this article for anyone who wants to see the details (details that largely support Scarborough's position). I don't agree with the nom's argument that the presence of this article is undue weight, because that concept refers to space allocation within a more general article. The policy says, "None of this is to say that tiny-minority views cannot receive as much attention as we can give them on pages specifically devoted to them." JamesMLane t c 02:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
There's no reason to think that a deletion here would increase the size or significance of the paragraph in the Joe Scarborough article. There is no relevant information in this article that would improve the Scarborough article. The question his will Wikipedia be the conduit for "scurrilous aspersions" or will it allow them to remain in the dark corners of the internet.--Tbeatty 04:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is already the conduit for scurrilous but notable aspersions, such as George W. Bush's deliberate lies about Saddam Hussein, or the Smear Boat Vets' deliberate lies about John Kerry. My view is that we report notable aspersions, whether they're valid or scurrilous. If your view is that we suppress information about notable but scurrilous aspersions, then you'd have Wikipedia editors deciding what's scurrilous. The Klausutis issue is clearly notable by objective standards relating to the coverage it's received. JamesMLane t c 05:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
That is not a rationale for keeping this article. It is a rationale for writing an article about the exploitation of the poor woman's death for political gain. We have to be very clear that the article text must reflect the topic of the article. Mrs K's life was non notable except to her loved ones. Her death per se was not notable either. The use and abuse some people made of her death is notable, and worthy of consideration for an article. But it is absolutely wrong to put this into an article "about Mrs K", because it is not about her. So, yes, report notable and verifiable aspersions and controversies, provided such is encyclopaedic reporting not journalistic pap, and create as many relevant articles as you wish. But this article is not the article to do it with. It has genuinely no notability and should go forthwith. Write the article about the way Mrs K's untimely death was exploited by various parties, and, provided it meets the guidelines here, there will be support for that article except from politically blinded folks. Lest anyone thinks I care about US internal politics, not a chance! I'm from England. Fiddle Faddle 07:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Then change the article name to Klausutitis Affair, Death of Lori Klausutis, Conspiracy theories regarding Lori Klausutis or something non biographical. --Bletch 11:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Given the way most Wikipedia articles are set up, readers would often be typing "Lori Klausutis" into the search box, so that seems like the best place for the article. A redirect to one of Bletch's proposed titles would be my second choice. By the same reasoning, I'd keep the Willie Horton article at Willie Horton, even though he has no notability except for how his record "was exploited by various parties". JamesMLane t c 13:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
That is perhaps an argument for a redirect, but the fact remains that if it remains in its current namespace, it is a biographical article.--Rosicrucian 15:15, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Edison (many paragraphs above). Calwatch 08:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - Michael Moore notable. And why does Wikipedia have a moral responsibility to some random IP? We have a moral responsibility to reflect that which is verifiable, true, and present - but not, surely, a moral responsibility to act as peoples' therapists. Who are we to decide what is right for people? What next? Censorship? I find this idea that an encyclopedia has a responsibility to anyone except that which is both notable and true very dangerous. Moreschi 11:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Article is less about the subject than it is about the abhorrent use of her death for political gain. At most, merge the relevant information into the Joe Scarborough article. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 15:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: That would raise the issue of what's relevant. The second paragraph is purely biographical -- age, education, family. It seems to me that everything else in the article has some relevance to Scarborough. Would you clutter his article with all this detail, or would you expunge the information from Wikipedia entirely? Neither solution would serve our readers' interests. Also, as a practical matter, the wrangling between advocates of those two approaches would waste a lot of editorial time and energy. Having a separate article makes it easier to keep the incident in perspective in the Scarborough article JamesMLane t c 15:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment I believe your logic to be flawed. If it is about Scarborough, then it is right for it to be in Scarborough's article. If you want an article about the abuse of her good name, then it should be in an article about that abuse. In neither case does it have a place in this lady;s biography, which remains wholly non notable in our terms. She fails WP:BIO; as such her article, her biographical article should go. As for expunging the information, if placed in a correct article, and if it is in itself notable and verifiable, then it stays. If not then it goes. We do not change the rules because this is thought by some to be a special case. Fiddle Faddle 16:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment. I don't think everything about Scarborough should be in Scarborough's article, because of the clutter factor. Other than the second paragraph of this article, which is purely biographical, is there anything in this article that you think should not be in the Scarborough article? JamesMLane t c 17:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
          • Clutter? That is what section headings are for. There is no clutter factor. If it is about Scarborough and meets among other things WP:RS, put it neatly in Scarborough's article. Or put it in the accuser's article, or put it in a new article about the disgraceful incident and put a See also in each. But the scandal etc had nothing to do with the Mrs K ecept that her death was abused in this manner. And Mrs K is not notable within our guidelines, so this article should go. Fiddle Faddle 17:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
            • Her death had nothing to do with scarborough either. It was "unscrupulous mud-slingers" trying to link the two. The mudslingers are adequately covered in Scarborough's article and elsewhere. But repeating their "scurrilous aspersions" such as details about the coroner's or Scarboroughs marital status or even mentioning Chandra Levy as comparison is beneath encyclopedic and puts Wikipeida in the role of "mud slinger". Stopping false light libel is not censoship. --Tbeatty 17:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitrary break for ease of those editing (3)

  • Delete per nom. Indrian 16:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Utterly absurd rational for nominating this for deletion, part of a long series of suspect AfD noms. Undue weight is an invalid rationale as has been pointed out, policy states: "None of this is to say that tiny-minority views cannot receive as much attention as we can give them on pages specifically devoted to them." The undue weight provision would apply were this subject treated at this length in the Joe Scarborough article, where it would overwhelm the rest of the article. This article is sourced and deals with a subject discussed in the mainstream media by many, including Scarborough himself. We delete articles that libel the subject, we don't delete articles because we fear that sourced, verified facts might cause someone, somewhere to get the wrong idea about someone. It is not an "attack" or a "smear" (and is insulting to the editors who believe that such information should stay in Wikipedia to claim that it is such) and in fact the article flat out exonerates Scarborough from any wrongdoing - as it should - as he was not even in the state at the time. When Katherine Harris wanted to use the death to attempt to smear Scarborough, as was widely reported in the media, it was universally regarded as a desperate, undignified act by a rudderless and failing campaign. Everyone who hears this - except Michael Moore - seems to think better of Scarborough, not worse. So it's bizarre for us to treat this matter as some sort of insidious thought virus that makes everyone think Scarborough is some evildoer. And it would be bizarre for us to delete something that's been reported on plenty of times in plenty of contexts (the original incident, the Imus show, Moore's attack, Katherine Harris, etc.) and would meet no objections regarding notability were the matter not politically charged. Gamaliel 17:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. Here's what Gamaliel said about the creation of the Lori Klausutis article in April of this year: "The Klausutis article (and I have no idea why you are bringing it up here) is a direct consequence of your edit warring on the Joe Scarborough article. I'd prefer the information be in the JS article myself, but I don't feel like arguing about it for another year. Gamaliel 05:29, 19 April 2006 (UTC)"[37] Morton devonshire 18:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
      • What's your point? You've nominated it for deletion, not for merging, and the article has expanded to the point where a seperate article is probably warranted to avoid the "undue weight" problem. Gamaliel 18:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
        • The 19 April 2006 entry speaks for itself. Morton devonshire 18:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
          • Maybe you could give us the cliff notes version. Gamaliel 18:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
        • The information that exonerates scarborough (as if he needed to be exonerated) is already in the scarborough article. The information is covered adequately there. There is no reason to maintain a biography on a non-notable person that died from natural causes in order to keep alive vague, unsubstantiated claims of wrongdoing. "Undue weight" in this context is that 80% of the article about this person's life is about what happened after her death and how it related to a person we cannot even establish that she knew in any way other than being employed in a remote office. --Tbeatty 18:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
          • The "reason" to maintain it is the same reason we maintain anything, as a historical record of notable events. There is sufficient media coverage in multiple contexts to justify the article. Gamaliel 18:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
            • Not according to Jimbo Wales. See above. Morton devonshire 18:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
              • Then Jimbo and I will have to disagree on the matter. Gamaliel 18:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
            • Yes, Jimbo Wales is the creator of Wikipedia, and if he wants to delete it, he can. But he voted. and his vote was solely in reaction to vote above his. There should at very least be a mention of this somewhere on the 'pedia, even if it's stuck in the Scarborough article. But it seems she merits her own article. It's not like we're making an article about the band who played for the local high-school talent show; she does have notability. -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 18:43, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
    • So, Gamaliel see this article as having merit because there is something awry with the person who nominated it? Doesn't matter who nominated it, doesn't matter if the nominator is the devil incarnate, we have a community that judges, not a nominator. It is very simple, this article is biographical. It contains stuff that is about something else entirely. That stuff has to go. Once that stuff is deleted there is nothing remotely notable in the article because it is about an ordinary lady who died in her office. Deeply unfortunate, horrible for her family, and not notable for anyone in the world except them. The scandal after her death is absolutely nothing to do with her biography, except that, should an article be written about the scandal and should her biographical article survive, it merits a wikilink in a one line statement along the lines of "Certain parties attempted to make political capital about the [[death of Mrs K]]. How hard can it possibly be to grasp that an article must be about the "thing in the title" and not about some other stuff? The other stuff goes in its own article. If you feel strongly enough about it, write the other article. The let this one die in peace. Fiddle Faddle 19:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
      • So, Gamaliel see this article as having merit because there is something awry with the person who nominated it? That would be true if you stopped reading at the first sentence I wrote. Gamaliel 19:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Utterly, utterly non-notable person. Jesus. Herostratus 18:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Most of the delete-sayers (that is, the few who aren't simply saying "non-notable" and leaving) seem to be of the opinion that Klausutis doesn't need an article because she did nothing notable apart from dying, and garnering media attention after death. Seems to me this is sufficient, but consider some of these articles on Wikipedia: Jean McConville was a housewife whose only notability was that the IRA killed her. Stephen Tibble and Jerry McCabe were cops whose only claim to fame is, again, being killed by the IRA. Gillian Clark is apparently notable only for being killed in Iraq. Rachel Levy was a child whose only notability comes from being a victim of a bomber in Jerusalem. Behnaz Mozakka died in the London subway bombings. And check out Jackie Pflug, Tara Whelan, Nitzan Mendelson, and many more. Wikipedia is filled with articles about such people who only claim to fame is that they died, and frankly, I find Klausutis far more notable (media coverage, conspiracy theories, celebrity/politician involvement, Michael Moore's involvement) than any of these examples I've just named. wikipediatrix 20:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Are we pointing to other articles that could be deleted to justify the existence of this one? Where does that lead this discussion? Nowhere. Ramsquire 20:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, then they should also go away...we are here to discuss the merits of this deletion, not why other articles haven't been deleted.--MONGO 20:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is filled with articles that should be deleted or merged. My problem with this one is its use to attack another person by innuendo. Wikipedia is full of tedious lists too, but I mostly leave them alone. If we had a list of Liberal pundits who have no alibi for gruesome murders I would delete it. Tom Harrison Talk 20:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Notice the key words "relative lack of media coverage" from the Lori Klausutis article. It is not our job to make media coverage where there is none. Stephen Tibble got a posthumous medal and a memorial. Rachel Levy got coverage by Newsweek and CBS. Many of the others Wikipediatrix mentions should also be deleted for non-notability. AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and redirect to Joe Scarborough: Under WP:BIO, she's notable only (if at all) for the accusations that Joe Scarborough killed her, however, under WP:BLP, this level of coverage is grossly inappropriate, especially since there's no evidence that the rumor is true. The one paragraph on this subject in Joe Scarborough is more than enough to meet any encyclopedic need. TheronJ 21:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Hard redirect: Yes, I know that a redirect is technically a keep; there really ought to be some way to put in a redirect that can't be changed without admin involvement. In any case, I think the existing one paragraph in Joe Scarborough is enough. Wikipedia isn't the right venue to keep hope alive that somehow this will turn out to be something other than a (non-notable) natural death. John Broughton | Talk 22:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment there is a way to do what you suggest, and that is indeed called a "hard redirect." It involves making the redirect, then protecting the page.--Rosicrucian 23:11, 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 --Durin 12:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MSN Messenger, Previous

WRONG. There is already an MSN messenger article at MSN Messenger; That article redirects to the Windows Live Messenger page, and it does not even have a link to the history page; Therefore I am removing the Deletion notice.

There is already an MSN messenger article at MSN Messenger; this is a pointless article. This page is a copy of a page nominated for deletion here. Martin 18:36, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Article is a duplicate of the more imrpoved: History of Windows Live Messenger. 18:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

So is Windows Live Messenger Article But you win, ill remove it k bye MESSAGE FROM: ((Unknown_(email?)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ethan.hardman (talk • contribs)

  • Delete per nom. Resolute 05:47, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per nom. (Isn't a copy/paste move from another article grounds for speedy? If not, it should be....) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. I am also about to list History of Windows Live Messenger as a candidate for deletion because it is an almost exact copy of the Version History section from MSN Messenger. I have also reverted the edit to merge both MSN Messenger and Windows Live Messenger as from what I can see, the merge is still being disputed. Luke! 04:07, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Myrmica ordinaria

it is a personal attack against someone Teh tennisman 18:38, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, speedy if possible, this is a hoax/personal attack sort of thing, I would bet dollars to donuts. Edward Wakelin 18:43, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Delete That's what I figured. Speedy it ASAP. Teh tennisman 18:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Delete I added a speedy delete tag to it, I hope I did it right. Edward Wakelin 19:21, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. The personal attack part is a result of vandalism. Check the article history. --KFP (talk | contribs) 19:29, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep. The current rationale for deletion is not justified. --KFP (talk | contribs) 19:56, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Excuse me, what? Attack pages are always speedy delete rationales. However, the attack was the result of a vandal's edit, the attack has been reverted, so keep but expand this stub, but not because of KFP's rationale. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
      • What I meant was that the rationale for nominating this article for deletion only applied to the vandalized revision. Revision history should always be checked before nominating an article for deletion. --KFP (talk | contribs) 21:15, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Wow, I really screwed up there. Thank you very much for catching that, I must be really out of it today.Edward Wakelin 00:17, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep. Article as nominated is no longer the article on WP. Tonywalton  | Talk 10:12, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is a real, encyclopedic species of ant. The unrelated personal attacks that caused the nominator to (erroneously) nominate this were vandalism and should simply have been reverted. Sandstein 12:43, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep, my delete calls were a dumb mistake. Next time I won't edit or read AfD while sleep-deprived. Edward Wakelin 14:24, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - There are over 200 ant species stubs, most of which simply state "Article name is a species of ant.", along with a taxobox with no additional species-specific information information. Maybe these should be redirected to a List of ant species their genus name, such as Myrmica (which is the main one).--ragesoss 20:23, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep —Brim 16:30, 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 No consensus to delete.--Konst.ableTalk 11:49, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] John Large

Blatant advert for John Large's company. Also fails Wikipedia is not for lists of external links. -- RHaworth 18:42, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - No assertion of notability, no reliable sources, VSCA. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 19:21, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete --Reuben 20:04, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete G11 Danny Lilithborne 21:45, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - Although this article has been created in a ham-fisted way, John Large is a past-academic (eg was a Senate member of Brunel University) who I think would merit an article under Wikipedia:Notability (academics). He is a recognised independent nuclear expert, quite frequently asked to give interviews by the UK media so is well-known in the field (eg [38] [39]). I doubt that the intention was blatant advertising, just trying to contribute not really understanding Wikipedia conventions yet; a case for Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. I think this article should be given some time to see if it is developed into something worthwhile. Rwendland 23:25, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep its non-spamified version per Rwendland. However, I am more than a little concerned about User:Largeassociates and User:Large & Associates adding links to largeassociates.com in several articles. Combined with the original form of this article, I do question the motives of the user(s). ScottW 00:34, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep His media profile as an expert commentator in news stories means he at least scrapes through WP:BIO. Even so, I can't see this guy's entry standing the test of time (as part of the "enduring historical record") without any particular achievements that get cited independently. Mereda 21:49, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment His highest profile work was leading the nuclear risk assessment team for the raising of Russian submarine K-141 Kursk, which I think might well be a worthwhile part of the "enduring historical record". [40] Rwendland 00:11, 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 Speedy delete as CSD A7. Yanksox 19:32, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spanish Group Films

2006 October 14 Non-notable organization. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. --AbsolutDan (talk) 18:45, 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. - Bobet 19:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Job for a Cowboy

Appears to fail to meet every single one of the WP:BAND criteria, even though they come close to fulfilling several. Delete for now, may restore later when they actually meet at least one. --Nlu (talk) 18:47, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Kill it now before it has a chance to spread I vote delete per the fact that it is completely unwiki. !paradigm! 19:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC)!paradigm!
  • Delete per nom. Nishkid64 19:44, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nom's right, this band does not currently satisfy WP:BAND.-- danntm T C 00:03, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - If these guys don't merit a decent w/u on allmusic.com, then they probably don't belong here either. Caknuck 06:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Meets WP:MUSIC. The band is signed to one of the biggest metal labels; Metal Blade Records and seems to have toured through US from June 10 to July 22 [41], and UK from August 1-13 [42]. This is a highly well-known mainstream metalcore band. Even their Wikipedia page gets over 50 edits per month. Don't be an ostrich, use Google. Prolog 07:01, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Only the UK tour was verified, and the US tour was "with" a bundle of other bands. I don't think this is sufficient. --Nlu (talk) 07:43, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Comment. Either way, it does fill at least one of the criteria of WP:MUSIC. I don't think this Afd really surves any purpose as the band, judging from the talk page and Last.fm, is clearly popular among some and will probably have its article re-created within a few weeks. The re-creation will then re-ignite the genre debate. Prolog 16:31, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Prolog. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Doesn't quite yet meet the notability reqirements of WP:BAND, and article provides no third-party sources as specifically required by WP:V. --Satori Son 14:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Danteferno 19:51, 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 Speedy delete - nn- and auto- bio. -- RHaworth 18:59, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chad blenkin

the article is an autobiography about a person who fails the Google test (see the article's Talk Page) and reads like an advertisement JPG-GR 18:51, 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 delete. - Bobet 19:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dirt Spawn Disease

nn band FreeKresge 19:25, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per having released one demo only. Punkmorten 09:45, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Why dude? The band is currently on tour and when they finish they will get back in studio to finish the production of their album. There are many articles in wiki,where bands have only released one demo,but these articles still exist! —Preceding unsigned comment added by ClassicDude (talk • contribs) 13:13, 19 October 2006
    • See WP:MUSIC. To be notable by releases, a band must have at least two major-label releases. These ones don't. If you see other bands who also have only one demo, please nominate them for deletion. Also, Delete. Cheers, Vectro 01:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. New band with one demo in 2006 doesn't satisfy WP:MUSIC. 3 listeners on Last.fm and 197 Google hits don't assert notability either. Prolog 05:50, 24 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 Home improvement. KrakatoaKatie 12:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Home Modifications

Article content is only one of many topics that could be listed under 'home modification' and appears to be a gateway to firm selling household improvement stock (see external link) AuldReekie 19:32, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 23:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dhikle

Non-notable surname. Wikipedia is not a genealogical database. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:11, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Yeah. I've been cleaning it up for a few minutes just because I took pity on its unwikified and stubbish existence. At least now it can be deleted with a classier look. -Maadio 20:22, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, more Indian name cruft. Punkmorten 21:47, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Vectro 01:48, 24 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. theProject 00:22, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Short Bus Racers

No verification provided, and I cannot verify that this is a real sport. Prod removed. Ginkgo100 talk · e@ 20:21, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

  • BJAODN - And it can ride the short bus all the way there. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 20:46, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete. Nonsense. Good BJAODN material. --- RockMFR 22:00, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • First of all - you guys are not doing you research. There are real world stats on this subject at Kevlarlounge.net, Bizzarronline.net, NASCAR.COM, and Forzamotorsport.com. So do your research before maliciously trying to have content removed —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.102.122.150 (talk • contribs) 22:05, 14 October 2006.
    • It is not our job to do research. It is the article's creator's responsibility to provide sources, per Wikipedia:Verifiability. Misza13 22:07, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment AfD debates normally last five days. That's five days during which the references verifying this as a legitimate and significant sport can be added. If this is done, as nominator I will withdraw my own "delete" vote. --Ginkgo100 talk · e@ 22:18, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
      • This is complete nonsense. No research needs to be done. It is a joke. --- RockMFR 22:22, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, unsourced. Misza13 22:07, 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.

[edit] W3.org/Tools/

The result was Speedy deleted as a copyright violation from http://www.w3.org/Consortium/ User:Zoe|(talk) 20:54, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Although a Google search brings up 9,350 hits, it should be merged into World Wide Web Consortium, provided article subpages are now considered bad form. Moreover, it reeks of WP:SPAM. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 20:19, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

It was a copyvio from http://www.w3.org/Consortium/. Speedied. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:54, 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 to delete.--Konst.ableTalk 11:59, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comparison of Windows and Mac OS X

Delete Three months since the previous nomination and nothing has happened. No one is interested in working on this. And the few that have made edits don't seem to care about citing sources or avoiding POV and OR. AlistairMcMillan 20:25, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete reads like OR, and at any rate is not article worthy. --Alex (Talk) 21:45, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep there is nothing wrong with this article, and IMO a comparison between the most popular and second most popular desktop operating systems is well worthy of an article here. Cynical 21:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not structured to serve as a buyer's guide. Mixes OS with applications, completely ignores everything ouside end user scope. Pavel Vozenilek 00:08, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead, delete. You know what, Alistair McMillan, you've really put this article down the shitter anyway. As the history page will show, you had nothing better to do with your time than to prepare this article to propose it for deletion; you hacked and hacked away at its material and obviously want it gone. I dont know what your grudge is, but a genuine argument such as this would've been fine if you hadent made it your sole purpous to delete it. Truly there is nothing wrong with this page; but your will seems to be stronger than mine.

The article is open to many ideas and contributions to all sides of the argument, but apparently its not good enough for Wikipedia (although Tom Miller is).

I expected this; after you followed my every move like a hawk. You are--without a doubt-- the worst WikiSnob I know of.

Thank you for your patronage, administrator. --Alegoo92 21:04, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. For the record, I helped out with your article on "Speakable items"[43]. And I've tidied up a bunch of your other edits. Proving citations where I can, which you NEVER do. If I thought this article was salvageable I would try to fix it, but it ain't salvageable because it just ain't encyclopaedic.
BTW I stand by my edits on Comparison of Windows and Mac OS X, if you would like to discuss any in particular... AlistairMcMillan 23:15, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Rewrite per Cartoon. —MJCdetroit 03:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and clean up There's useful information here, and I'm sure sources could be found for most if not all of the currently unsourced content. I wouldn't say anything in here is OR, it just lacks sources. JulesH 21:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - religious war, unlikely to be useful to any reader, impossible to keep NPoV. Michael K. Edwards 09:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I was under the impression that encyclopedias were meant to provide information, not comparisons. -Amarkov babble 14:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and clean up If written well, this could help describe the OS's that much better. People can learn from comparison just as well as direct description. Mark Hurst 14:09, 17 October 2006
  • Keep and clean up per Mark. To Amarkov: Search "comparison of" is 32k+ articles. A comparison provides information because it shows the pros and cons of what is being compared. As to all those saying would be impossible to keep NPoV, thats what protection and semiprotection is for. Ozzie The Owl 03:55, 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 of the debate was to Delete the article. --Konst.ableTalk 11:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Carmel Bookcases

commercial advertising of non-notable store. ThuranX 20:37, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. --- RockMFR 22:00, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. While they seem to make good quality bookcases, they fail Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations) for inclusion. 2,220 Google hits, most of which seem to be shopping or directory sites. I get more google hits than that. I could not find any independent reviews. Original author (User:Shamika Banks) has only one edit: this article. Luigizanasi 23:06, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable; advertising; additionally, note that one or more individuals have been persistently spamming Bookcase, Library, and similar articles with this commercial link (see sock list); this is just an attempt to circumvent that. OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:43, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable advert. They produce more spam than they do bookcases. yandman 10:53, 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. Sango123 03:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A Good Ass Job

{{prod}} tag was removed without discussion. The topic is a substub about an album to be released in approximately two years. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Mikeblas 05:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Per nom, no assertion of notability, and obvious crystal balling. tmopkisn tlka 05:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete — Per nom, Does not assert the importance of the topic. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 06:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Sorry; I forgot to point out that the article itself says "There is currently no set release date." -- Mikeblas 07:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. No notablility and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Tuspm (C | @) 13:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. There is no reason for its deletion. This album has been confirmed by Kanye West himself. Does it matter if there is no set release date? I don't see where there is any "crystal-balling". --Shawn88 14:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Shawn88, there is no guarantee that the album will be produced at all - Kayne West can confirm it but he can also change his mind, "retire", and so on. Please read WP:NOT. Srose (talk) 15:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. The world could end too....... If you delete this article then you should delete every other article about upcoming albums, books, movies, etc. --Shawn88 20:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: WP:NOT a crystal ball. Worth a mention in passing at the end of the Kanye West article, but not notable enough for its own article. -- The Anome 20:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Potter_book_seven If a Harry Potter book with no release date or even title can have it's own article then why can't this album? Please give me a valid reason and I will gladly shutup. --Shawn88 20:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
    • That article is there because of the amount of information available about the book, and published specualtions about what it may contain. All that you know about this album is what its name is, that's not enough to save the article. tmopkisn tlka 22:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Looks a bit Crystal-Ballish to me. Full of predictions, and the rest is about the previous books, just filler to make the article big. Also the author could change her mind, or retire, and so on --Shawn88 23:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
      • There's a difference between crystal balling and sourced predictions. tmopkisn tlka 06:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete This is pure crystal balling. HP Book 7 has been confirmed, the author has indicated that she will write the book, all seven books have been confirmed for many years now. This Album has been verbally confirmed, no release date, no information whatsoever. -Royalguard11Talk 01:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Incase you haven't realised, "A Good Ass Job" has been confirmed by the artist. What's the difference? All 4 of Kanye's albums have been confirmed for a few years aswell. Please tell me the difference. --Shawn88 04:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:NOT a crystal ball. Bring it back when there's a release date and official publicity. GassyGuy 06:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per crystal ball. --Wafulz 14:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


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

The result was

[edit] A Good Ass Job

Uhh, nominating again, for some reason this wasn't deleted. Crystal ball, etc per first discussion --Macarion 20:38, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

It was deleted. This is a recreation. Speedied. When the album comes out, then we can have this article. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:51, 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 Speedy Keep per passing of WP:MUSIC. Nishkid64

[edit] DJ Webstar

Was speedy deleted yesterday under CSD A7, and was recreated and tagged for speedy deletion before User:4.18GB nominated it for AfD. He/she did not make the AfD page, so I am doing so. I have requested the user come here and state their reasons for nominating this page for deletion. The user did say "Notability Issue. This entry serves of no importance and would not be found in a respectable encyclopedia." Nishkid64 21:21, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

  • I will amend my vote to DELETE...more of a flash in the pan...not credible enough for wiki page.--4.18GB 21:48, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. I would normally abstain, but I am only involved in making this AfD page for another user. This musician passes WP:MUSIC because "Has had a charted hit on any national music chart, in at least one large or medium-sized country.". The song went to #45 on Billboard Hot 100, which means this article should stay. Nishkid64 21:33, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. Same reason as User:Nishkid64. Also, he is very notable for the popular single, "Chicken Noodle Soup" feat. Young B. --Pumpkin Pie 00:18, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep even though I can't stand his hit. He is notable enough. However, I question the sourcing/notability of the dance... are there reliable sources? Does it really deserve its own article? GassyGuy 05:37, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I question the sources like GassyGuy did. However, I think the reasons to keep this article is clear enough. AQu01rius (User | Talk | Websites)  02:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep This Artist has a hit song with the black community. Seriously I hear it all the time. To delete it it would be like saying this song never happened. (I'm not saying I like the song though)~User:PTWC
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Indians to appear on the cover of TIME magazine

Listcruft. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:48, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Agree totally with nom - unnesessary article. Delete Blood red sandman 21:05, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Alex (Talk) 21:46, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Do we have a list of everyone that has appeared on the cover of TIME? It seems like it would be a pretty good list to have. If so, merge to that list. --- RockMFR 22:05, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or merge per RockMFR. SliceNYC 22:49, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination ScottW 00:41, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. RockMFR's suggestion seems infeasible, Time has been published since 1923 and currently has five different editions, often with different front covers. -- IslaySolomon | talk 12:18, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom  Doctor Bruno  00:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:08, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sarascity

Wikipedia is not a dictionary; this page is entirely a glorified dictionary definition. No noteability established. Prod removed without comment Blood red sandman 21:02, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete. Made-up word. Nonsense. And it was already deleted today. --- RockMFR 23:04, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per RockMFR. —Brim 16:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy, patent nonsense. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:44, 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. However, I plan to (as an editor) merge some of these articles into List of minor characters in Danny Phantom. It's obvious that there's consensus to keep major characters as separate articles, but unless someone can give me a good reason why each minor character deserves its own article, I will merge the minor characters into one list. Ral315 (talk) 08:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Danny Phantom (character)

(this AfD is for the Danny Phantom character and for all other characters/elements in the Danny Phantom series) WP:NOT a place to dump articles about your favorite show on. Delete. [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] Other articles being AfDed can be found here: A Link to the Past (talk) 20:58, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Oppose If this reasoning were carried to it's logical conclusion, almost every television character would be removed from Wikipedia. CovenantD 21:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
    If they don't deserve an article, then yes, they would get deleted. But Danny Phantom is NOT a huge show, not nearly as big of a show as SpongeBob or even Fairly OddParents. If we were to compare Danny Phantom to Chris Noth's character on Law & Order, he wouldn't even come close to being as deserving. My logic is that the only reason they're on WP is because a fan of the series wanted them to be on it, not because they thought that all of these characters were notable enough (many characters likely were put up for the first reason, but they survive because they pass the second). Danny Phantom has little exposure outside of the source material. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:17, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
    B.S. Thats the biggest load of it I heard in a long time. Sorry, but saying that it hardly has any media attention besides the source material is something that should have [citation needed] next to it. — Moe 21:26, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
    Oh yeah, I mean, you saying the exact opposite doesn't need [citation needed], because you are the almighty knower of all truth, right? It has a cartoon and some games based on it. WHY does it deserve an article? - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:32, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
    Why not? It seems like your reasoning is based more on the fact that you don't like the show and don't personally think it noteworthy. I'll admit that in places the articles are perhaps more indepth than necessary, particularly for more minor characters, but nowhere in my browse of WP:NOT did I see that it's not a place to put information about a TV show, favorite or otherwise. --Jace Draccus 21:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete We don't need any of these Blood red sandman 21:24, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep all per WP:FICT and my hatred of mass AfDs like this. I would argue some characters (like Undergrowth (Danny Phantom) who only appeared in one episode of the series) probably should be merged to List of Danny Phantom characters or another appropriate list, but many of these characters have appeared in many episodes and are not the stubs I expected, and so deserve individual discussion. At any rate, AfD is not for mergers. BryanG(talk) 21:25, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
    At any rate, I never proposed merging. If you feel some should be merged, then be my guest. And, the guideline you cite actually supports my logic. Danny Phantom, Tucker Foley and Samantha Manson can exist in a list of characters. There is no pressing need for them to have articles. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:32, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
    I was suggesting a merge might be worthwhile, not you. WP:FICT explicitly states major characters such as Danny Phantom can have their own article if the main article about the show would be too long, which it certainly would be. As for merging the rest to a list, I'm not going to arbitrarily determine the cutoff of which villains are "major" and which are "minor" by myself. Could they be written more encyclopedic? Certainly, but a need for cleanup is not a reason for deletion. Besides, where does WP:FICT say these articles should be deleted, either? BryanG(talk) 21:42, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
    Danny Phantom hardly needs to be separate. Most of the content in his article does not need mention, especially indepth analysis of his relationships and a list of all of his powers. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:02, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
    So that merits the deletion of a perfectly good article? — Moe 22:05, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
    Yes. Because he doesn't need an article, he shouldn't have one. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:06, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Main character on a notable TV show deserves it's own article. All the main characters, Danny Phantom (character), Tucker_Foley and Sam Manson should have thier own article if they have sufficent information on them. Citing that they aren't popular isn't going to cut it. The rest of them I don't care about, so they should have thier own article for minor characters. But the main characters are a must. — Moe 21:26, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
    Sufficient information is less important than notability. Notability is important - why does Danny Phantom need his own article? - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:32, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
    He (refering the the character and the cartoon) is just as popular as any other cartoon character like Spongebob and Fairly Oddparents. — Moe 21:36, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
    Why? - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:37, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
    How should I know why it's popular, it just is. Is 663,000 google hits not enough notablilty or does it have to reach a million hits to follow under your standards? — Moe 21:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
    One, SpongeBob SquarePants gets more than 6 million Google results. SpongeBob is a huge show, which appeals to young and old alike. And while DP appeals to many including me, it's just not nearly as notable. And the Google results are skewed - the possibilities of Danny and Phantom appearing in the same page but not referring to Danny Phantom are significantly higher than someone saying Fairly and Oddparents, but not meaning to say Fairly Oddparents. SpongeBob warrants a page because of his massive popularity. Danny is not nearly as big or as notable, so why does he need to be separate from a list of the main article? Is there a pressing need for him to be separate? Hell, why do these other characters need to be? - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:58, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
    Searching it the way I did "Danny Phantom" (notice the quotation marks) hits only for exact matches, not askewed ones. Sure Danny Phantom isn't as popular as Spongebob, (which recent cartoons are more popular?), but is Danny Phantom notable enough for Wikipedia, with that many exact google hits, yes. — Moe 22:02, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
    One, you stated he was as notable as SpongeBob, when he clearly is not. Two, a Google search for Danny Phantom is evidence that the cartoon is notable, not that the character is. Danny Phantom does not transcend his source material. If Danny Phantom warrants an article, then why don't King of All Cosmos, various Advance Wars characters and Blue from Pokémon (significantly more notable than SpongeBob x1000)? - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:06, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
    No, I said he wasn't as popular. Popularity comes in all shapes and sizes. Popularity does NOT equal notability. Personally, I'm not in favor of President Bush as many people aren't, which makes him unpopular, but his notablilty doesn't lower because of it. Why doesn't all the characters from Pokemon have an article? Because most Pokemon only make one-time appearances. Only popular Pokemon like Pikachu should have articles, if there is sufficant information enough to withstand it's own article. If it's going to be a short little stub, merge it. Ash and other characters that are major characters should have thier own article (I haven't checked to see if they did or not though). Minor characters from Danny Phantom should be merged onto one page. Major characters that have lenghty articles that describe different ascpets of a character does merit it's own article. And your comment that a Google search on Danny Phantom equal that the cartoon is popular, but not the character is completely ludacris. Who the fuck do you think a cartoon named "Danny Phantom" is going to be about? — Moe 22:16, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
    Oh, my bad - I forgot, Danny Phantom is only about the character, and not the adventures of the character along with other characters in the series. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:20, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
    No it's not all about him, but who's life do you think it's based around? — Moe 22:21, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
    You're right - since it's surrounding Danny Phantom, we should discuss him on the main page instead of giving him his own article! - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:00, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
    Only if there's not enough information to create a separate article. Clearly, there is.--Jace Draccus 21:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
    A link to Danny Phantom (character)'s article and a brief description on the characters page is all thats needed, but to have a in-depth article just because it doesn't meet your insane qualifications of notablilty doesn't mean we should delete it. — Moe 23:06, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
    Strange, I guess the guys who created notability are insane too huh? Since I doubt they intended to have an article about the Box Ghost or the Reality Gauntlet. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:16, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
    Do you listen to a word anyone says? I said you could merge minor characters and things to one page, I don't give a fuck about that. Your arguing the main character should be deleted, which it shouldn't. Focus on the issue instead of avoiding the issue. — Moe 23:19, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
    Hostile much? But whatever, I could not care less about a few articles as long as most of them are merged. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:25, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep all per all the arguments above. I'm not a fan of Danny Phantom, but that doesn't mean I think these articles should be deleted. Danny Lilithborne 21:48, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep all notability quite expressed. Shin'ou's TTV (Futaba|Masago|Kotobuki) 22:54, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Okay, I do NOT like this at all! This is just wrong! Who could possibly want to destroy all of the Danny Phantom character pages? I love this show, and all of it's characters! P-L-E-A-S-E Wikipedia, don't ruin these pages! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sean7gordon (talk • contribs)
  • Super Strong Keep if only because this mass nomination is a very bad idea since it makes it hard to vote. There might be minor articles here I'd say should be merged, but the idea that the main character from a major series on a major network shouldn't have an article? It forces me to question whether the proposer was making a point or not. It's certainly an extreme step to take without discussing it with anyone else. FrozenPurpleCube 00:12, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep the personal articles for Danny and Vlad, as they are two of the most pivotal and developed characters in the show. Do what you will for everyone else, but at least keep these two. Maetch 00:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
    It doesn't matter to me. A few DP character articles is better than dozens of them. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:25, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep/Merge Keep the main characters, but merge all the minor characters into something like List of minor characters on Danny Phantom. TJ Spyke 01:14, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep all In an effort to discourage mass nominations like this because:
  • a)they often contain a mixture of articles that do and do not fulfill the stated criteria of the nom for deletion
  • b)they are difficult for other editors to vote on, particularly in a case like this where I, personally, have no knowledge of the subject in question and
  • c)they are not in what I consider to be the spirit of Afd -- that is to say, if someone took the trouble to create an article that is not a speedy candidate, then it must be debated on its individual merits. (Saving time in this case is something of an injustice and it's better for WP to have the process be slow than risk deleting a worthy article)...
...I have decided that my policy is that if one of the articles in the mass nomination is not worthy of deletion then I will say Keep them all, with no prejudice against anyone relisting individual articles in their own Afd. In this case, although the nom doesn't really specify a guideline that is being violated here, the discussion seems to be about notability. Since I perceive the main character of this show to be notable enough for an article, by my own criteria, keep them all until relisted in their own Afds. Dina 02:37, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep all I don't think these should be deleted because they have a lot of information in them, and to merge the information into the main show article would make it a huge mess (if you've ever read the GNU BASH manual page, I'm sure you know what I mean). I say keep it!DanielBrodzik 06:55, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep all per the comments made above, mass nominations are not helpful and should be strongly discouraged. Yamaguchi先生 10:53, 15 October 2006
  • Keep all Danny Fenton is the main character on the show and it is a popular show, so we should keep this article. We should keep all of them. They are important characters. --Danny Phantom Phantom... 18:24, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
    • It's not a big show though, so not every character neeeds their own page. I really think my vote is the best choice, keep the major characters and merge the rest into 1 page and call it List of minor character on Danny Phantom (or something like that). TJ Spyke 18:49, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep all I even hate Dnny Phantom, but as it is (for some unknown reason) a popular show, the articles around the show should be kept. Every Marvel Comics and Buffy the Vampire Slayer character has its own page, why not this? Kraken of the Depths 19:27, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep all along with implementing the suggestions pitched by the above users. Since when the deletionists became the majority here? Pacific Coast Highway {blah • Happy Halloween! • WP:NYCS} 02:23, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. Look, you may have a point that there's some excessive cruft here, but nominating EVERY page for deletion is just wrong. This is a show on Nickolodeon, not some non-notable YouTube serial. As with other crufty parts of the 'pedia, these articles need some attention... but that doesn't mean deletion. Mangojuicetalk 04:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • keep all of these please we have guidelines for this and the characters are notable Yuckfoo 20:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • KEEP ALL DO NOT MERGE! these characters are all notable and this show is popular.Markcambrone 22:40, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • KEEP ALL If you merge some of the non-notable villains and characters, I could understand that, but the show is popular. The press release for the Urban Jungle game stated an average of 36 million people watch the show each month, I realize that is an average, but you can't tell me that's not popular. It's Ravvie-No, it's Marira 23:42, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • KEEP ALL If we delete them all, then we might as well delete every character in existence's Wikipedia entry while we're at it! This is an encyclopedia, ergo it should be as extensive as it can be. This show might not be as popular as SpongeBob, but there are goodness knows how many people out there who think Danny Phantom is an altogether better show. Do you really want to alienate those fans, just to make this online encyclopedia as sparse and, need I say it, as ultra-conservative as possible? User:Amras Felagund 16 October 2006
    So you're saying that we should do an article for everything? Gotcha. That means that every single entity that ever appeared in a movie, book, comic book, video game or television show MUST have articles, notability be damned. - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
    How absurd. The better question would be, what would constitute notable enough for you? He's the main character of a TV show. A lot of main characters from popular shows get their own articles. The relationships and ghostly powers are part of the character. Certainly, some of the articles could be merged, and some of the detail is a little more blow-by-blow than necessary, but still, much of the flagged articles and information is valid. Or do you intend to locate the character pages for every show in Wikipedia and flag THEM as well?--Jace Draccus 03:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
    Congratulations, you've figured out my plan. I didn't think anyone would realize that because I don't think Danny Phantom characters deserve an article, I want to delete every television show character article. Despite it making no sense, being completely illogical and it being completely stupid to think that way, you somehow interpret it that way. Sarcasm aside, are you saying it is absurd to point out that WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information? The user stated that every single entity in fiction must have an article. While he didn't say it, he argued that it should be extensive as it can be. And we are certainly capable of blindly making articles on Wikipedia. - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
    Well, if you intend on putting every character of a TV show up for deletion, you're not going to have that much success because they will eventually be recreated in one way or the other. You also stated that the above user said "The user stated that every single entity in fiction must have an article." I would like for you point out that diff because I can't find him stating that or did you just interpreted as that? (which furhur proves your logic is very flawed) If you weren't a half way established editor, I would cite WP:TROLL to you, but I guess you've read up on it before. — Moe 22:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I can mostly get behind that. Keep all. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • KEEP ALL For reasons already listed. I have nothing more to add.~Skye-chan 21:06, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

OPPOSE I don't see how the entirety of those articles merit deletion. Merging, perhaps, but the recommended course of action seems extreme and personally motivated.--Jace Draccus 21:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

  • User:Jace Draccus is new and has edited this page only. HighInBC 20:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Keep All Sorry for writing three entries but If you merge the articles then other people will start articles for that character and do we want to merge it NO The show's viewers are increasing every day and as for People want to oppose this well that's your opinion. However if you keep the articles then things will just be better for me and most of the people (those who said keep all) so KEEP ALL ARTICLES -- Mrsanitazier 24(0):04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Don't use vote images, and don't post your vote multiple times. It's cheating. And how is it better for most people? I bet that there are more people who would vote delete than those who would vote keep. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I have removed the other comments made by Mrsanitazier. Please Mrsanitazier, please do not make it seem like more people are voting to keep than it really is. And Link, what the hell are you talking about when you say "I bet that there are more people who would vote delete than those who would vote keep". Are you blind? Do you not see the excessive amount of Speedy Keep and Keep votes? Not only by fans of Danny Phantom, but by respected editors of this community and by admins too. When are you going to give up this ultra-deletionist attitude of yours, because frankly it's getting old. Also, it's not a problem to use Images here, so I don't see why you care about that at all. — Moe 02:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Oh? Funny, I always thought that the entirety of Wikipedia was encompassed of more than the people that voted in this AfD. And there are also respected members and admins who disagree with the respected members and admins who agree with you. And let me guess - I'm an ultra-deletionist because of this one AfD? I'm a merge/redirectist. You can't just say that someone is a deletionist because they AfD your favorite article. You know what? I say that you're an ultra-keepist, who would defend an article about The Box Ghost's eye color. And, there is a problem with vote images because they're generally not supposed to be used. So now you see why I "care at all". - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
And yet there are more people who have voted on this article that chose 'keep', not 'delete'. I think that was Moe's point. --Jace Draccus 02:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
And my point was that everyone who voted in this AfD does not comprise the entirety of Wikipedia. My earlier point was that more people would vote delete than keep. What do you expect? There are a bunch of AfDs on all of the Danny Phantom character articles, so everyone who edits those articles comes to their rescue. - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
No they don't comprise the entirety of Wikipedia, but editors and admins who decided to make thier presence felt is what consensus is about. And if the the other respected members of the community and admins who disagree with me on this issue exist, where the fuck are they, because they certainly are not here. You're wrong, I don't like this show, at all. I don't particualry like the storyline and most cartoons nowadays are rubish. Regardless that doesn't take away a cartoons popularity or notablity. NO, I wouldn't defend an article about The Box Ghost's eye color, but I sure as hell wouldn't agree with some tired-excuse you present as notability. The only reason I don't agree with the deletion is because I think main characters of a TV show are notable enough for thier own article. I also vote Keep because I absolutly hate mass-deletion voting like this. If you AFD'ed these articles sepretely you would probably have some different responses, but wtf do you expect when you nominate 27 complete articles of a popular TV show for deletion? — Moe 03:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
That's speculation, nothing more. If 'possible votes' mattered, democracy would fall apart. So the entirety of Wikipedia is less important than the entirety of people that voted here. Most of which voted 'Keep' or 'Merge'. Which invalidates your theory. Also, don't complain about the editors 'coming to the rescue', you're the one that chose to mass-flag. --Jace Draccus 03:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
But Moe, how can you argue with your own logic? You stated that my AfDing of these articles makes me an ultra-deletionist, so why aren't you an extremist keepist when you do the opposite? And yes, I speculated, just like another user speculated that these articles' existence is good for most people. - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Don't call me Moe. And you're the one wanting them gone. Speculation, exaggeration and lack of solid argument does not help your case. You want us to agree they should be deleted, remember? However, I think you were referred to as an ultra-deletionist because of your apparently fanatical obsession with removing these articles. Moe might be an 'extremist keepist', but he'd not defending the articles for the sake of defending them... merely, as I understand his arguments, because he doesn't agree with your reasoning or methods. --Jace Draccus 08:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I wasn't speaking to you, so I didn't call you Moe. And what are you talking about? When another user speculated that these articles need to stay because it's good for most Wikipedians it's fine, but when I say that most Wikipedians would probably agree with me I'm a fiend? And I like how you point out that I am apparently being fanatical in my pursuit to have these articles deleted. What should I do to not be fanatical? Vote to keep them? Another hypocricy - why is it that Moe can accuse me of being an ultra deletionist because I happen to vote to delete one group of articles, while Moe could never be an extreme keepist for voting to keep this one group of articles? - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Stop being lazy and address Moe in replies to Moe then. Let's keep things orderly. I never commented on another user's speculations, only that your speculations are entirely irrelevant as 'most wikipedians' are not voting on this article, so saying 'most would vote delete' means nothing, as most who have voted went for 'keep' (Ok, yes, I editted, it didn't make sense before--Jace Draccus 20:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)). If you're referring to the 'speculation' I think you are, then look at their reasoning as to WHY they think its good. And argue it with them... as for not being fanatical? Stop quoting rules that don't exist, and find some justification more solid than 'OMG IT'S NOT AS POPULAR AS SPONGEBOB SO IT ISN'T AS IMPORTANT'... and don't flag EVERY article relating to the show for deletion. That's a napalm approach. Better to review each article on its OWN merits. Also, learn to read. I said Moe _may_ be 'an extreme keepist', but I defended his REASON for being so. Which has more to do with the Wikipedia process than a personal bias towards the show, unlike your portrayal of your reasoning. --Jace Draccus 20:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
One vote does not make someone an "extreme anything". However, you do state on you userpage that you have put a lot of things up on Afd, so maybe that's where he got it from. Pacific Coast Highway {blah • Happy Halloween! • WP:NYCS} 20:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Funny, I always thought that having a personal bias against a show entailed that I disliked it or, Hell, was biased. I like DP and Final Fantasy VI, yet I nominated character articles of both for deletion. And the rule does exist, according to you - who stated that I was fanatically against the Danny Phantom articles. So logically, you are fanatically for the Danny Phantom articles. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
The way you are acting, it does seem like you have a bias towards the show. You don't have to be fanatically one way or the other to have a strong bias towards something. And you Link, truely without a doubt in my mind, do have a bias against characters having thier own articles. — Moe 22:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Your logic is bad. I just don't agree with you. It's more of a middle ground. Stop blowing things out of proportion. --Jace Draccus 22:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
To Moe: But shouldn't I actually have a strong bias to have a strong bias towards somkething? How am I acting? Oh, I know what you mean - I must hate Danny Phantom because I'm not making an article about every single orgamism in the Danny Phantom series. I seem to have forgotten that one's opinion on a subject has no bearing compared to what some person with absolutely no knowledge of one's actual opinion. And I applaud you for forming an opinion on my true intentions without having any evidence whatsoever that even indicates that your opinion has any value whatsoever.
And Draccus: Ever notice that you look at two people doing the same thing and decide that only one person - conveniently the one you disagree with - is wrong for doing it. Moe is claiming that I have a strong bias towards this article and is assuming bad faith (meaning that what I am doing is vandalism). But it's always okay when the person agrees with you. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:15, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Moe isn't basing his arguments on anything as absurd as 'It's not as popular as Spongebob'... also, the bit about how you're not writing about every single organism in the show so you must hate it? No, that's absurd. The fact that you're so relentlessly against the articles, against even the main character having his own article, to the point that you're fervently proposing a massive delete bomb of 20-30 articles, tells us you hate it. --Jace Draccus 23:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
So deleting the character articles means I cannot like Danny Phantom? Can you imagine why I think that both you and Moe are incompetent fools? No human being with an ounce of intelligence makes such a claim unless they're just trying to make baseless accusations. You are either an idiot or are trolling. Next time you decide to act like a moron and decide that you know what I think more than I do, smack yourself upside the head and throw your computer in the trash. Whether you're an idiot or a troll, you ruin the internet. If you are an idiot, let me explain something - I like Danny Phantom. I have stated that. But you seem to not like to bring up evidence that hurts your otherwise solid point that I hate Danny Phantom. Apparently, someone didn't consider that the fact that one likes Danny Phantom kind of shows he doesn't hate it. But then again, can't let logic and reality stop you from accusing those who dissent from your opinion of bad faith. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:18, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Smooth Link, really immature to call someone an "idiot", "moron" and a "fool" for going against your view points. I suggest the next lessen me and Jace Draccus should take is WP:DFTT, so I think we should refran from talking to you. — Moe 00:31, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
I never mentioned bad faith. I also never said I had a problem with deletion to some extent, I just don't like the way you've proposed it, or tried to defend it. You ignore what others actually say in favour of blowing things out of proportion (which is listed on WP:POINT as potentially disruptive behaviour), you make statements of little relevance or no evidence ('It's not notable because it's not as popular as Spongebob'), and, well, trying to get 26 articles deleted at once seems excessive. But since you're not listening, I'll stop talking. Bye now. --Jace Draccus 00:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, what a genius you are, Moe! After all, even though I never mentioned my viewpoints while referring to the two of you with those descriptions, I must have been discussing different viewpoints. I couldn't have been, oh, say, calling you idiots, morons, fools, and trolls for making false accusations towards me. And listening? Yeah, you did a great job listening. Except for the fact that you haven't responded to my request for a non-idiotic statement to prove that your accusations aren't actually bullshit. Let me guess, you're too busy to prove that your word is worth more than dirt. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
There was a request in all that vitriol? --Jace Draccus 01:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
I also never said you hate the show. The only time I mentioned hate, I was explaining that your attitude makes it look that way. Please read. --Jace Draccus 01:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Which was? Not voting to keep these articles? I said it was not notable enough to warrant character articles. There's nothing to analyze about that. It's not some deep seeded hatred for the show. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
No, just everything else. --Jace Draccus 02:50, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Great argument - you could have gone for the more advanced "you hate character articles 'cause", but you settled for a simpler argument. And do you want me to bring up where you said "fervently deleting 20-30 articles tells me you hate it"? - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
But if I do that, I've committed the cardinal sin of assuming I know more about what you think than you do! Gasp! Shock horror! And yes, that behaviour tells me that. I didn't say you actually hate the show, just that it sure seemed that way. Oh, do you want me to bring up the comments you made about how un-notable Danny Phantom is, to the point that even the main character shouldn't have his own article, and how much less popular than Spongebob it is? How about all the sarcastic and insulting remarks you've made to posters here, mostly myself and Moe? How about how you deliberately and unnecessarily distort things in attempts to discredit our arguments? If we say that Wikipedia should be comprehensive, then YOU say that we're suggesting EVERY CHARACTER IN EXISTENCE should have its own article. If we say that we think you are acting in bad faith because you are being such an ass about it all, then suddenly EVERYBODY who does an AfD is acting in bad faith! Sure, maybe Moe hasn't been entirely nice about it, and maybe I've slipped too, but you're not a victimised Vestal virgin here. --Jace Draccus 04:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Oh, but what about those imaginary votes, don't they count.. — Moe 04:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
To Draccus: You make it sound like telling everyone what their opinion is - even when they have told you that it's not - is perfectly alright. And no, I would prefer you cease your incessent lies. How does "Danny Phantom isn't notable enough to have character articles" mean "Danny Phantom isn't notable?" Tell me - if I thought DP wasn't notable, why the Hell wouldn't I nominate the TV show? And, the sarcastic comments come from you spreading bullcrap. "Because he doesn't think Danny Phantom isn't notable enough, he hates Danny Phantom". And another bullshit statement! I never knew one Wikipedian could be quite as laughable as you two. I was responding to a comment that Wikipedia should be as extensive as possible. You claim I'm distorting things when you make false claims? Psh. And being an ass about it all? Timeline: Created AfD. Watched people vote Keep a bunch o' times. Watched Moe spew fuck a few times. Watched Moe, etc. make baseless claims. Asked for proof of these things. Watched Moe, etc. make baseless claims and refuse to give proof, began to assume bad faith. Then I acted like an ass. That was the point where I acted like an ass. Not your viewpoints, not getting flamed, being told that I am wrong about the facts of me and you both are right and that I must be acting in bad faith because... well, no reason provided, apparently. So my AfD is in bad faith because I have a thing about dirty liars? Then can I invalidate your vote for being a potty mouth? And how exactly am I not the victim? What does you attacking me first constitute? Are you the victim because I actually asked you to not make bullshit statements? And to Moe, it makes me look bad when you tell half truths. Of course, it doesn't make you look good when people see all truth. Such as the idea that most people would vote delete being in response to someone saying that these articles are good for most people. Can he proof it? No. Can I prove what I say? No. So basically, my proofless statement is bad and his proofless statement is good. I guess that it's not so bad when you want to believe what they're saying, eh? Grow up. You may not want to admit it, but you both are dead wrong. All you have been doing is making up false statements about me. You tell me I hate Danny Phantom (and continue insisting it after I prove you wrong by *gasp* revealing that your baseless accusation is incorrect), that I hate character articles (yeah, because I've AfDed so many character articles, like Wario and Lakitu... oh, my bad, I featured those), that I made several of the above statements towards you (when anyone who is capable of reading can tell who I was speaking to). The only reason I'd assume bad faith in either of you is because you have both been trolling towards me by telling me I am incapable of having my own opinion and must be reminded what my opinion is. But of course, I'm not assuming bad faith, because it's against policy. - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Show me where I said you hate the show. Show me where you asked for proof of anything. Show me where I attacked you in the way you attacked me (moron, fool, idiot, troll). Show me one single statement I made about you as a person or what you actually think, rather than how you come across. Quote my supposed bullshit, my false statements. You can't. I said nothing about bad faith until the post immediately above, and I have not ever insisted you hate THE SHOW. The only thing I said CLOSE to it was that you SEEM to dislike it. I have never tried to tell you what your opinion is, only that I don't agree with it. --Jace Draccus 07:01, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
As for watching Moe 'spew fuck', apart from his vote he hasn't posted anything that wasn't in response. Don't make it sound like he's just saying things without any trigger. The proofless statements... fine, it was an idiotic thing for the other guy to say. Doesn't make yours any better? Happy now? --Jace Draccus 07:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
"Except for the fact that you haven't responded to my request for a non-idiotic statement to prove that your accusations aren't actually bullshit." That's one of two that I've found where I ask you or subtly ask you to show evidence by pointing out you have nothing to back it up. You attacked me by making false statements. I couldn't care less about personal attacks, it's when people lie about me. Additionally, the only time I made the insults was when the both of you had told me that I hated Danny Phantom (and how does "it tells me that you hate Danny Phantom" not telling me that I hate Danny Phantom? You seem convinced that I hate it with out any good reasoning). And no, not wanting characters from the show to have articles is not logic to assume I hate it. I do not come across as a Danny Phantom hater. The fact that I don't think it's notable enough to warrant character articles has nothing to do with what I think of the show itself. And yes, you have said I hated it.
Mine were justified. Far more than his. For someone who doesn't care about Danny Phantom, the user was sure defensive. - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep all per the comments above; even if these were not so blatantly notable, we have WP:FICT which suggests a merge in borderline cases. I feel a certain degree of pity for the closing administrator here, and suggest that the nominator remove the 26+ AFD tags on his/her own as pennance.  :-) RFerreira 01:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  • NAY/KEEP ALL If it ain't broke, don't fix it. I move for the immediate removal of the AfD tag. --193.2.84.227 10:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
    You can't vote to remove the AfD tag of a good faith AfD nomination. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
And how do we know this is a good faith nomination? If this was a good faith nom, you'd be open to finding a way to fix the problem then to fire the delete cannon. Pacific Coast Highway {blah • Happy Halloween! • WP:NYCS} 20:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
You don't know. Assume good faith. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
WP:AGF can only go so far. — Moe 22:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
True. So, I'm not going to assume good faith in that you care about the quality of Wikipedia. You seem to have a massive bias against me. "Oh, he doesn't agree with me? Must be a vandal!" Well, once you find one single inkling of truth to the idea that I could ever possibly in any dimension at any point in past, present or future be AfDing these articles out of bad faith, report back. Until then, stop wasting Wikipedia bandwidth with your childish banter. And by the way, it can go SO far, the official Wikipedia policy that you must follow. If AfDing an article is acting in bad faith, the majority of admins and respected members of Wikipedia are vandals. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:15, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm sure everyone here cares about the quality of Wikipedia. That's why we're discussing this issue. And I apologize if I caused offence by asking if this was in good faith, although some people can abuse policy to make a point. Pacific Coast Highway {blah • Happy Halloween! • WP:NYCS} 00:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm not so sure anymore. Anyone who would say that they must stop assuming good faith with literally no reason to do so is clearly a bad Wikipedian. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:18, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Link, I have never said the word "vandal" in regards to you. If you could provide a diff that says I did, I would be more than willing to say sorry, but there isn't a diff and that blantant lie is just disgraceful. I never said anyone that disagrees with me is a vandal, and I never have. If you disagree with me, theres a lack of consensus. But when you have 20 editors saying the same thing against one editor (you), it does appear to go against WP:POINT for continuing on. Your totally hypocrictial Link, you say you don't want to be labeled anything for going against a opposing view point, but then you call me a "bad wikipedian". — Moe 00:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
You suggested that people should assume bad faith in what I was doing. Acting in bad faith would logically mean I was acting to vandalize Danny Phantom-related articles. And, friend, my calling you a bad Wikipedian has more merit than you calling me an ultra deletionist and Danny Phantom hater. You have me AfDing Danny Phantom character articles as your only logic for both (and me saying that I like Danny Phantom, but why ruin a solid point with something that destroys it?), while I have the fact that you assumed bad faith in my actions, assumed that I was doing this out of hatred of the series and hatred of character articles (more bad faith) and started cussing while responding to me. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)'
WP:DFTT. — Moe 00:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, let's see... yeah, you're a troll. Not of Wikipedia, but trolling towards me. Prove I hate Danny Phantom. Prove that I lack the ability to form my own opinion. Prove I'm acting in bad faith. Until then, stop ruining Wikipedia with your bullshit accusations, alright? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by A Link to the Past (talk • contribs) 00:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I can understand merging some of the lesser characters (like one-shot villains or something), but mass deleting? Especially the important characters, I don't agree with, so keep. Neo Yi 17:44, 18 October 2006
  • I'm Just thanking Moe for removing the other two entries. -- Mrsanitazier 21:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
You're welcome. — Moe 21:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, merge some. Some of these would be best put into character lists, like the ghosts. --tjstrf 01:21, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
*sigh* The main character is a ghost, thats what this whole discussion is about. — Moe 01:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
I mean those in the heading "Main Ghosts" on the template. --tjstrf 01:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep the arguments above are quite persuasive.  ALKIVAR™ 04:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Keep per passing of WP:MUSIC. Nishkid64

[edit] DJ Webstar

Was speedy deleted yesterday under CSD A7, and was recreated and tagged for speedy deletion before User:4.18GB nominated it for AfD. He/she did not make the AfD page, so I am doing so. I have requested the user come here and state their reasons for nominating this page for deletion. The user did say "Notability Issue. This entry serves of no importance and would not be found in a respectable encyclopedia." Nishkid64 21:21, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

  • I will amend my vote to DELETE...more of a flash in the pan...not credible enough for wiki page.--4.18GB 21:48, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. I would normally abstain, but I am only involved in making this AfD page for another user. This musician passes WP:MUSIC because "Has had a charted hit on any national music chart, in at least one large or medium-sized country.". The song went to #45 on Billboard Hot 100, which means this article should stay. Nishkid64 21:33, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. Same reason as User:Nishkid64. Also, he is very notable for the popular single, "Chicken Noodle Soup" feat. Young B. --Pumpkin Pie 00:18, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep even though I can't stand his hit. He is notable enough. However, I question the sourcing/notability of the dance... are there reliable sources? Does it really deserve its own article? GassyGuy 05:37, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I question the sources like GassyGuy did. However, I think the reasons to keep this article is clear enough. AQu01rius (User | Talk | Websites)  02:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep This Artist has a hit song with the black community. Seriously I hear it all the time. To delete it it would be like saying this song never happened. (I'm not saying I like the song though)~User:PTWC
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:00, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Modern Postcard

Not very notable Skynet1216 21:23, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was merge to Williamsburg County, South Carolina. I've no idea what part of it would be useful, so it's just tagged and anyone who wants can perform the merge. No one here wanted to delete it in any case. - Bobet 19:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Early history of Williamsburg, South Carolina

seems like an essay, I think all relevant material should be moved to Williamsburg, South Carolina, actually, there doesn't seem to be one on wikipedia. ReverendG 03:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep, this article requires cleanup and (maybe) a move (none of which require discussion here), but certainly not deletion. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 09:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - there is an article for Williamsburg County, South Carolina, I assume that would be the correct merge target. Yomanganitalk 09:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per above. Needless fork. Eusebeus 09:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per above. With some cleanup, it would greatly improve the Williamsburg County, South Carolina article. - Lex 17:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - We might take Gettysburg, PA as a guide. There is a short entry there for the Civil War battle, but the battle core has its own entry. I would say that perhaps this belongs in a subsection of "The Southern Theater of the American Revolutionary War" or "History of South Carolina" which are both too short. The importance of the Marion's efforts and its relevance to the popular movie "The Patriot" suggests we retain the content somewhere. I think it unwise to lose it in just another town history.--Beanmf 13:48, 14 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, Nishkid64 21:14, 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 of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zombiecore

Delete Made up genre. No scene at all to support this supposed genre of music. Coining a term both to advertise two bands from one city. It gives no musical defination as to seen, and claims Metalcore bands are something they are not. It should be deleted as it violates several policys including 'Adversting', 'Coining a Term', and articles with no information of value. Leyasu 22:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete, lacks any references and seems to have been made up (no outside sources can be found). - DNewhall

  • Delete per nom. Yet another Foocore genre. Parasti 21:53, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable and unreferenced. Stifle 22:51, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete made up genre. Incognito 04:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep not just made up by a random person. All genres can be called made up. Notable but needs to be expanded--Slogankid 12:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Bobet 19:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eva Caroline Whitaker Davis

An unencyclopedic article that appears to have originated with the author of a biography of the subject (published by a vanity press). Subject fails WP:BIO and receives a grand total of 41 unique ghits - almost all related to the biography. Victoriagirl 21:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Fails WP:BIO and WP:ADVERT QuiteUnusual 12:16, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, not only misses WP:BIO but woefully lacking in context. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - the handle of the creator Caoriley bears an uncanny resemblance to the name of the author whose book is being promoted Carolyn Ann O'Riley. NN. BlueValour 00:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, notability 4.18GB 12:35, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete for lack of context. Or else Delete; clearly fails WP:BIO. Vectro 01:52, 24 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 (exactly split opinion, no overwhelming argument), but if no-one cares enough about this article to purge it of non-notable companies in the near future, I suggest a renomination. Incidentally, saying 'strong speedy delete' does not give your !vote triple points. --Sam Blanning(talk) 23:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Minnesota companies

"This List of Minnesota companies attempts to list all companies that are, or once were, headquartered in Minnesota". Sorry, but Wikipedia is not the Yellow Pages. Punkmorten 21:45, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep with the provision that its purpose is to list all notable companies, meaning those with their own articles. JonHarder 22:04, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as redlinks can be useful suggestions for articles. The list should be notable companies, however, not all by any means. --Dhartung | Talk 03:43, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep but needs some work to become more encyclopedic Atom 12:25, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Actually a useful list. —Brim 16:34, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Speedy Delete. The function of this article is already served perfectly well by the Category:Companies based in Minnesota tag on each company mentioned that has an article about it. There is absolutely no need to keep this page. -Amatulic 22:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Had it been a list of notable companies perhaps some purpose might be served but all companies is an impossible and pointless task as shown by how woefully incomplete the list is. The category is easier to maintain and does a better job. BlueValour 00:07, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I agree - the category is enough and this list is redundant. KrakatoaKatie 12:54, 24 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 13:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticisms of democracy in the UK

Seems to be a largely unsourced and unecessary point of view fork essay. I've been tracking this page since its creation. The original contributor said it was based off of someone else's essay, so when he was warned about that, he slapped on the "major revamp" tag. It's been almost two weeks without any of the issues being addressed. I spoke to the user on the talk page without really managing to get anywhere. Anyway, I think this breaks the no original research policy and should be removed considering it's basically an opinion essay. Wafulz 21:53, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Appears to be an essay (OR) and suffers in places from POV. Examples used are one-sided. Discussion suggests this is a work in progress, but I tend to think it cannot be developed into an encyclopaedia article. Author suggest re-titling as "How can the UK's system of Government be said to be Undemocratic?" which would definitely be an essay. Emeraude 09:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - contravenes WP:NPOV and WP:OR. Wikipedia isn't entirely democratic either. Long live Jimbo!!! Addhoc 10:59, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Oh no, no, no. A more appropriate title would be "My Criticisms of Democracy in the UK". Wikipedia is not: a publisher of original thought, a blog, a soapbox, a forum for unregulated free speech. -- IslaySolomon | talk 11:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Serious WP:NPOV that can probably never be corrected due to the subject matter. Is also WP:OR. QuiteUnusual 12:02, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per above. Davewild 12:32, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as original research and POV. --Nlu (talk) 09:16, 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 keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 23:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mount Hope High School (Rhode Island)

Non-notable school, and I can't find any notable alumni either. -- SonicAD (talk) 22:03, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but what does that mean? GassyGuy 05:39, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Reluctantly, delete. Reluctantly, because I tend to think that all schools should have an article in Wikipedia, but unfortunately there are very, very few that actually say anything that shows the unique character of the institution, its importance to the local community, its historical setting etc etc. As with many others, this article gives little information about a school's prime purpose - education, teaching and learning - and presents itself as a list of clubs, societies and sports. Emeraude 09:51, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per my personal belief that secondary schools are notable, article needs improvement but shows promise. Yamaguchi先生 10:52, 15 October 2006
  • Keep. Past precedent is clear on high school inclusion in some form so I'll say keep for consistency. At least the article is reasonably verifiable. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:51, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and merge any specific content to its school district, if any WP:Schools is a failed consensus and no reliance should be placed on it. Carlossuarez46 17:19, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, large high scool. 1200 students is auto keep for me. bbx 19:55, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, appears to meet all content policies. I'll check up to see if anyone provides evidence otherwise. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:49, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per TruthBringerToronto, bbx, Yamaguchi, Sjakkalle, etc. --Myles Long 23:07, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep passed WP:V as long as its referenced it should stay.  ALKIVAR™ 01:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. large and notable high school. --Carioca 03:56, 16 October 2006
  • Keep it. — RJH (talk) 20:03, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Large high school. -- Necrothesp 18:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep A thorough article that more than meets generally-accepted standards for public high schools. Alansohn 12:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Schoolwatch crowd above. --ForbiddenWord 14:07, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep this notable school per reasons described at User:Silensor/Schools, the general consensus is to keep high school articles. Silensor 17:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable school. They have a marching band and security cameras. Ok. —ptk✰fgs 20:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. - Bobet 19:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Motion Picture Production Studios

One year and five months after its creation, this page is still, as a May 2005 comment on its talk page put it, "woefully incomplete." Apparently no one is interested for the time being... zenohockey 22:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Even if complete, it would just be a list of little value in an encyclopedia. QuiteUnusual 11:59, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I'm usually tough on lists, but this one actually is logical, isn't too broad, and might actually be useful. Lack of content is not a criteria for deletion. I'm going to add a "please expand" tag, plus add it to the FilmsWikiProject. That might, hopefully, draw people's attention to it and get more content. 23skidoo 17:34, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Needs expanding and retitling, but is a perfectly respectable subject for a list. -- Necrothesp 18:13, 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 delete. - Bobet 19:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Joseph P. Vermette

A self-published author of both traditional and ebooks. Subject fails WP:BIO. "Joseph P. Vermette" receives a total of 8 unique ghits, at least two of which are related to others with the same name. Victoriagirl 22:30, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. --- RockMFR 23:11, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom.--Nilfanion (talk) 18:31, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. This reads like a 12-year-old third-person autobiography. Vectro 01:54, 24 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) 23:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Battle Angel (film)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball Newudic 22:35, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. --Erik (talk/contrib) @ 22:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Wikipedia may not be a crystal ball, but this article isn't. It's about real news reports and interviews. At the most, I'd support merging into the Battle Angel article, but the information should still be kept. FrozenPurpleCube 00:17, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: There is already adequate information under the Movie subsection at Battle Angel Alita (though it could use citation). There is not substantial proof that this film will be made to warrant its own article -- that is why we have the "crystal ball" policy. --Erik (talk/contrib) @ 16:45, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
      • We don't need proof that the film will be made to know that there are media reports on it, to know that other pepole have written about it, for it in fact to be, verifiable and notable information. Yes, unsubstantial rumors are one thing, but this seems a bit more, since James Cameron did do an interview with IGN on it. That said, I already said I wouldn't mind a merge and redirect, as the article could be expanded later, so I really don't see your point. FrozenPurpleCube 22:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete (merge select non-overlapping parts into the main Battle Angel article) as per nom. This is an article about a movie which may well never get made. Bwithh 00:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and perhaps consider userfying so that this info is not lost, in case the movie does get made. Themindset 23:20, 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. - Mailer Diablo 13:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] David Shull

Not notable NYArtsnWords 22:56, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete. --- RockMFR 23:02, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as patent nonsense. Davewild 12:40, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rolled w

Delete. There are no sources given, and I can't find anything that discusses "rolled w" in the context of linguistics. Prod contested with the reason: "Hypothetical". In that case, why not a hypothetical "rolled q" or "rolled schwa"? ... discospinster talk 23:02, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. While it may be possible for humans of the future to produce such an amazing sound...... --- RockMFR 23:07, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless some documentation can be produced that such a phoneme exists. I can't imagine what such a thing would sound like, though I imagine it could serve as a useful abbreviation for "www"... Zetawoof(ζ) 00:26, 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. - Bobet 19:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Burhan Scott

Notability/importance in question. Appears to be very minor wrestler and stand-up comic of limited success. ghits: [71] NMChico24 23:23, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 00:38, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as the claim of notability in the article is extremely weak, and there seems to be no verifiability. Themindset 23:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete; possibly notable, but currently lacking verification and citations. Vectro 01:57, 24 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 and move to Ryan Barrett. KrakatoaKatie 12:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ryan Barret

Not a notable boxer, and little infomation is known about him. Kurt000 23:41, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep Article is poor at the moment (and probably should be spelt Barrett) but there is quite a bit of material available to expand the article to meet WP:BIO for sport people.[72] [73] Davewild 12:29, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and rename Ryan Barrett. There are several verifiable reports in the media, [74] [75] [76] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Themindset (talk • contribs) 23:08, 19 October 2006
  • Move to Ryan Barrett per Themindset. Vectro 02:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily deleted under CSD A7. --Mr. Lefty (talk) 21:52, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] COMMISSIONED

vanity page for NN-webcomic DesertSky85451 23:33, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete as there is no claim of notability. Themindset
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - Yomanganitalk 12:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zach Mays

Claimed notability, but unable to verify existence of provided reference: Zach Mays: An Unauthorized Autoboigraphy, 2005 Random House. Failed prod, so nominating it here. Rawr 23:36, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete I can't find any verifiable evidence of notability. The using as a reference the link to his elementary school powerpoint presentation doesn't really help. ScottW 00:53, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I know this man personally and I can guarantee that a strong majority of the imformation provided here is either inaccurate or heavily exaggerated, and all of the presented material is unimportant in nature. campbellianpriest 00:56, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Fuck It' I am sorry to say but I do not know you "campbellian priest". Look I know it's fucking accurate, considering I'm the person it's about, a friend of mine wrote it. I you wanna delete it fine, I got more important shit to do than sit here and be told I don't exist or that I'm not significant because you losers can't google me. Fuck off. - Zach Mays —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.26.0.158 (talk) 18:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC).
  • Delete strange that Amazon doesn't know of Zach Mays: An Unauthorized Autoboigraphy when it was supposedly published by Random House. Bogosity alert. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as there is a total lack of verifiability. Themindset 23:04, 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 ding, ding, ding, keep all! - Mailer Diablo 13:18, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WWE Backlash

Also nominating:

Results of matches are unnecessary. Important storyline development and title changes are already recorded in the pages of the individual wrestlers and the championships. Aaru Bui DII 00:02, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep All Bad-faith nominations. Theses are all annual PPV events from the largest pro wrestling company in the world. What's next, nominating every Super Bowl and FIFA World Cup article? TJ Spyke 00:08, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Also, this same poster nominated WWE New Year's Revolution, and already it's obvious that the consensus is that WWE PPV's ARE notable. TJ Spyke 00:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • World Cups and SuperBowls are important achievements that are worth noting for the teams. A PPV is nowhere more special than a weekly show except for a different name, a different way of getting it and a slightly longer duration. --Aaru Bui DII 00:15, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep All Bad-faith nominations. No discussion was held to propose a deletion. All of these articles are from WP:PW and nominator made no attempt to initiate a discussion on the notability of the articles with project participants. -- bulletproof 3:16 00:17, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep All nominator never discussed the notability of these articles anywhere, and nominated these even after seeing the consensus on the WWE New Year's Revolution page. Edgecution 00:26, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • And you are basing your vote on that? --Aaru Bui DII 00:38, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm basing my vote on the fact that these artilces were nominated by a troll.-- bulletproof 3:16 00:40, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Do I smell a personal attack? --Aaru Bui DII 00:55, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I started this because I see people have different opinions should all PPVs be deleted than just one. (Which was my original intention but I wanted to get others' opinion. I am sorry for not being clear about that at the start of that debate) --Aaru Bui DII 01:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • That is what WP:PW is for, which you should know since you were a member until you removed your name recently. TJ Spyke 01:16, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep all They are annually occurring events. James Duggan 00:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and I think it might be worth considering more carefully what you nominate. FrozenPurpleCube 03:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep All Baseless nomination on annually occuring PPV events. GShton 03:40, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep All They deserve to stay, if World Cups and SuperBowls are important acheivements for teams then Wrestlemania, Summerslam, the Royal Rumble, and any PPV are important achievements for wrestlers. Adamaniac 11:41, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep per the unanimous Keep all votes above. --71.131.184.228 04:01, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep per the trolling nominator. — Moe 04:10, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep as bad faith nom. Possible WP:POINT violation given the comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WWE New Year's Revolution. Resolute 06:00, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep - stop these bad faith nominations. Str1977 (smile back) 13:41, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - while the nominator does have a point, pay-per-views are one of the primary sources of revenue for most global scale wrestling companies. With that being said, there should be more focus on the financial aspects of the pay-per-views - the buyrate, the number of buys, the gross revenue, the attendance and locational issues. McPhail 13:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep All - So the stories are updated in each individuals profile. Do you think people have the time, or the inclination to go the profiles of each and every wrestler involved in a PPV. NO! That's why they go to WikiPedia the night of the PPV to follow things that happen if
    • A) The PPV is nowhere near them.
    • B) They're too poor to buy the PPV
    • C) They don't HAVE PPV or the ability to watch the webcast

That's why you need a central location so people don't spend 3 hours trying to find something that can only take 3 seconds. John cena123 14:22, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep All - PPV's are an important aspect of the Professional Wrestling world. Most of the profit and revenue come from PPV's. Also, PPV's are important landmarks for the wrestlers themselves, and it should be all in one location, not in ever wrestler profile. 5aret 17:03, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep all though I agree that these articles should be expanded beyond match results and summaries. --RoninBKTCE# 17:38, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep All This user is just being a pain, because he can't have his way. --Mikedk9109 17:50, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep All There is NO reason to delete any of those pages. Cosmic Larva 19:36, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep All -- FPAtl (holla) 01:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep all im surprise he didnt go and try to put all the TNA ppv's up for deletion as well—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike Standards (talk • contribs)
    • This was from the talk page of this vote, so I moved it here. TJ Spyke 04:00, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep All All ppvs are historical events in WWE history and should be kept. Ericmwallace 04:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep all as per pretty much everybody before me. Jeff Silvers 05:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Can this be closed now? It's seems pretty obvious that the result will be to keep, and the only person who wants to delete them is the nominator. TJ Spyke 05:51, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep All Removal of special editions of RAW is understandable, but removing PPV pages is totally unnecessary, especially considering there are unlisted PPVs. ABricker 22:21, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep All There are important matches, storylines, and events that occur at a PPV. Ric Flair vs. Terry Funk in '89 is regarded as one of the best matches of these mens' career, and was exclusive to the Great American Bash, deletling it would be like trying to rewrite history and that's just censorship, which is wrong.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.14.33.4 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep All Alot of people use these pages if they missed the PPV's, including me.Freebird Jackson 02:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep All The PPV pages are helpful if you look back and see the old results. This is the only good site that has the PPV results. Not everyone can afford 40 dollars every once or twice a month for purchasing a PPV. Plus some people have worked hard to keep these pages updated.Jayorz12 03:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep All These PPV pages are really useful because they give times, referees, interferances that you need to read throurly through on the WWE.com website to find. Also my work computer has WWE.com blocked, so I can use these to get updated live results if I can't see the PPV live. Also if you notice, on all these events it has were the up-coming 2006, 2007 and possibly 2008 event is going to take place which allows people to prepare to possibly go to the event which isn't broadcast easily on WWE.com.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.28.159.168 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment: Does it really fit with the goals of Wikipedia for it to be "the only good site that has the PPV results"? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. There's plenty of other things that it's not. Morgan Wick 06:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep. Bad faith nomination. --Oakster (Talk) 22:13, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep All - Bad faith nominations. Clay4president 23:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep All If you delete any of these pages, okay, say someone was doing a project on the history of WWE, where would they go? I did that project, and I got all my information from sites like these. How would you know who won the match at WWE Bad Blood 2004 between Chris Benoit and Kane? Exactly, you wouldn't, because WWE doesn't post them all the time. And plus, Wikipedia posts results at least 5 minutes before WWE.com even does. And it's their PPV! So I say, like most of the posts, thats just a Bad Faith Nomination. Budd16 18:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep All I don't see how you can nominate any annually held performance. Of course, I am biased, but how are some PPVs worth keeping and others worth deleting? Heaven forbid redundant information occur anywhere! In the meantime, Keep All annually occuring Pay-Per-Views.--The Saxon 03:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep All Annual Pay-Per-Views, are an immortalizing thing for a WWE Superstar, much like the SuperBowl is for American Football players or the Cricket & Soccer World Cup. If we lose information on them, we lose part of main stream WWE history, and history is what an encylopedia is supposed to help readers with. --The Legendary One 2:33 18 October 2006 — Possible single purpose account: The Legendary One (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
  • Keep All Theses are all annual PPV events from the largest pro wrestling company in the world. rwatson73 05:43, 18 October 2006 (EDT)
  • Keep All I think that the WWE is important for many people and all PPV records should be kept on Wikipedia. But maybe there is no need to include background info. Just include blah def blah 2006 or something. adeyinka 19:54, 18 October 2006 (AEST)
  • Speedy Keep Nominations are ridiculous and articles are clearly important Mattbwn 13:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep All Very notable THL 14:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as these are definitely notable. --Myles Long 23:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep All These PPV's are part of WWE's history and deleting them would be ridiculous.Jayorz12 01:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep All all are notable PPV events.  ALKIVAR™ 04:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep All PPV's Notable, Keep All KingOfDX 04:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep All Bad Nomination, User is a [Troll] and this is notable worthy of their own articles, take your head out of your culo Overlordneo 06:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Comment - Trolling or not, let's all remain civil here. Throwing around insults isn't going to help anyone, and is arguably what a troll wants anyway. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.