Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 October 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< September 30 October 2 >
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 delete - not notable per the guidelines at WP:BIO, for example has not been the primary subject of a published work nor do they get lots of distinguishable hits on Google (to pick just two of the tests on WP:BIO, the others are not met either). Thanks/wangi 12:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kit Jarrell

Non notable blogger, delete --Peta 04:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Redirect to Wide Awakes Radio per other non-notable radio show hosts, if that article survives its afd nomination, otherwise delete. Thryduulf 10:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Blogger has been nominated for several awards such as being the Weblog Awards finalist in 2005, being the #10 milblog site, and has interviewed many important figures on her show including Diana Irey, Ilario Pantano, and figures prominently in the Innocent 8 movement as well as other soldiers who are charged with crimes that are disputed. The Truth Laid Bear rankings for bloggers has her ranked at #96 of over 100000. She has hits in Lexis Nexis as well. -- Wistless 17:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Blogger is notable by virtue of the points listed above. Her work has been quoted in World Net Daily, Patrolling magazine, the BBC, MSNBC, the Houston Chronicle, and many others. There is no reason to delete the article other than perhaps a dislike of her views. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.177.72.43 (talk • contribs) — Possible single purpose account: 70.177.72.43 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 15:56, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Wide Awakes Radio per previous discussion. --Dennisthe2 17:56, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
That artice was deleted so a redirect will not work. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wide Awakes Radio --70.48.174.220 20:29, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Would say that she meets the notability criteria myself. One of the very few notable bloggers out there. I won't be kicking and screaming if it gets merged out instead... Localzuk(talk) 19:34, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Fails WP:BIO. Not one of the assertions by Wistless or 70.177.72.43 (above) indicate passing WP:BIO. For example, being quoted by reports in World Net Daily, etc., isn't enough--WP:BIO says that the person has to be the primary subject of the report. Pan Dan 20:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and Pan Dan. The article does not at all make me believe that her role in the Ilario Pantano mess was as meaningful as is claimed. Some references that meet WP:RS might convince me to change my vote, though. --Aaron 22:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Google shows 135 000 hits. -- Petri Krohn 03:50, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: That is not correct. First of all, you must enter the search term in quotes, or else you find any article with the word "kit" or the word "jarrell". Once you do that, it gets you down to an estimated 44,900. Next, you must always go to the last page to accurately determine the true number of GHits. In this case, the correct number is 176. Finally, you must look through the entire list and discount duplicates from the same website (they are always indented). This give you the final count of unique hits, which in this case is 140. --Satori Son 14:32, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete as a non-notable biography, WP:BIO refers. A difficult decision with the authoring of two chapters in The Future of the NHS and being a talking head leagle beagle in the UK media. On balance, these are not enough to assert notability and the career as a barrister is not illuminated enough by the article to suggest a notable legal career. (aeropagitica) 10:53, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tim Kevan

Questionable notability and written entirely by the subject (see page history). Cordless Larry 09:54, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, no evidence that he meets the WP:BIO criteria. The most usual ways for lawyers to become notable are "making a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field" and/or "achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events". Neither of these appear to be the case here. Thryduulf 10:23, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. A vanity article, yes, but notability is asserted. Some of those books he has written seem notable, as they are available from major book vendors and libraries like Amazon[1], Wildy Legal Bookshop[2] and Adlibris [3], University of London Institure of Advanced Studies [4]. He has also figured in some BBC articles[5][6] where his opinions have been sought. --Ezeu 16:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment assertions of notablity only matter for speedy deletion, for AfD the assertions of notablity need to verifably meet the criteria. Thryduulf 20:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
and note that even blatant vanity published works are often available on Amazon- availability there should NEVER be used to establish notability for a work or an author. Badgerpatrol 01:24, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and WP:BIO. Being a rent-a-quote doesn't make someone notable. Blisco 19:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete The books don't seem to assert anything. Law books (and articles) in the UK are often written by not so succesful lawyers and are in essence a cheap means of advertising. Same goes with getting on the BBC. If there were third party reviews of his work I'd be more impressed. The stuff about the Conservative Collegiate Forum could be a claim to notability if there were some ("substantial") press coverage cited, but at the moment there isn't. JASpencer 19:03, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I am the person under discussion and was new to wikipedia until this year. I have apologised for starting the page as vanity publishing and I repeat that apology again.The page was allowed to stay on the basis that I asserted notability as a writer. I wholly accept that some of my books help advertise my practice although if you do a search of barristers' chambers you will find that very few barristers have even written one book. However, of the ten books that I have now written, I would suggest that three are important books in their own right: Email, the Internet and the Law was one of the first on this subject and Professor Richard Susskind described it in the Times newspaper as "an important new book" at the time of its publication; Sports Personal Injury is the only book on the subject and was therefore once again breaking new ground and has attracted interest internationally; finally, I contributed two chapters to The Future of the NHS which also includes chapters from all three political parties and most of the major think tanks. As for my political involvement, I did not add the story about the Conservative Collegiate Forum but it is true and was covered in both The Times and The Daily Telegraph in 1993, among other newspapers. As for my media appearances, I make no great claims save that I am the regular legal voice for the Jeremy Vine Show which is the largest daytime news and current affairs show in the country (with around 5 million listeners). Once again, I am genuinely sorry for any offence caused by vanity publishing. I shall leave well alone now other than to contribute to this discussion and will be very happy if you cut down my entry substantially. However, I will continue to contribute to wikipedia in the future and thank you all for a great site. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Timkevan (talk • contribs) 16:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC).
Comment OK, so now we have a number of claims for notability of a junior barrister:
- That two of the books he wrote solo are important in their own right, presumably they would meet Wikipedia:Notability (books). For the moment the fact that none of these books have an uncontested Wikipedia article should be seen as a sign that this is not proven.
- That Kevan wrote for The Future of the NHS, which does have its own article (let's pass by the main author of this book. However as the introduction for that article says it "brings together forty-four leading experts in the fields of health care, politics and policy making". So Kevan is one of forty-four. Not a claim to notability.
- The Conservative Collegiate Forum information may be a claim for notability - but it's still not cited.
- The Jeremy Vine show is notable, but being a contributor would only be notable if he was essentially a co-host.
JASpencer 21:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - I have restored the two books that Kevan cites as his most significant. On balance I am happy with him having an entry. The combination of his writings and media appearances make him worthy of an entry. <POV>If Big Brother contestants and rappers who have released a couple of CDs get in here someone who has already done what Kevan has done (and no doubt he will do a lot more) should not be excluded. </POV> TerriersFan 03:18, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Comment So is Wikipedia a prize for achievement? JASpencer 09:01, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Comment: "Article A should be kept because we have articles on utterly unrelated topics B, C and D" is generally not considered a good "keep" argument by the closing admin. Just saying. --Aaron 22:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete with gusto/userfy if not already done. Where is notability asserted here? He certainly does not meet the criteria for an author, unless he can demonstrate that his books are CORE texts of general application- i.e. sales numbering in the thousands. As noted above, it is quite common for barristers in the UK to contribute papers and or books. If there are multiple external full reviews in e.g. The Times or similiar, then let's see links to them, and it may sway my thinking here. However, on the basis of the facts as they stand, I see no evidence that this gentleman deserves to be in here as an author or academic. So, his other two claims to notability are that he's a barrister and went to Cambridge- as far as I'm aware, neither of these are covered in the notability guidelines. Get yourself on myspace Mr. Kevan- that's the place for popinjays such as yourself, not here. Out out out. I note for the record that Mr. Kevan also added a nice vicarious vanity page for one of his chums, who has even less of a claim to notability- Daniel Barnett. Badgerpatrol 01:20, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I see no reason to believe that Tim Kevan started this article in bad faith. He was unaware of the rules and has since apologised for inserting his own article. He also seems to have made quite a few good edits to non-related articles. While we may disagree with him on his notability - could we please stop the name calling? Most vanity articles start out as good faith efforts by people who don't fully understand the purpose of Wikipedia. JASpencer 09:01, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Why is it name-calling to refer to someone who incorporates a biography of themselves and their workmates into an encyclopaedia for the purposes of self-advertisement as a "popinjay"? It's a simple assertion of fact. I struggle to understand how the motivation of someone (ANYone) who composes their own biography here can possibly be described as good faith, unless they are a very foolish and myopic person. It strikes me that Tim Kevan is not particularly foolish or myopic- although he obviously knows an opportunity for free self-promotion when he sees one (see his comment above, for example). The subject edited his article repeatedly over a period of 2 months. He has indeed made some good quality edits to unrelated articles- but many (if not most) of his contribs appear to pertain to himself directly, his father, or his friends and workmates. Very poor show indeed. Badgerpatrol 01:50, 1 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, Mailer Diablo 15:57, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom - probably mere with the author's user page. Isn't it against policy to allow autobiographical articles? --Dennisthe2 17:58, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: It's not a full-blown policy, but it's strongly discouraged as a guideline, and WP:AUTO makes it clear that anyone who does should expect an AfD. --Aaron 22:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Vanity article, doesn't seem to pass WP:BIO. If it could be rewritten and assertions included as to notability then it would be ok, but I doubt it can be done. Localzuk(talk) 19:49, 1 October 2006 (UTC)*
  • Delete No evidence presented of passing WP:BIO, and I can find none (e.g. in Lexis-Nexis). Pan Dan 20:30, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - this was autobiog but has been cleaned up since. This chap writes significant text books, appears on the media and readers might want to find out about him and seems up and coming; I think he's OK. Bridgeplayer 21:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Can you demonstrate that they actually are significant? Badgerpatrol 23:50, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete even after cleanup. I'll admit he skirts the edge of WP:BIO enough that I had to think about it, but in the end I still don't think he's quite reached notability yet. Maybe if one of his books had been more popular or if he'd gotten some mainstream media coverage somewhere. He does seem like the sort of person who will qualify for an article in the future, but not quite yet. Nice hair though. --Aaron 22:50, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as vanity, WP:BIO failure, and per the above arguments. Ultra-Loser Talk | BT sites 06:19, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep He is on the news a lot (BBC, Sky etc) and people will want to look him up. Useful to have independent content for them here, apart from his own website. Garryw16 12:40, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
This is Garryw16's first and only contribution to Wikipedia. Badgerpatrol 15:40, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:BIO. wikipediatrix 15:43, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep This is the subject of this debate, Tim Kevan, again. I very much accept the criticisms made of me and again I apologise. It seems that most of the writers are prepared to accept the entry if there are independent references etc. There have been a number of reviews of my books and references to my student politics (something which was added to my entry by someone else) in national newspapers and publications. These are only available it seems to subscribers. However, for your benefit I have done a search of just one of these newspapers, The Times, and have put the references online at: http://www.timkevan.com/articles/times%20articles.doc. I would be very happy that others did searches of other newspapers and publications. I am concerned at getting overly involved in this debate but the suggestion of no references is inaccurate. Tim Kevan
Comment I'm sure youd didn't mean it but you shouldn't vote twice. I've added in the stuff about the CCF to give people some idea of it's notability or otherwise. (There's also an article about this here although badly written). Personally I think this person is less notable than Emily Barr, who doesn't have her own article. If the ins and outs of the Maastricht debate and Major's dog days become better covered on Wikipedia then I could change my mind. On the e-mail law book, if this is the extent of its notability I think we should forget it. It's said to be an important book in a short review in the Times. There's no indication that it's influential on other books or on cases. If you could prove this then it could be kept in. JASpencer 21:31, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Disclaimer that I was a Cambridge contemporary, although not in the same party, and did some work to wikify the article. I admit it is close to the line, but senior officers of student political organisations can become notable if they are mentioned in the press. Don't know enough about the legal field to say but authors of legal textbooks does support claim of notability. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 11:44, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Comment Tim Kevan was notable as a proxy in a fight that is otherwise unmentioned in wikipedia. Conor Burns - the other candidate, who's achieved a lot more subsequently - does not have an article in Wikipedia. As coverage improves of Maastricht and the Tory hari-kiri that was the John Major premiership then the Conor Burns affair may be included together with some of the supporting cast. Other than his selection to the post there is no other evidence of his effect on the now defunct organisation or the wider Conservative Party. As to legal textbooks, well no one apart including Tim Kevan has started any articles for them or argued that they would meet notability standards. JASpencer 12:13, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. If someone wants to merge and redirect later, great. - Bobet 17:04, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sorption isotherm

The information given is wrong. If someone speaks German you could translate my German article http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorptionsisotherme as a replacement. Rosentod (Ger) 13:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

If the information is wrong, then just change so it is right. It seems like you speak enough English to at least be able to create a sentence or two about it. Recury 14:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, but there is enough to do in the German wiki. I'm already busy there. --Rosentod (Ger) 14:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Close. Nonetheless, AfD is not cleanup. Go ask at Wikipedia:German-English_translation_requests. ColourBurst 17:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Done. But I'm still favouring deletion of this stub. Rosentod (Ger) 08:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 16:00, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Not sure how to vote. If it's incorrect as Rosentod stated, then keep and clean up. If not, then transwiki to Wiktionary unless we can come up with more content. --Dennisthe2 18:01, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Have rewritten it to contain a basic stub of the true subject matter. Needs a reference though as I did it from memory. Localzuk(talk) 19:56, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. As ColourBurst said, articles should not be deleted if they can be improved. A short stub is better than nothing. // habj 22:41, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as long as someone will vouch for Localzuk's rewrite into a stub. This sort of thing is way outside my purview. --Aaron 22:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Sorption, which has its own stub and could use the help. I am not convinced this concept, standing alone, is significant enough for its own article. --MCB 23:18, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, As rewritten by User:Localzuk on 1-October. I believe the article is getting close to being technically correct. He writes:
Sorption isotherm is the graphical depiction of the sorption behviour of a chemical entity which depicts the link between the water content of the substance and the humidity of the air at a particular temperature.
However 'sorption isotherm' is used generally for any adsorbed or absorbed material, not just water. When writing the definition one should not restrict it to sorption of water. I think Localzuk's version would need one further iteration to make this clear. I also looked at the German version. It does use general language, to include materials other than water. But, while it is informative, it has no graphs and no fully-specified references, so I don't think that a pure translation would make the best possible article.
I don't favor the idea of redirecting this to Sorption because the latter is very short and vague. Also, one day, someone will have the patience to make a nice graph of a sorption isotherm, which will make Sorption isotherm worthwhile in its own right. EdJohnston 23:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 13:32, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Benjamin E. Jones

This page was tagged as prod for the second time, so I move the request to AfD instead. WinHunter (talk) 14:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Original Prod nom statement: Two unfinished and unreleased films do not establish notability. --Merope 17:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per both above Nigel (Talk) 12:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 16:01, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Localzuk(talk) 19:58, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Pan Dan 20:13, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. // habj 22:39, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, per nom. EdJohnston 23:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. RFerreira 22:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 17:02, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Commission for Scientific Medicine and Mental Health

Non-notable organization, vanity article, most of website is non-functioning, unverifiable membership. THB 16:03, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep. Over 700 Ghits, an organisation that counts 3 Nobel laureates amongst its membership. A non-functioning website is not grounds for deletion of an article about a group that is not based in cyberspace. There is a hint of bad faith about this AfD nomination. --BillC 20:42, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Actually, most of the Google hits are mirrors of the Wikipedia article, their press releases, or items planted by the parent organization. One must look beyond the number at the quality. The membership is not confirmable including any of the Nobel laureates listed. Indeed, having Nobel laureates as members does NOT make an organization notable, anyway, on its own. This organization may be notable at some point in the future but it certainly is not at this time. -THB 02:08, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I've never really looked at this article before. If it is to be kept I think it has to be almost rewritten from scratch. There are no sources other than self sources (e.g, CSMMH and CSICOP websites). The "contributions to scholarship" section also seems questionable inasmuch as it consists solely of a few articles written for CSICOP's magazine (one of which amounts to nothing more than a summary of the criminal conviction on a non-related charge of a paranormal researcher involved in something they didn't like); and then a mention of the fact that a member of CSMMH was on a TV documentary once. I've been on TV in a number of countries playing international sport but I don't see an article about me. I think delete unless something more can be found and attributed to reputable sources.Davkal 17:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. A search that excludes "Wikipedia" still gets 617 hits. The comment "unverifiable membership" could be said about any organization, including the Republican party. KarlBunker 02:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: KarlBunker gets 6,000 hits. Does that mean your username deserves an article? -THB 03:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 16:02, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete Looking at the notability guidelines, this organisation seems to fall short. I would say delete now and recreate if assertions of notability can be made when someone has the time or inclination to. Localzuk(talk) 20:08, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. While all articles must assert notability, it's a red flag when every word of an article seems to be an attempt to prove it. --Aaron 23:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. The article reads like a vanity page. While the subject is not without interest, I tried to see if their published articles (in their two journals) were having any impact, using Google Scholar. Results were minimal. EdJohnston 00:40, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Punkmorten 09:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Lane Greene

dubious notability. I looked him up on Google and there's not too much. Nekohakase 16:39, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete for lack of notability. 129.98.212.164 19:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep He wrote for the Economist, The New York Times and Slate. Notable journalist/writer. Mgm|(talk) 22:01, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 16:03, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep As Mgml says, he has written for some very notable publications. He is notable. Localzuk(talk) 20:10, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep it's enough. Derex 07:05, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 13:32, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Apeman Cometh

appears to be non-notable podcaster - CobaltBlueTony 16:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Additional: This article does not meet criteria for web content (Extensive copy and paste of the linked-to page elided. Uncle G 18:28, 22 September 2006 (UTC))
  • Comment. At first glance it appears to be advertising. But more importantly, how did you come to the conclusion this podcast was non-notable. Was it a lack of listeners? Too few episodes, Too new? Your nomination doesn't explain your reasoning. Instead of using "non-notable", please explain your reasoning with objective facts. - Mgm|(talk) 22:07, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I understand that the phrasing does seem to be advertising, but this was written following several other podcast and internet radio pages that seemingly are not nominated for deletion, so I would like some clarification on this as well. I am open to making changes to the page if suggestions are provided. However, the non-notable part also makes me curious. If it is based on "too few episodes" (currently residing at 27), then I'd like to know what number is no longer "too few". If it's "not enough listeners", I'd like to know where your data was obtained, as it has never been made publicly available. If it's "too new", then please tell me what the timeframe to no longer be considered new is, since I have been podcasting over one year. - MtA
    • "If article X then article Y." is a fallacious argument. The criteria for web content have been linked to above. Please cite sources to demonstrate that they are satisfied. Uncle G 20:25, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I am not trying to make an argument, I am pointing out that there are articles for other podcasts and internet broadcasts that are not nominated for deletion, despite the fact that they do not meet the notability criteria either, as referenced above by you. If you feel that my article should be deleted, then I am merely making the point that there are several other non-notable articles out there similar in format to mine that are not being nominated, including but not limited to No Holds Barred Radio and The Dawn and Drew Show. Neither of these have cited any sources, neither have clearly demonstrated notability based on the requirements listed, yet they are not being questioned? I'm not making an argument, but rather questioning the fairness and making sure I am not being singled out for some reason.Mike the Apeman 18:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Mike, we're not here to prove a point. None of us are. Somebody needs to cite sources if the article is going to assert any notability - and I, for one, have never heard of your show, let alone until recently the show you originally were on. (I only heard about NHB from my wife, who got it once from a Shoutcast feed.) --Dennisthe2 17:55, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I have taken Uncle G's comment into advisement and removed all copy and paste's from referenced links. - MtA
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 16:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as nn. --Dennisthe2 17:55, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Not notable. Maybe the author of the podcast is, but that doesn't mean everything he produces is. Localzuk(talk) 20:13, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete; lack of reliable sources, advert/promotional content, vanity concerns, no demonstration of notability. --MCB 23:23, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm not going to keep debating this back and forth. If you guys are going to delete my article, then do it. I may not agree with your reasoning, but this is your sandbox, so you make the rules. I am going to point out that the person who noimated this originally has seemingly disappeared from this discussion, which leads me to the conclusion that this was a targeted effort and the discussion wouldn't even be happening without that person's action.Mike the Apeman 15:22, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Punkmorten 09:20, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tant Strul

Non-notable. And two of the links are to myspace blogs of the band members. Nekohakase 16:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep. Actually, this is a notable band. Tant Strul was one of the leading Swedish punk bands from the early 80s (they quit in 1985, with a few nostalgia concerts in 2004 and 2005), and Kajsa Grytt has become a notable solo artist in her post-Tant Strul years. Tant Strul released four LPs and six singles on MNW, the leading Swedish alternative label of the 1970s and 1980s (the company is still around, but not really important, it seems). The discography is available on Kajsa Grytt's website. up+l+and 07:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Do they have any links besides MySpace?? Nekohakase 16:08, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
      • You mean something like an official website? No, it doesn't seem so. Except for a couple of reunion concerts at punk nostalgia festivals, they stopped playing in 1985, so they probably see no need to make one. The Tant Strul pages and discography at Kajsa Grytt's website (which is not at MySpace) is probably as official as you get. Does it matter? up+l+and 16:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 16:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Tidy up though. They are notable - lack of weblinks doesn't mean they aren't. They produced quite a few albums (look at the swedish article about them). Needs cleanup, which will take some time as we need someone from sweden to do the work and look for any clippings in magazines etc... about them. Localzuk(talk) 20:17, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Uppland, important band in the history of Swedish punk. bbx 22:09, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. Big enough for Svenska Dagbladet one of the two major Swedish newspapers, to write a short article about their temporary reunion and asking if there will be a more stable one. [7] // habj 22:34, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • keep multiple albums. Derex 07:06, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 13:33, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vagabonding.com

Someone's non-notable travel blog. Nekohakase 16:58, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Weak delete. Depends how popular it is. 129.98.212.164 19:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
If you don't know how popular it is, you shouldn't be voting to delete it. Do your research before making a decision. - Mgm|(talk) 22:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Non notable blog, and the wiki page was created by the owner of the website. --ChinaNailStorm 08:40, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 16:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Localzuk(talk) 20:26, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as nn blog; Alexa rank 595,796. --MCB 23:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. I Googled for link:www.vagabonding.com but most of the 571 references were just blogrolls. EdJohnston 01:01, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Not a speedy. MER-C 02:38, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete for all the above. It's advertisement. Glendoremus 03:52, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 13:33, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wolfgang Productions of Minneapolis

Almost no assertion of notability (makes videos for local talent in Minneapolis), most Google queries turn up 0 relevent hits, almost completely unverifiable except for [8] [9]. --Interiot 22:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Strong Delete Per nom. Borderline speedyable as group with no importance asserted. Making videos for talent in Minneapolis is not an assertion of importance. Irongargoyle 23:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Wikipedia is not paper. Markovich292 06:11, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. Care to elaborate on how "Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia" applies as a justification for keeping in this instance? I see nothing notworthy of inclusion in a paper or electronic encyclopedia. Irongargoyle 17:45, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
      • To me, this looks like an accurate article, and it certainly isn't detrimental to wikipedia. People might hear about this company and want to learn more about it, and since we are not limited by space I don't see why it should be removed when it has a potential reader base. It looks like the only criteria for deletion is notability, but it doesn't seem to be in conflict with any policies. Markovich292 18:08, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
    • It's hard to say if it's accurate or not without sources. Wikipedia's editors aren't unlimited, are you volunteering to hike out to Minneapolis to find reliable sources for it, and then maintain the article? Unmaintained articles about people/organizations are a small detriment... ask any OTRS user how many slander/libel complaints we get. I just don't see this article being maintained. (eg. the company is defunct... they released a final DVD set in 2005, but there's no mention of it anywhere on the internet) --Interiot 18:31, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Hehe that would be a very short hike for me :) The problem is, even if I find a source AFAIK I can't just scan something and put it onto wikipedia as a RS. Anyway, considering the company is not out there ripping people off, slander/libel probably won't be a big problem. Things in the article like that unsourced video may deserve removal, but I don't think it warrants complete deletion. Markovich292 20:53, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
        • The slander/libel issue is that random people add sneaky vandalism, nobody notices for a while, eventually the people associated with the organization Google themselves, and then get upset when they find the falsehoods here because it's since been distributed to a bunch of different mirrors. The fact that most of the article can't be independently verified makes it even harder to deal with sneaky vandalism. --Interiot 21:04, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Ezeu 17:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom.--Peta 04:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 16:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Non-notable. Google search on "Wolfgang Productions of Minneapolis" brings up 167 returns, only 14 unique. Search on ("Wolfgang Productions" +Minneapolis) brings up 274, only 104 unique, and most about a book publisher, not video company. MikeWazowski 18:37, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable. Localzuk(talk) 20:33, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete; completely unremarkable local production company. --MCB 23:26, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable. No way to verify this info, no references. EdJohnston 01:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as this entry fails to meet the criteria of WP:ORG.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 01:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:59, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tal Cloud

I originally tagged with {{notability}}. May be speediable (per WP:CSD G7 as author does not object to deletion and the only third-party editing has been a link added. That being said, I thought AFD was appropriate given that he was a congressional candidate in 1992. Nevertheless, I feel this does not meet WP:BIO and there seems to be very little Google coverage (granted, he did run in the days where internet coverage would have been sparse). Irongargoyle 22:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Ezeu 17:25, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete* If there's nothing on him from that age saved, that's pretty much WP:N in a nutshell, right?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by SirFozzie (talk • contribs) 23:19, 21 September 2006 (UTC).
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 16:05, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable, doesn't have much going to keep it Localzuk(talk) 20:35, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - non-notable.Glendoremus 04:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep What's the problem? He was a major party nominee for Congress, that's notable enough. It's source, not vanity, and not promotional. We're not paper. A Google test is not a great measure for a 1992 candidate; obviously there would be many online references to such a candidate today. I frankly wish we had more data like this. I just spent several days compiling data for research on Australian regional assembly elections. Some of the material I could only find on Wikipedia, saved me possibly days of effort. In what way does keeping this hurt Wikipedia? Derex 07:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - I do not claim to know tons about US politics, but he lost right. He did not ever sit in as as a congressman. His only notbility is that he lost an election; how many pages does that open up for creation for the US alone.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 01:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, losing candidate and nothing else. Also since the argument for keep culminates in "it doesn't hurt Wikipedia". Punkmorten 09:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 13:33, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] System & Network Solutions

nn company--XIado 17:43, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom--Jusjih 18:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 16:05, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Localzuk(talk) 20:36, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. The Photon 00:49, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. An amazingly uninformative article. EdJohnston 01:19, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete as spam, tagged. ColourBurst 05:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:14, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comprehensive Annual Financial Report

This page was nominated for "Prod" deletion on 11 Sep 2006 with the reason
This is fairly incomprehensible, and the talk page is basically an advertisement. Based on the amount of html previously in the article and still currently, it is likely a copied from somewhere.
The page was deleted 7 days after its nomination under PROD. The deletion was contested on 21 Sep at WP:DRV. It has been restored and is nominated here as a procedural matter. I abstain for now. Rossami (talk) 20:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment: The redirect CAFR is related. Whether the article is kept or deleted, the redirect should follow the same fate. Rossami (talk)
  • Stubify This is a valid topic but the article is complete crap. ~ trialsanderrors 20:47, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • you said it! It is a valid topic and to censor this would be to participate in the literal cover up of the issue. So Stubify it, put up "wikistandard"s disclaimers, whatever. The article could be better sourced. Having talked with Walter Burien and Gerald R. Klatt(USAF retired). My impression is they would like to see links to their site on here as well as government addresses for the imfamous CAFR reports for all over the country. Klatt's www.cafrman.com has these but they are from 2003.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.209.140.21 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete. Though the report is a real report, I'm not convinced that it is notable enough for its own article. There's no reference to "CAFRs" on major news sites, and the references listed in this article appear to be personal websites with a strong bias. The Google hits don't mean much to me either, since "CAFR" as an acronym can have multiple meanings. So I recommend deleting this article, or possibly merging it into something else relating to State Government spending. --Elonka 04:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment I get 2133 Newsbank news hits for "Comprehensive Annual Financial Report". This is a quite ubiquitous document in public finance. ~ trialsanderrors 23:52, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 16:10, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. It's not impossible that this could be made into a real article, but almost none of the current material would be usable for the purpose. I don't think we should wait around patiently for people with a strong POV to come up with something that would make sense to a neutral economist. Best to delete. EdJohnston 01:24, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Here is a typical example of knee jerk anti conspiracy theory bias of wikipedians, these documents are verifiable and do exist. It is not significant at all that acording to Burien's research that numerous news outlets and public officials recieve a copy of many CAFR's reports from the local water and school public corporations to the several state and general government reports and do not do reports on these government holdings? Yall's nose for cooruption potential isnt itching at all? Jessie Ventura's political career is punctuated by his releasing some of Minnisota's government surplusses held outside the budgetary set of books. The Potential for cronie investment shuffeling should be obvious to even a 6th grader. I.E. guide investments to support your friends politically. If you don't know the investments exist in the first place you dont know to look for the deal making and the stategic investments BTW tally up the institutional investment in big companies like Health insurance, Motorola, IBM and MICROSOFT - 60-85% government owned, that is supposedly not Musellini's Corporatism? The artical needs a NPOV, shure, but these issues HAVE to be mentioned or you end up with a bias of ommission problem. Living in the world's remaining superpower you have to demand "show me the money"! Failure to understand these issues is tantamount to crossing the steet when you see a woman getting raped or a mugging in your path and not even dialing 911. I am only left with the two possibilities either there is intentional ignorance of this topic or a lack of ability to grasp the concepts of government surpluss assets. I dont know what else to say except you'll get the govenment you deserve? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.209.140.21 (talk • contribs) 21:55, October 1, 2006
(Comment to anon editor) The main problem with this article is that much of it appears to be what's called original research, which is against Wikipedia policy. Something cannot appear on Wikipedia unless it is has already been published in outside credible sources (personal websites and blogs don't count), which prove that this subject is notable. In other words, it's not enough to prove that the report exists, you have to show that outside sources believe that the report is important. There are thousands of different government forms out there, and the case that needs to be made (in my opinion) is that this report is individually important. If credible references can be provided, I might be willing to change my mind on this article. For more information, please review the Wikipedia policy on Verifiability. --Elonka 18:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I've stubified the article and repeatedly removed a set of crap and spam links, and I've also posted a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Business and Economics asking for input, to no avail. I have no interest in babysitting this article, and with the current lack of interest from qualified editors I'm pretty certain it will go back to spam/soapbox status in no time as soon as this AfD is over. So I'm amending my vote opinion to Delete unless someone is willing to keep this article on their watchlist and make sure those links stay out. ~ trialsanderrors 09:17, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
    • It is just the proverbial second set of books outside the budgetary process. If you cant see why that is the most significant report of any divison of government then we are doomed as a country. Some of you seem so averse to conspiracy "theory" that if something sounds like one, you trash it even when the proof is hidden in plain sight. I fail to see why the Gerald R. Klatt sites cannot be included, he isnt selling anything and provides links to all the CAFR's that are analysed even if they are abit old. (2003) Some of the newer State CAFR's are difficult to locate (on purpose). When government entities cry we need to raise taxes cause spending is over the budget THIS is the ammo to hit them with; we know how much is in the CAFR ! Sell some stock and surplusses(far above the required assets to back pensions and bonds et c.) There are tonnes of short blurb articals on wikipedia that I have run accross and none of them have to have to be on "watchlists" that I am of aware of. So Walter Burien might end up selling a videotape or two because someone found out that there really is CAFR reports out there. Since he HISTORICALLY re-discovered this accounting trick and exposed it to the world (through AM talk radio in New Jersey) How bout someone put up a biography on the guy; I would but it would last about 2 hours and that is beiing optamystic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.209.140.21 (talk • contribs) 23:16, October 4, 2006
Because they're far away from reliable sources and smack quite a bit of soapbox. If you know any useful sources, e.g. from government websites, that explain CAFR's, that would help the article significantly. Weblinks from "CAFRman" don't. ~ trialsanderrors 09:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Harry Potter (plot) was vandalised; original article ok, please check diffs in future. Plot summary just redirected to book. Speedy close.. ➨ ЯEDVERS 19:01, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Harry Potter (plot)

Also: Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince - Full Plot Summary for the same reasons.

This is a simple soft redirect to a wikibook. No WP articles link to here (some talk pages do. Harry Potter book pages diligently link to respective Wikibooks so there is a minute risk of recreation. Swift 01:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 16:10, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Speedy Delete both as A1. Each article contains at this time a dead template link, ergo is content free. Just about to tag as such.... --Dennisthe2 17:36, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment: OK, so it's more like an A3 than an A1. Also, the other article is locked for some reason. I can only guess. --Dennisthe2 17:40, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Nufy8 02:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dmitriy Bocheko

Does not appear to be notable. No google hits abakharev 00:29, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete not notable. He gets a few google hits but for things which aren't notable. Minor movie, production company that puts out minor movies. T REXspeak 01:03, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Well there are a sprinkling of google hits, but this filmmaker is not encyclopedically notable. Fails WP:BIO, WP:V. No listing in IMDB, and his organization and claimed current projects are apparently at a "seeking funding" stage according to his website. He should actually make a film which is notable and reported on before being considered for Wikipedia Bwithh 01:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn, Vanity, spam. Robert A.West (Talk) 05:21, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. MER-C 07:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Bwithh. MaxSem 09:10, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Nufy8 02:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fisgoon

Fails WP:CORP. ghits: [10] & [11] NMChico24 00:32, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Yomanganitalk 00:55, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete "all people have a high capacitation for speak English/Spanish language." I hope to god that's a joke. - Richfife 04:09, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, it's probably just a poor translation. I'd fix it, but this article is headed for the trash heap. So there's really no point. --NMChico24 04:10, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Originator & prime contributor Urgido made no other contributions: seems like spam. ENeville 04:53, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete spam, fails WP:CORP. Robert A.West (Talk) 05:24, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. MER-C 07:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, fails the everything test. RFerreira 22:56, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 21:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of interesting places in Vancouver

Interesting list, but does it really belong here? And the title is oh-so-POV. Vancouver article is long enough that merging is probably not the best option, but I thought I'd bring it here to see what other possibilities may be worth considering. Grutness...wha? 00:41, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Interesting Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 00:55, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:NOT a travel guide. That's what Wikitravel is for. Maybe transwiki some material to the Wikitravel Vancouver page[12] Bwithh 00:59, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete The title is inherently POV, some of the items listed aren't interesting. T REXspeak 01:06, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - the individual articles are categorised well enough to find what you might be interested in, no need to have someone else's point of view. Yomanganitalk 01:11, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete list can never be verified. InvictaHOG 01:15, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per WP:NO CRAP ALLOWED.UberCryxic 01:40, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
If only that was an actual policy Bwithh 02:11, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
It's not?? Oh gods, no! I've been operating under that for years. ♠PMC♠ 19:05, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki the good parts to Wikitravel and delete per Bwithh. --Aaron 01:43, 1 October 2006 (UTC) Changing vote; see below.
    • Meh... I just noticed the small print at the top of the afd main page which says that transwiki to WikiTravel is expressly not allowed as it is not a wikimedia foundation project. ah well. Bwithh 02:10, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • In that case Delete as Canuckcruft. --Aaron 03:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a travel guide. Robert A.West (Talk) 05:27, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not Wikitravel. --Terence Ong (T | C) 06:50, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Vancouver is a great city but Delete (per nom). It doesn't even list my brother's old apartment :-) Em-jay-es 07:44, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:POV.--Húsönd 15:23, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per 'this doesn't belong in Wikipedia, and can never possibly be NPOV'. ♠PMC♠ 19:05, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per the above comments, this is an inherently subjective and problematic list. RFerreira 22:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 01:43, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ross rifle/temp

subpage in main space (Disallowed uses; few or no links; article exists in Main) --Ling.Nut 01:10, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - housekeeping. Yomanganitalk 01:17, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, a complete POV article Valoem talk 05:14, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Interesting original research, not appropriate to take back to talk page. Robert A.West (Talk) 05:35, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - neglected draft. MER-C 07:55, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete by another user - CrazyRussian talk/email 06:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] VStyle

Pure vanity (WP:VAIN), "VStyle has what it takes to create Greatness" Equendil Talk 01:12, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete nothing but vanity InvictaHOG 01:14, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete This article needs to go right now.UberCryxic 01:41, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete Author removed speedy tag I had added. Michael Greiner 04:18, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete My first impression was "Total Bullshit", but it turns out he's actually out there: [13] & [14]. However... It's pretty clear pretty fast that he's currently hype in search of substance. No album releases, very little objective attention. Not yet. - Richfife 04:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I'm gonna stick with the same first impression of total bullshit. Resolute 04:39, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete db-bio tag was improperly removed by article author and presumptive subject. I'm replacing the tag. If he deletes it again, I will take this to ANI. Robert A.West (Talk) 05:46, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Nufy8 03:01, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gregory Cowan

Gregory Cowan is a vanity page added by User:Nomadologist who is Gregory Cowan. The subject does not meet the Notable Academics proposed guideline. The vanity page has been created by Nomadologist before, and it was deleted before. Wareh 01:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was Delete by another user - CrazyRussian talk/email 06:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Young Lil LIC

non-notable, likely a vanity article. See also previous AfD debate about this article posted under a different name, with the result that the earlier version was deleted. Ropcat 01:33, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete for failure to meet any of the WP:MUSIC standards and reasons submitted in previous AfD debate. --Metropolitan90 02:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete... Doesn't contain any references or definite facts. And the above reasons.~Gertlex 05:44, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete per G4 (recreation of previously-deleted material). I will so propose. (Yes, I know its my third speedy delete vote in a row, but all are justified.) Robert A.West (Talk) 06:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:19, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tsushima Islands/temp

subpage in main space (Disallowed uses; few or no links; article exists in Main) --Ling.Nut 01:27, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Userfy and delete redirect. I can't be stuffed checking who is using it as a sandbox, but whoever it is should move it to their userspace, and then tag it with a csd-r2. Daniel.Bryant 03:12, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. This seems to be an artifact of an old discussion. Probably not worth userfying. Robert A.West (Talk) 06:09, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - neglected draft. MER-C 07:56, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - neglected draft. From the Talk page, there was a vote about whether to move this to the main article on June 17, 2005 but it's not clear what was done. In any event, this draft is quite old. An administrator could recreate it if needed later. EdJohnston 01:40, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was deleted and redirected to Jim's Restaurants; the main article carries all pertinent information. (aeropagitica) 11:43, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Magic Time Machine

Does not meet notablility per WP:CORP. -Nv8200p talk 01:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

No, those are all themed resturants, and with the exception of medieval times, have only one, where time machine has two, and the hulk hogans one is gone. Joe I 02:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand, then. Please forgive me. You are listing three other restaurants which should be deleted, and citing them as a reason to keep a fourth? I'm seriously asking; not being sarcastic or facetious. --Ling.Nut 02:23, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Just listing others in the same field to show established relations on wikipedia, if those to should be deleted, that's up to you. But if not, then neither should this one.Joe I 03:03, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't wanna start a long discussion, but I totally do not buy into that method of argument. The number of mom 'n pop stores and corner restaurants (and high schools and high school chess clubs and ...) in Wikipedia is daunting. It would be trivially super-easy to grab three and use them in the way that you are doing, whilst completely ignoring the who-knows-how-many that have been deleted. Invalid argument. I'm gonna go hang out where the notability discussions are for a while, and see who does what. But I've already voted here; have no desire to argue. --Ling.Nut 03:52, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
oops accidentally mangled joe's post. fixed. --Ling.Nut 03:55, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
oops again, I said I was done, but the full scope of that recursive argument just struck me. One would need to delete *every* single corner Chinese restaurant in Wikipedia to counter that argument -- which is of course impossible, since new corner Chinese restauraunts are being added faster than a thousand monkeys can type. Argument is recursive. Argument relies on inertia rather than principle. I cannot accept the corner Chhinese restaurant argument. Sorry. --Ling.Nut 04:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
This is not some cornor chinese resturant. Those do not have 2(3) operations, are not owned by a larger franching resturant(usually) and do not get people driving 100 miles or more to eat at. And i'm sure sure the little chinese don't dress up as GI Joe or Shaggy or have an actual running 1930's car as a salad bar. Try comparing it to maybe one of Emerill's resturants(without his cooking of course). There's an atmosphere reputation people pay to be part of. Joe I 04:24, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi again Joe.. hey .. please.. I was firmly rejecting your method of argument but not rejecting the restaurant by comparing it to a corner Chinese restaurant. You see, you made a far more valid type of argument just then, when you discussed why the restaurant was, in your opinion, notable. In the second argument, you appealed to facts, stating that people drive 100 miles to eat there etc. I personally -- and this is just me -- wouldn't agree that those facts prove notability. But I do agree that it is 'definitely a valid means of making an argument. Your first argument -- the "corner Chinese restaurant argument" was invalid through and through, and unacceptable as such. Your second argument stands on its own merits. If people are persuaded by it, then it will win the day.
Please let me know if I am making sense. I am not attacking the restaurant you support. I was rejecting your method of framing your argument... does that make sense? Thanks --Ling.Nut 04:43, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Jim's Restaurants and add a section for this particular franchise in it. FrozenPurpleCube 03:22, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. In addition to the outlet's mentioned. There was also a very famous outlet in Austin, Texas, which burned down under somewhat suspicious circumstances. We can certainly expand this article with interesting and informative history about the properties.

Johntex\talk 03:39, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

    • There was nothing very famous about the Austin outlet that I know of other then it was a snazzy novelty that everyone liked to try out. -Nv8200p talk 04:23, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nothing is convincing of meeting notability. --Arbusto 03:44, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to Jim's Restaurants. The parent company Frontier Enterprises and its "Jim's" chain, do appear to be notable. As it stands, the Jim's page does have coverage of the parent company. If I had my way, I'd probably move the Jim's Restaurants page to Frontier Enterprises with redirects from Jim's and MTM. --- The Bethling(Talk) 04:52, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to Jim's Restaurants. TJ Spyke 05:33, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. The chain is already mentioned in the main article, so there is nothing worth merging. Yes, we have lots of articles that should be deleted -- that is no reason to keep more. Robert A.West (Talk) 06:18, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
No, I think there is something worth merging, in that the restaurants are interesting enough that the descriptions in the article should be complete enough that somebody could know what they are. FrozenPurpleCube 21:08, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, does not assert notability. JIP | Talk 10:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn. Eusebeus 16:06, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete; unremarkable restaurant with 1 or 2 locations and neither an assertion of notability nor sources showing any wide public interest or awareness in the media, etc. --MCB 23:34, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to Jim's Restaurants. There's no reason to outright delete this information since it can be used to improve the Jim's Restaurants article. - Lex 01:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC) (forgot this part)
  • restaurant-cruft. --Anomo 23:52, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - not notable enough in its own right and is sufficently covered in the main article. BlueValour 02:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Grandmasterka 07:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Roberto Carrillo

Deletion nomination Fails WP:MUSIC, and WP:V, and WP:VAIN. This guy might actually be a musician, but there's no proof that he's an encyclopedically notable one, though there's considerable indication of a rich fantasy life. Apparently his performance venues are usually "informal concerts" in shopping malls "particularly in places where pianos are being sold" i.e. he goes to musical instrument stores and takes over the nearest piano. Sole external reference link is a gushingly positive review article (that stops just short of total adulation and then adds the small print that the critic is supposedly the most feared by classical musicians or something so I guess a 9/10 from her is like a 15/10 from anyone else) which strangely does not cite its original source but is hosted on a spammy article database which apparently anyone can submit articles to with minimal quality checks[15]. This external source is highly unreliable. The article claims that the subject is a direct descendant of a Holy Roman Emperor without any proof (apparently this makes him "royalty" though). The subject also claims noble titles which are from fantasy organizations and countries whose honours are available to anyone- see Grandmaster of the Chivalric Order of Cravant and Great Order of Vikesland. Oh and here's the totally unconvincing website of the Royal Society of Music, which like the Royal Society of Art is part of The Vikesland Ministry of Culture - these societies are supposedly presided over by Carillo. He is also named as the Minister of the Interior on the Vikesland website[16].Fantasy vanity hoax nonsense.

Thanks for the kind comment! Bwithh 02:31, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to /dev/nullapedia, aka delete per nom. Utterly bizarre narcissismcruft.--Aaron 03:08, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. The subject fails WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO even if the claims were verifiable. -- The Bethling(Talk) 03:44, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-Notable, No sources. --Don't mess with Scott. 04:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete This might be one of the most self-indulgent vanity articles I've ever seen. Resolute 04:49, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete and block user On second thought, having seen the other related AfD's, and googling a bit, it this appears to be a pretty obvious hoax. Note that the "royal society of music" website is hosted on a tripod site with the same name in the URL as the single purpose user perpetrating this hoax. Resolute 04:58, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I cant believe this crap isnt actually speedyable... Resolute 05:02, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete No Reliable Outside Source to Indicate Notability. Bo 05:03, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Not even a colorable assertion of notability. Why wasn't this nominated for CSD? Robert A.West (Talk) 06:21, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • In my experience, anyone whose major achievement in life is claiming to be descended from some long-extinct mediaeval royal house is a candidate for deletion. Accordingly, delete. --Gene_poole 09:12, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

The same could be said of anyone who proclaims themself emperor, king or Prince Gene Poole. Roberto Carrillo is one this centuries best classical pianists, and I implore you to research before posting slanderous materials. Chris Beyette 216.36.157.25 17:55, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

    • What is your point? That Vikesland and its self-proclaimed Prince are not notable? Agreed. Proclaiming oneself does not make one notable; being proclaimed by others is what gives notability and verifiability. Robert A.West (Talk) 18:09, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment Which has been done, certainly in Vikesland's case. They've been published.--Freddulany 20:53, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

    • Why it's Prince Christopher I of Vikesland himself![19]. What a honour, your majesty! Bwithh 18:22, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Perhaps I should write my bio as former Prime Minster of Slobovia. I'll retire to Bedlam. Robert A.West (Talk) 01:17, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment: One of this century's best classical pianists? On which planet Mr Beyette? I've been a producer at the main public FM classical music radio station in Sydney - 2MBS - for nearly 2 decades. Our audience catchment is the greater Sydney region - population 4+ million - and I can assure you that neither I nor anyone else here in the real world has ever heard of the the prodigious Mr Carillo. This Vikesland business is rapidly descending into the realms of farce. --Gene_poole 12:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. MikeWazowski 18:43, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, this Vikesland crap has gotten out of hand. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 an attack page by User:Vegaswikian. ColourBurst 02:41, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mason Henshaw

Unnoteable The Fox Man of Fire 02:01, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:18, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Florida Power & Light/Sandbox

subpage in main space Disallowed uses; few or no links; article exists in Main) --Ling.Nut 01:58, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Do we need a new speedy criterion? Robert A.West (Talk) 06:24, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - neglected draft. MER-C 07:57, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - last major edits were over a year ago, its abandoned.--Nilfanion (talk) 13:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • First contact User:Nuggetboy to see if he still wants the page. If he does, move the article to User:Nuggetboy/Florida Power & Light. If not, then just delete the article.--TBCTaLk?!? 13:18, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • What ^TBC^ said. -- Kicking222 16:01, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
    • We don't need an admin for that. I posted the following on his talk page: "This sandbox that you created has been nominated on AFD, because sandboxes should be in user space not article space. If you want it, or any part of it, please move it into your user space and the redirect can be speedied. If not, it can just be deleted." If he moves it, we can just nominate the redirect under R2 and there is no disruption. Robert A.West (Talk) 17:10, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Nufy8 03:04, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Laruel Mall

First, the title is misspelled, though that can be fixed. The text is sourceless and unencyclopedically written, and the subject itself is a local mall that is admittedly "defunct". Opabinia regalis 02:09, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Article itself seems to make case for its non-notability. ENeville 05:00, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Would have qualified for speedy A7 (no assertion of notability). Robert A.West (Talk) 06:27, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
    • No it would not. Please read that criterion more carefully. Uncle G 09:52, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. MER-C 09:41, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. EdJohnston 01:47, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as the article fails to even assert meeting WP:CORP, much less evidence doing so from reliable sources that are independent. GRBerry 02:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Nufy8 03:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jenna Bryson

Fails WP:MUSIC, non notable extra in Sorority Boys. Ghits turn up her Myspace and her Wikipedia article. T REXspeak 02:10, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:20, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Marian Walsh/Temp

subpage in main space (Disallowed uses; few or no links; article exists in Main) --Ling.Nut 02:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Looks like a POV fork to me. Robert A.West (Talk) 06:33, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - neglected draft. MER-C 07:59, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete fork, only edits by a single purpose account.--Nilfanion (talk) 13:09, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Move to User:Kgmiller/Marian Walsh. Seems to be more of someone's sandbox article than a POV fork, which belongs in the userspace and not the Wikipedia mainspace.--TBCTaLk?!? 13:15, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - neglected draft. A move may not be necessary, since an editor states that the information all came from Marian Walsh's personal web site. A much more polished article Marian Walsh already exists. EdJohnston 01:57, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:20, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Carrillo Symphony Orchestra

Nomination for deletion Probable hoax. No hits on google except mirrors of wikipedia[20]. No hits on google books. [21]. No Factiva hits.

I am also nominating the related article Victoriano Carrillo, the supposed founder of the supposed orchestra (note that the Tony Carrillo mentioned in article seems real but totally unrelated). Also see the related afd for Roberto Carrillo. These articles were all created by the same user[22] who also at one point claimed an ancient English dukedom for this Filipino Carrillo family[23]. Bwithh 02:28, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go sit on my throne and issue a few pronouncements. --Aaron 03:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Nothing out there gives any evidence that the orchestra exists. If the author can provide reliable sources to it's touring in the Philippines, I'll reconsider. -- The Bethling(Talk) 03:49, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Blatantly obvious hoax by an individual with massive delusions of superiority. Resolute 05:03, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Sounds like a hoax. Will run this through deletion sorting just to be sure.Shushruth \talk page \ contribs 05:14, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletions. -- Shushruth \talk page \ contribs 05:13, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete in 3/4 time, please. Hoax or classical version of a garage band, doesn't matter. Robert A.West (Talk) 06:53, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, hoax, garbage. It seems like some imaginary orchestra. --Terence Ong (T | C) 07:23, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. MikeWazowski 18:44, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete; hoax, nonsense. --MCB 23:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Someone is stringing us along. RFerreira 22:56, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Nufy8 03:10, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Batman: Yesterday, Today, & Beyond

a nice fansite about batman, but is not notable for inclusion on WP. Fails WP:WEB (it's borderline, but I don't think a brief segment on a low-rated cable show and a newpaper citation of a pic is enough). Also fails WP:VAIN as creator of article is an administrator at the site. Alexa rating is 385,477. "batmanytb.com" gets 102 unique google hits [24] Giant onehead 02:29, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Holy fancrust, Batman! indeed. Delete JPG-GR 07:07, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fails WP:WEB and WP:V, as it has not a single reliable third-party source and probably can't produce one. ColourBurst 06:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - as per nom. Not notable, and vanity. -- Cielomobile minor7♭5 06:50, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, yet more website vanity. JIP | Talk 10:21, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. The accomplishments listed sound slightly impressive, but the Alexa ranking shows that this is just plain crap. It could potentially pass criteria #1 of WP:WEB, but at this point in time, there is no proof of it. --- RockMFR 00:53, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 16:59, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Transformation Story Archive

nn, niche, inactive website, probably does not meet WP:WEB, alexa of 222,415 and very spammy article. Google for title phrase gets about 250 unique hits, and most are not about the said site. [25] Giant onehead 02:40, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep, though the article does need cleanup. The website is of great historical significance within its niche. It's inactive now but when it first went up it was pretty much the only place to go to for transformation fiction on the Internet and it became a center of activity for the fandom. Looking over WP:WEB, it looks like it satisfies the third criterion - the webzine TSAT republishes content from there. (TSAT is independant of TSA, in case anyone asks - the name is a result of how the initialism "TSA" became shorthand for the entire genre). Bryan 02:51, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Hey, I just noticed, what's with that Google link? It's got an offset of 250, not a total of 250 unique hits, and as a result it's only showing rather poor hits. Do this search instead: [26] and you'll see lots of references from other sources that are indeed about the site. A lot more than just 250 in total, too. I note from your user page and contributions that you're apparently on a campaign to seek out and delete non-notable stuff, and while there's nothing inherently wrong with that you should at least take more care that you're not misrepresenting your targets in the process. Bryan 03:22, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment No, I did the google test right, I'm fairly certain. And you don't have to be such a jerk about it, let's hear from some other users about it. The google count is just a small part of why this should be deleted. Giant onehead 04:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
      • I was trying not to sound jerky despite the annoyance I was feeling, so I apologize if it still came through like that. But I still think the Google link you posted in the AfD summary is misleading; it gives "Results 241 - 246 of about 11,000" whereas the example I posted above gives "Results 1 - 10 of about 11,000". It's not surprising that the 241st-most-relevant hit Google gives is going to be pretty sucky. Anyway, the page has had a total rewrite now and references have been added that even I didn't know about off the top of my head, hopefully that addresses some of the other aspects of WP:WEB. Bryan 18:11, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. Fails WP:WEB. No verifiable reliable evidence of "great historical significance" within this niche. Bwithh 02:59, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep ... although the article's current state certainly doesn't reflect its ability to meet requirements. There are actually connetions to Austrian political drama, besides the niche value. I'll see what I can do; I've been searching for something outside my normal expertise to champion lately. Serpent's Choice 06:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I doubt that any third-party independent sources can be found for this topic. On the other hand, if Serpent's Choice feels he needs more time to research, I have no objection to keeping with the understanding that it will be renominated if no sources can be found. Robert A.West (Talk) 07:02, 1 October 2006 (UTC)Keep, per the argument that non-trivial third-party press coverage is out there somewhere. If that proves chimerical, we can revisit at a later time. Robert A.West (Talk) 20:45, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Update-- I put in some research time and rebuilt the article from the ground up, doing away with a lot of the advertising-y feel and generally spamminess. I think at this point the article meets the requirements of WP:WEB, although it is admittedly a difficult call. There are without question two confounding factors that make current documentation challenging. First, age is an issue. The TSA was most influential in the 1996-1998 period and has been inactive (although extant) since 2003. And second, the communities represented by the TSA (furry fandom, transgender, and transformation fetish) are poorly represented in print sources now, much less in 1996 or 1997. That the site maintains an Alexa rating of ~220k three years after the last update whatsoever is frankly a strong indication that it was a significant site in its prime. I do recognize, however, that the references are still shaky(eSCENE is itself defunct, but legitimately published in 1995-1997/8, with ISSNs for its annual publication). WP:RS recognizes that popular culture and fiction topics "may not be discussed in the same academic contexts" as other material; ezines and their ilk, especially with years of (web-)publication history are at least a reasonable step above "[p]ersonal websites, wikis, and posts on bulletin boards, Usenet and blogs". I'll see if more is available as time permits. Serpent's Choice 09:37, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Nice rewrite from User:Serpent's Choice, but in the end this fails WP:WEB. Eusebeus 16:08, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Fails WP:V, WP:RS at this point. Wickethewok 20:29, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - per nom and WP:V. Is this material interesting enough that our readers should be going back to dig it up? Presumably there are currently-available substitutes for this vein of literature. EdJohnston 02:07, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. WP:V/WP:RS restricts use of "bulletin boards, Usenet, and wikis, or messages left on blogs" and cautions against self-published sources "where no one stands between the writer and the act of publication ... includ[ing] personal websites, and books published by vanity presses". eSCENE had an established (and rotating) editor board. Likewise, both of the ezines referenced herein (Anthro and TSAT) have editorial control; these are not self-published sources, nor do they equate to content like personal websites (e.g. Geocities) or blogs. The FPÖ allegations can also probably be better documented by someone who speaks German (as an internal Austrian political issue ibn 1997-8, English-language coverage is essentially nonexistent). Not all articles can or should have citations from conventional news agencies because not all verifiable encyclopedic content is newsworthy and print-appropriate. What is expected from sourcing for an article of such a nature that is not present here at current? Serpent's Choice 02:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Ed, I'm not entirely sure what you're saying here, could you clarify? I'm taking your opinion to be that the subject doesn't warrant an article because the archive is currently defunct and has been superceded by other sources, which I don't think is relevant because the site has historical significance within the genre. Bryan 05:58, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. The connection to Austrian politics makes it noteworthy enough, in my opinion. If it really was the first site within its genre (admittedly a niche genre, but nevertheless), that adds to its significance. Shimeru 07:56, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, based on Serpent's Choice et seq.'s version. I note that the site isn't defunct because the creator lost interest, there was a whole big thing. To my mind, that something is the first or oldest X is generally a strong argument in favor of notability. In addition, if the fact of the site was indeed a major element in a political campaign or platform, it probably received more than "passing mention" coverage of the sort mentioned at WP:WEB.–♥ «Charles A. L.» 17:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: site has historical significance for development of its genre, and arguably political history significance; it's is much improved after Serpent's Choice's recent edits. --Jim Henry 21:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment It seems to me articles on sexual topics, and particularly sexual minorities, are on occasion held to a higher standard here at AfD than articles on less fraught topics.–♥ «Charles A. L.» 01:06, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I have attempted to contact the nominator, User:Giant onehead in order to determine if his concerns had been satisfied. However, it appears that he has left the project following a warning over incivility in another AFD. Serpent's Choice 09:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Tough call, but there is a mention in a Salon story, as well as the article being more of a historical piece than one about a current site, so I think WP:WEB isn't quite as appropriate as it could be. Keep due to Serpent Choice's impressive work, and Wikipedia:The Heymann Standard. AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 cleanup. – Avi 02:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Korean Pottery: Categorized by Periods

Moved from Korean Pottery: A Compendium of the Colaianni Collection by original author as a result of the debate. I am cleaning up the AFD page and have nominated the resulting redirect for deletion. Robert A.West (Talk) 18:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:OR--Dpplx 02:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete They're very nice, but they don't deserve a separate article from the main Korean Pottery article - Richfife 05:00, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Keep I'm changing my vote to keep. The creator is obviously very motivated to make a good article and has the tools to do it. Good luck! - Richfife 17:02, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Don't DeleteThis article allows students of the art and the study of Korean history and pottery true examples to evaluate the different periods of development in Korean pottery from ancient times. The generosity of the of the author's family allows students to include unique photographs of a collection in reports and presentations on the subject. This article enriches this resource of information on the subject. Deletion from Wikipedia will lessen the archive value of this encyclopedia. It would be a loss for Wikipedia. Deletion would be a mistake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MVCOL (talk • contribs)
    • Reply A couple of things: The article is Vanity in that collection was made by a relative of yours (Father? Grandfather?), so posting it on Wikipedia serves to indirectly raise your profile. That isn't fatal to an article by any means, but... it immediately raises the spectre of objectivity issues. There are a LOT of pieces from a perstonal collection in the article. Are the pieces notable? How do we know the captions are correct. I know YOU know, but I don't know myself. Which brings us to the biggest issue of all. The article is named "Korean Pottery: A Compendium of the Colaianni Collection". Is the Colaianni Collection a notable collection? Is it better than, say, a collection I would find in a museum in Seoul or New York? My instinct is no, but if I'm wrong, we'll need to see some backup. You've posted an article with your own last name in the title. That's throwing up a lot of red flags. - Richfife 05:29, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as unverified (and probably unverifiable) catalogue of an unpublished private collection. Robert A.West (Talk) 06:43, 1 October 2006 (UTC) Change to Keep, but serious rework needed. See comment below. Robert A.West (Talk) 16:53, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, little more than an image collection, and what little text there is violates WP:NOR. JIP | Talk 10:22, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Don't Delete(one vote to a customer)...a Final Rebuttal in response to the above comments...The article does have value. FIRST: If the title is of concern then it can be changed...the change would be Korean Pottery: Categorized by Periods. This is an important lesson in the study of Korean pottery because each period in Korean history had very distinctive style of pottery. This page clearly demonstrates the differences. SECOND: Is this collection verifiable? Yes. All pieces have been evaluated and appraised by JOHN GILMORE FORD, ASA, Senior Member,American Society of Appraisers, Baltimore Maryland. All captions that are associated with the photographs are excerpts from his evaluation. Sotheby's of New York is aware of this collection. Two pieces from this collection were published in its catalog, KOREAN WORKS OF ART, JUNE 5, 1992. The Carnegie Museum in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, is reviewing this collection for display. THIRD: There is enough text to cover two pages if you look at the information contained in the captions under the photographs. I can move those captions to the main page if necessary. FOURTH: The question about "better" collections being in Seoul or New York; with the title change, they would be welcome to edit the page and contribute to the wealth of Wikipedia as well. Please note, I have already added to the References at the bottom of the page in question.
    • The appraisal is unpublished, therefore unverifiable. The two pieces published in Sotheby's catalog are a different matter, but you don't identify which two they are. I think this article needs serious rework, possibly into a set of articles by period, including commentary only from published sources. Since deletion prevents rework, I will change my non-vote, with the understanding that I may support a renomination if the article remains a collage. Robert A.West (Talk) 16:53, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Either merge with the main Korean pottery article or rename to something like Gallery of Korean pottery and keep; or failing that transwiki the images and text to the Commons. Frankly, articles about the arts invite a gallery style treatment. These examples are a valuable contribution, and a way should be found to keep them somehow. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to Korean pottery. What is the bar for verifying that photos in Wikipedia are what they say they are? I expect that many (most) of our photos (and other images) would fail verifiability. If these are what they say they are, they should be merged into the main Korean pottery article. If we want to demand verifiability of images, we'll need to dump 90% at least of the images in Wikipedia. The Photon 01:52, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I would say that there are three distinct issues for verifiability an image of an artifact: does the image fairly represent the type of artifact described? Is it of an actual artifact as opposed to a reproduction, mockup or a manipulated image? Is the described provenance correct? Readers can perform the first by comparing to copyrighted pictures from reliable sources, which should be cited for the supporting text. The second we really can't verify, unless a major publication takes an interest in the authenticity of Wikipedia images, so we have to take on trust. The last issue was raised by the title: absent a published catalog, how do we know there is such a collection or what it contains? Renaming the article reduces the vanity aspect of the provenance, and so makes it more of a legal issue (is uploader entitled to grant a GDFL license for that image?) than a policy one, and we pretty much act on faith there too. Robert A.West (Talk) 21:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
    • My plan is to rename the article as mentioned before to Korean Pottery: Categorized by Periods. That should correct the vanity issue in the title. I also plan to expand the text as recommended by Robert West. My concern about merging with Korean Pottery is that I would not like to make such a drastic change to an existing article that is already so well presented. The interest taken by all, in the effort to make Wikipedia an endeavor of value is appreciated. I do have a full time job and therefore need a little time to update this page. What time constraints are we dealing with? User:MVCOL
      • Now that there is clearly no consensus to delete, there is no time pressure. Take the time to do a good job, and others will probably pitch in. Most of us have lives, whatever Wikitruth may say. <grin> Robert A.West (Talk) 03:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I will do my best to update this article to conform with Wiki standards.....I've already changed the title........I appreciate the opportunity.User:MVCOL
  • Delete - as OR. There is a good article on Korean pottery. Those parts of this article that can be sourced can be addedin there. This seems to be an advert for a private collection. The name of the collection on each image is also unencyclopaedic. BlueValour 03:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment BlueValor has a point about labelling. The collection name has to go from the images. If you can't bring yourself to do that, then the images have to go too. - Richfife 16:15, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
      • GDFL Comment The attribution on the image seems to me to be part of the copyright of the image, and hence should not be removed in order to protect the permission to use under the GFDL. With the article title changed, hasn't the issue been significantly blunted? Robert A.West (Talk) 18:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment - the attribution on the image is independent of the Licence as shown by the fact that hardly any images, elsewhere on WP, carry it. In any case Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document. If the image could not be freely modified then it would not be acceptable on WP under this licence. If the authors decline to modify the images then other editors can and should. The change of title does not address the sourcing issue - the article remains OR - nor the vanity aspect of having this unencyclopaedic attribution on every image. BlueValour 20:12, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
          • Hmmm... I have no doubt that we could, under the GDFL, add a clown cap to any of the images. On the other hand, Wikipedia is clear that it views history as something that we should preserve under the GDFL. I was viewing the on-image credit as akin to that. I suppose that, so long as we have the original version in history, and retain the description of the source of the image, we are fine in that respect. That said, you or any editor can boldly modify the image, so I don't see that as a reason to delete the images. As for the OR issue, and whether the article can be made non-OR, that requires comparing the sources to the content at a level that is beyond my expertise. Robert A.West (Talk) 13:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
          • Apropos whether credits on the image are encyclopedic, my print copy of the Britannica 14th edition includes images with just such an embedded credit, and I think that publication qualifies as an encyclopedia. Robert A.West (Talk) 13:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
            • I stand corrected - Richfife 18:35, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The objects in this collection are mainly awful. Someone made this collection while on a vacation in Busan. Yuk. Get rid of it.--Iwanafish 11:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was SPEEDY DELETE. JIP | Talk 10:23, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Voice of the nations

Repost of speedily deleted material from Voice of the Nations, although the speedy status is not completely clear from the deletion summary. No references and unverifiable. Quite a few google hits for "Voice of the nations", but none seem to be on topic. Add "John Paul Warren" to the search and the results drop down to two. One being the ministry site which is down for construction. Irongargoyle 03:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, promotional material for apparently non-notable ministry. See also John Paul Warren. FreplySpang 03:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable, spam/ad/promo --ArmadilloFromHell 03:09, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Amen. - Richfife 04:58, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete The article even admits it is a repost. Robert A.West (Talk) 06:46, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as repost. Tagged as such. MER-C 08:01, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete for all the above reasons. Emeraude 09:06, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 10:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of The Colbert Report episodes

While The Colbert Report is a popular show in the cable universe (take note) it (or just about any other regular talk show) does not warrant its own episode guide. There have been 150 episodes done in the last year, and this page is now 99K. We don't have episode guides for nearly all game shows (like Wheel of Fortune), the tonight show, letterman, the today show, maury, nightline and so forth, so why should a somewhat popular cable talk show get a guide? It also violates various parts of WP:NOT, including Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, Wikipedia is not a soapbox, Wikipedia is not a directory and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This isn't a free webhosting service, if you want to make your own episode guide, make your own site, not sludge this info into WP. Giant onehead 03:06, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Strong Keep Similar Articles are everywhere including

100 Listed in "Lists of sitcom telivision episodes"
29 in Lists of "Dramedy telivision episodes"
59 in Lists of "science fiction episodes"
22 in Lists of comedy television series episodes
Saying Similar articles don't exist is a lie. Saying this article is not useful is also a lie. This page is similar to many of these, most notably the "list of the simpsons" episodes. From which each episode has its own page, which in my opinion is less navigateable. This leaves us judging the article on "it takes up too much space". I'm not on WIKI an exceptional amount, but I didn't see any policy on "lists with many items not allowed" and if there is one, it should be respected. The simpsons list for instance; however, is twice the size of this one. Where is the threshold for too many items? Is it at exactly 154 episodes that a show has been on the air too often to have a wikipedia article? It's also my opinion that the submitter for deletion didn't do so in good faith and seems offended by the show itself being an "indiscriminate collection of facts" not the article. (69.76.206.124 05:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC))

  • Strong Delete per nom for every single reason he's given. --Aaron 03:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete by African elephant stomping (what with all the new ones that have popped up in Africa over the past 6 months, I'm sure they can spare a few). Variety shows shouldn't have episode lists on Wikipedia. Irongargoyle 03:26, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Keep and Split per People Powered. The Wikipedia is not paper arguments are winning me over and this debate is getting needlessly divisive. Irongargoyle 17:35, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, do the people making these kinds of episode guides know that there are other sites made specifically for this sort of thing? Recury 03:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes. That's not a reason for deleting the article; for pretty much every single notable TV show ever, there's a web site which contains episode synopses. Should we delete every episode of every show ever? "Who Shot J.R.?" Who cares? It's on another web site! There are other sites specifically made to talk about Grand Theft Auto, so maybe we should delete all of that series's articles, too. -- Kicking222 16:13, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Colbert has enough WP coverage as it is. - Richfife 04:57, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
    • So does Dubya. What's your point? -- Kicking222 16:13, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
      • THAT IS AN EXCELLENT POINT, I AM HEREBY REVOTING MY VOTE TO KEEP ALL COLBERTS AND DELETE ALL DUBYAS! Recury 02:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and above. Also seems to violate WP:OR. --Satori Son 06:26, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
    • There's absolutely no violation of OR for episode guides. The show itself is the primary source. -- Kicking222 16:13, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
      • That is an overgeneralization of this issue. Some elements of this article are original research, not the entire concept of episode guides in general. --Satori Son 00:35, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
        • List them, you can't merely use weasel words to wish it into existance (69.76.206.124 02:36, 5 October 2006 (UTC))
      • Normally I don't feed the socks, but I will give you one specific example simply to illustrate my point: In the comments for Episode 131, it states "This is the first episode that has neither a Wørd nor an introductory phrase." Has this fact every been previously published by credible, third-party sources? Obviously not. The only way for a Wikipedia editor to verify this fact is to sit down and watch all 131 episodes up to that point, which is not only completely impractical, but the very definition of "original research". That being said, however, if this article is kept, as now seems likely, I have the faith that editors with an interest in the subject will get the article up to standards. Thanks, Satori Son 16:05, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
        • Is it the definition of original research? I'm pretty sure that's not the spirit of the policy. The spirit is to have verifiable information.(although clearly one need merely scroll through the table to see that both boxes are empty there for the first time). As you said also anyone can sit down and watch the previous 130 episodes of the show (the show being a source). Won't every person that does sit down and watch it come to the same conclusion? You probably can't verify the colors of all the butterfly families without reading a portion of a probably large book. It is merely organized for use? P.S. not a sock just don't like registering for things when it's optional and wasn't aware it was unreasonable to post that way (69.76.206.124 06:57, 6 October 2006 (UTC))
  • Delete per above. MER-C 08:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Crush by elephant - per nom and WP:NOT.--Nilfanion (talk) 13:12, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I don't see any "original thought" or "soapboxing" in the article, and Wikipedia is full of directory-type information, including lists of episodes of many TV series, even separate articles about individual episodes. If there's any "WP:NOT" relevant here, it's WP:NOT paper, so it's irrelevant that it's 99K. Margana 15:15, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Eusebeus 15:46, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep I'm a very staunch advocate for episode synopses, and The Colbert Report is an incredibly popular show (both in its niche and in general). So there are a lot of episodes, and so the page is huge. What's your point? Why are these deletion rationale? In my opinion, there is no piece of WP:NOT which applies to this page. I'll certainly disclose that I've contributed a good amount to this page, but I've only done so because I feel that it is a valuable article which should be improved as much as possible. The Colbert Report is certainly a notable television show, and the vast majority of notable TV shows have episode guides (if not articles on every individual episode), and I don't see why this show should be any different. -- Kicking222 16:13, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. There is nothing very different about this compared to other fine wikipedia articles such as List of The Dukes of Hazzard episodes, List of Pokémon episodes or even List of Barney & Friends episodes and videos. Episode lists are one of the things that wikipedia does well and Colbert has the notoriety to deserve the full wikipedia treatment. The nom has miscited wp:not, none of which applies to this type of article. --JJay 16:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I have a really hard time understanding some of this reasoning. There is a big difference between an episode guide for this and a network show like The Dukes of Hazzard. Dukes of Hazzard had like 25 episodes or so a season, and has much more established notability and ran on a network, meaning that more watched the show and recall it years later. This show has been on a year, is on cable, gets above average ratings, and with it's format, airs around 150-200 episodes a year, if it stays on the air. And that's just your opinion if the show is extremely popular, it averages around 1.5 million viewers, good for cable, but would be cancelled in days if on a network with those ratings. Just because you like the show or a few critics praise it doesn't assure that the show is massively popular. I'll stop, but there is just no reason for this page to be on here. Giant onehead 18:33, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Firstly, I can't say if I like the show because it's not broadcast in the country where I live. Even if I did like it, that would be irrelevant. Just like your apparent dislike of the show does not matter either. There is no limitation at wikipedia to network shows. That sort of network/cable distinction is increasingly meaningless today. Secondly, the number of episodes broadcast is not a determining factor. We can not unfairly stigmatize the show for broadcasting a lot of episodes. However, given how often Colbert is in the news for one reason or another - certainly far more often than Barney or the stars of Dukes of Hazzard - I think we should be detailing his show's episodes. --JJay 18:50, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I never said anything about hating the show, nominating this article had to do with that it just isn't suitable for Wikipedia, not that I think the show is overrated or such. There is a big difference in doing an episode guide for a primetime network drama than a daily talk show. Giant onehead 18:53, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, I wouldn't mind a list of episodes if it only had 13 episodes (or some other manageable number) in a season. The Colbert Report has so many episodes each year that this would be an immensely long list after only a couple of years. I'd say this violates WP:NOT a free webhost or an indiscriminate collection of information. --Coredesat (talk) 18:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Mr. Billion 19:50, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep if only because I don't think individual episodes should get an article, yet it wouldn't be a good idea to not have the information. Using examples like game-shows is not using an equivalent media subject, as it doesn't make much sense to cover something that varies only by what puzzle is on and who is solving. Oh, and what they spend. And I don't know about you, but I wouldn't mind a collection of who has been on the Tonight Show or the like. Sheer potential size isn't much of an issue, IMHO, since we've got things like the List of Playstation games (6000+ entries). Yeah, at some point, you might want to break things up by season, but that's a convenience issue. FrozenPurpleCube 21:27, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep Comparable to lists of television stations: i.e. List of myNetworkTV affiliates (which went through an AfD, one user pointed out that WP:NOT states that Wikipedia has reference tables, the work of 100 editors that was sourced by a notable broadcasting magazine in the months to its launch last month, and more detailed than the category with the same information), List of television stations in Arizona, and lists of television episodes (List of Futurama episodes and this, and when it gets too large, split it like what is being done to List of Pokémon episodes, splitting it by season or year (the latter would be the main criterion for a talk or news program which does not have defined seasons)). Plus, Colbert is more in the news than Futurama or Pokémon. One news exploit came right here to Wikipedia, even. (This is my longest AfD rationale in history!) A note from Colbert fan Shin'ou's TTV (Futaba|Masago|Kotobuki) at 22:00, 1 October 2006 (UTC) for this AfD nomination
Comment I don't see how any of those lists you mentioned can be comparable to this one. Futurama is/was a weekly network series and had around 80 episodes. Even a low-rated episode of Futurama had its ratings several times more higher than the average episode of this show. I've said this before, if you want to keep using this guide and put it somewhere, why not make your own webpage for it? WP is not a webhost or a soapbox. I knew there were going to be a few hardcore fans of this show trying to clutter the vote just to get their show more attention, but I wasn't expecting it to be this bad. For the admins, please consider that when you make a decision to keep/delete the article. Giant onehead 22:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Comment No, I'm not trying to be pro-Colbert, but The Colbert Report has the notability that Futurama, Pokémon, and such shows have. If it's notable, and it has enough episodes to deserve a guide, I think it should have such. Wikipedia is not paper, but has reference tables. Have you read WP:NOT lately? Please. I'm trying to be NPOV and you're making my argument POV. Please stop. Shin'ou's TTV (Futaba|Masago|Kotobuki) 01:01, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Comment I refuse to stop. That is the most asinine argument I have ever heard. You are comparing apples to oranges. You're comparing a daily talk show to a cartoon series. An episode of a network cartoon series like Futurama is far more notable than 99% of episodes of this show. I have read WP:NOT and I am 110% certain that this article violates a fair amount of those provisions. I won't stop, <personal attack removed>. Giant onehead 01:18, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
See WP:NPA, WP:CIV, WP:AGF. Those are requirements for participation here. --JJay 17:16, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, sub divide them into seasons eventually. Wikipedia should not have bias against or for itself. People Powered 22:08, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete per nom — We really don't need this on WP --Deon555talkReview 23:02, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep; I generally oppose listcruft, but this is not listcruft, and episode guides of notable television series with large audiences have wide support on Wikipedia, especially if (as here) they are treated encyclopedically. I don't think these should be a bias against The Colbert Report merely since it has c. 150 episodes a year instead of 13 or 26. --MCB 23:49, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • This is 100% unadulterated listcruft, containing finely detailed information piled up in an essentially impossible-to-navigate list. --Calton | Talk 01:01, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep per all above. Verifiable and notable. Compared to some of our other lists, this is gold.UberCryxic 00:38, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Lists of show episodes are notable as millions of viewers watch each one. Arbusto 00:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Nuke from orbit, it's the only way to be sure. Great God Almighty, this is TV fancruft at its worst. --Calton | Talk 01:01, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep It seems the nom don't like the Cobert Report, and that's not enough to delete an article. - Lex 01:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Comment I never said anything about hating the show. I'm just questioning it's notability. Instead of making a blind guess as to how I might feel about the subject, why don't you actually read my reasoning first? Giant onehead 01:57, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep: notable show with recurring elements and characters, much like a drama or comedy, for which we have tons of episode guides there. The argument against this article could have worked if the show was three or four weeks in and not likely to be successful, but as it is an extremely successful show and not a flash in the pan, the article must be kept. Calwatch 04:01, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. May eventually need trimming down or splitting (I'd suggest only having a summary for the "significant" episodes, where memorable phrases get coined or where important guests come on, but am not familiar enough with the show to get specific) but it's not like Wikipedia has limited space. Considering how much we've got on Pokemon or Gundams this doesn't seem overly large. Bryan 06:19, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, Colbertcruft. Applaud Calton's nuke from orbit idea: it's the only way to be sure ! Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:18, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per precedent. If you don't want episode list articles on Wikipedia then I recommend going through channels to get the related Wikiproject discontinued. Otherwise I see no reason why this can't be treated any different. 23skidoo 12:50, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and split into seasons. DCEdwards1966 13:57, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I haven't seen the show at all, and in fact I've never even seen an entire episode of The Daily Show (we don't get it over here where I live). However, it seems like a perfectly legitimate page, and of value to many readers. --DeLarge 14:57, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep - No one is soapboxing here, and the show varies significantly on a day-to-day basis. If you question its notability, look at the amount of hits on Google for the Colbert Report vs. the kings of Wessex. Why shouldn't we have the first list if we have the second? Irregulargalaxies 23:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment . If there are a lot of raw ghits for colbert-report, there are five (one, two, three, four, five) gbooks hits. For my randomly selected (and dead for over 1300 years) king of Wessex, there were around five hundred. See the difference ? Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
      • The difference being that this king of Wessex has had 1300 years in which to have books written about him yet only has five hundred, whereas the Colbert Report has been on the air for roughly a year and already has five? :) Personally, I don't think benchmarks like Google hits or book numbers are very good means of comparing relative "prominence" of subjects, beyond a basic "yeah, other people have heard of this too" threshold. Too many confounding variables. Bryan 23:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep - The reason of suggesting deletion has no ground. you claimed the guide violated various parts of WP:NOT and yet you failed to come up any evidence at all. 1)Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought - This article is not. 2) Wikipedia is not a soapbox - This articale's not. 3) Wikipedia is not a directory and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information - This article's not, plus with at least 10 editors contribution this is hardly "indiscriminate collection of information". If any of the above claims is true, then by your definition every TV episode guide on WP should be deleted. The most pointless arguement of all, which is the number of episode, is simply irrelevant. Since when WP has a guideline states how "few" episodes of a program should be eligible for a guide of its own? Sorry your arbitral magic number doesn't work here. Samic 07:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete -- where's Wikipedia:Not The TVGuide when you need it? JPG-GR 07:08, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Then go ahead and try to delete every single TV episode guide on WP... To answer your question: because there is none. Stop trying to make Articles for deletion page into your personal soapbox Samic 07:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • We are trying, stop getting in our way! Recury 13:04, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep This collection of information is very short compared to e.g. the very extensive entries of Family Guy episodes where each episode has its own extensive article. Here in the case of Colbert each episode is summarized very economically. Spebudmak 07:48, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep I find this page very useful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.34.78.25 (talk • contribs)
  • Strong Keep Maybe it could be split into seasons. But, I see no "soap-boxing." Is this page ruining lives? Is it dividing America? No. Is it a little frivolous? Sure. What the hell! Swatson1978 20:02, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep I've found this to be a hugely useful resource - it'd be a shame to see so much work deleted - So long as other TV shows have episode guides so should the Colbert Report.MagicBez 21:04, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep - The Colbert Report is not, at heart, a "talk show" like Letterman. It's fiction, with Colbert playing a fictional character. His interview subjects are more like "guest stars" in a situation comedy. The existence of this list to keep track of the show's mythology is very justified.86.53.54.14 22:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Highly notable show, very divergent episodes. Most importantly though, it's a watercooler show and this page provides people with information on what story was on what episode. --Jirrupin 22:25, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Very good resource, and not unlike many other show episode lists. The work put into this page shouldn't be put by the wayside. Dhp1080 00:28, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep You do have some good reasons for deletion but taht doesn't change the fact that this is a very useful page. Granted the optimal solution may be to have this content elsewhere on the great WWW but that is not the case. I think Wikipedia has enough resources to maintain an informative and useful page of information that would likely be forgotten otherwise. I find myself using this page frequently for reference. I would like to see this broken up into pages per season at some point in the near future though. Fsamuels 05:19, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep This is the most comprehensive Episode List for the show. Removing it would be unproductive. Please keep it.
  • Delete per nom. Although I couldn't watch this show even if I wanted to, it's not appropriate, sourcable (you'd need to find a third party who compiled the list and donated copyright), or notable, even if the show is notable. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
My apologies. We do get Comedy central. It's still not sourcable. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep There are numerous other episode guides on Wikipedia which are not being nominated for deletion. If the page is too large, it can be split by season. --BOARshevik 04:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep It is clear that the Colbert Report Episode Lst is being singled out due to the episode frequency. Just because something happens often should not disqualify it from wikipedia. The episode blurbs are short and to the point. This has NOT become a fanpage. A lot of notable people appear on the Report and it covers many current events. This guide provides an efficient way to quickly reference who/what has been covered and when. This information is not only useful for fans, but also for those researching the relationship between the Report and the news media, current events, notable individuals, political events, etc. If such a guide were available for the O'Reilley Report it would be useful in the same way.Sturmovik 04:33, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 21:20, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] John Paul Warren

Copy-paste job from user space to go with Voice of the nations which was copy-pasted from the deleted Voice of the Nations. He seems to have some association with the company mentioned, but the other claims aren't backed up. Violates WP:VAIN, WP:SPAM. Fails WP:V, WP:RS and probably WP:HOAX Irongargoyle 03:21, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Self-promotion. Reliable sources to clarify and support the claims made in this article would be welcome. (E.g., "a special Senate award"? That could be a lot of things, not all of them extraordinary.) FreplySpang 03:36, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Arbusto 03:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete At least he has the cajones to label it vanity. Relevant Google hits are almost exclusively about him suing his former corporation ministry over failure to deliver satellite dishes tuned to a prayer channel. - Richfife 04:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --ArmadilloFromHell 07:00, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • WOW ... Delete per nom. Em-jay-es 07:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete per nominator. JIP | Talk 10:24, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete ugh. Danny Lilithborne 16:28, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • FYI I've nominated his user page (which is a duplicate of the article) as well: [27]. - Richfife 06:04, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator, and make it speedy. RFerreira 22:34, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 21:18, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blane Covert

Nonnotable teacher and author of unpublished book, The American Standard, also nominated here. NawlinWiki 03:32, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete It hardly even has any info on him at all. The article is can't be really fixed either. Hmrox 04:32, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Both. Author does not yet meet the notability requirements of WP:BIO, and a publish date has not even been set for the vanity press book. As such, there are no credible sources as required by WP:V. --Satori Son 06:24, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. MER-C 08:05, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete fails WP:BIO. Unpublished book fails to be verifiable or notable; how many collections of literature are there out there?--Prosfilaes 10:09, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete both. An unpublished book might be notable if sufficiently important, but a collection of literature by a nn author? The author isn't yet notable and the book article is crystal balling even if it is verifiable, after all who knows what will happen in editing?--Nilfanion (talk) 13:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. RFerreira 22:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 21:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Better Know A District

Technically, it's a WP:NEO violation, but more to the point, it's just Colbertcruft, one of a number of articles created to make The Colbert Report seem more popular than it actually is. Google shows almost no examples of the term being used outside of references to Colbert and/or his program. Aaron 03:34, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Pare Down and Merge to main article. Too much information! - Richfife 04:50, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, relatively well known segment on a well known show. The segment has recieved a lot of media attention due to Colbert's continual "manipulation" of the words of well known politicians. For example, Wexlar's comment on prostitutes and cocaine has been mentioned on the Los Angeles Times[28], Geraldo at Large [29], Good Morning America [30], and Fox News [31]. (note the last three links are on youtube, where the news report videos are hosted)--TBCTaLk?!? 05:56, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep A series of interviews with 434 of the most important prople in the US is definetly notable. (I hate to admit this, but I missed a few interviews, and I came here to find out who it was I missed..)EnsRedShirt 06:55, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Is cruft, doesn't need it's own article or space. Yes, this is one of a long series of articles/entries that try to make this show look more popular and notable than it is. Giant onehead 07:12, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, it's defiantly not as crufty compared to having over 450 articles on every single Pokemon character in existence. Also, how does having more articles make a subject "look more popular and notable than it is"? Using my previous example, there are more Pokemon related articles than there are Buddha or Einstein related articles, but does that make Pokemon any more notable than either Buddha or Einstein?--TBCTaLk?!? 07:59, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
But the scope/audience/popularity of Pokemon is much larger than this show. Yeah, maybe you can't really do 100 articles with Einstein as the main focus, but those articles on their own will always carry more weight and be more viewed than a pokemon character. Giant onehead 08:53, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
It seems like you just don't like the Colbert Report. While you have the right to that opinion, it doesn't mean you can delete all the articles about the show. - Lex 01:53, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable enough per TBC and EnsRedShirt, not particularly "crufty"; "WP:NEO violation" rationale unclear and not a cause for deletion. Please don't just assume that articles are created to make something look more popular than it is, claiming that without concrete evidence isn't serious. Merging it elsewhere might be good, but would probably just clutter articles that are already long. --Gabbec 08:50, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep (but needs serious cleanup). NYT article for reference. Meets verifiability requirements. Agree that it's cruft, but a 90% cruft-free article is possible here with some pruning. Fagstein 09:11, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep It probably IS a WP:NEO violation, but I would say this is a good example of WP:IAR. Notability isn't an issue as at least one of these segments has been aired/reported on by more legitimate news programs, not to mention the notability of the guests themselves. The Colbert Report (at least currently) has a significant pop cultural significance, and this recurring segment involves a large variety of elected officials. I'd say keep now and review relevance again in a year. -Markeer 14:46, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I am enjoying the new "articles created just to make it seem more popular than it is" meme, though. --NapoliRoma 14:59, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. High-profile interviews, better than Barbara Walters in many cases. Billy Blythe 15:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. as above - Deathrocker 15:56, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep while list and fancrufty, passes notability threshold and is therefore not really a neologism. Eusebeus 16:10, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep It's perhaps the most well-known portion of a notable television show, and is important enough to have 30-some-odd Congressmen appear. I really don't think "created to make The Colbert Report seem more popular than it actually is" is a proper reason for deletion. -- Kicking222 16:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak merge with Colbert Report. --Dennisthe2 17:50, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep and it is in dire need of some well-delayed cleanup. The influence that the BKAD segment has on society is definately there. If Pokémon can have its 450 trading guide up on here, then BKAD has a place here as well. (Thankfully, Wikipedia already comes with all those articles on the U.S. Representatives.) - The Lake Effect 18:17, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Margana 21:44, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep It's been verified thanks to Fox News's and GMA's inability to interpret satire. It's also a major recurring theme of a show that has already involved some thirty members of Congress, each of whom are independently notable.-- danntm T C 22:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep; neither listcruft/Colbertcruft nor a WP:NEO issue. Simply because something is new, or is a coined term, does not make if the type of neologism or protologism that Wikipedia excludes: as a (silly but accurate) thought experiment, imagine that the President of the United States, in a policy speech, announced the creation of a new agency called the Ministry of Truthiness. Believe me, it would justifiably have a Wikipedia article the next day, or more likely, within an hour.) --MCB 23:56, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per everyone. - Lex 01:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, MCB's argument by assertion and tortured analogy notwithstanding, this is EXACTLY listcruft: finely detailed information, of limited to no interest to non-fans, concerning a portion of a larger topic. And bring ing up the Pokemon Fanboy Argument doesn't justify Stephen Colbert Fanboy articles. --Calton | Talk 05:42, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Calton. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:19, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep another part of civics lesson - our govt is strong enough to handle satire, and is composed of 435-ish districts. - satire1 12:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep - I'd prefer to see it merged with the recurring segments article, but that article is long enough as it stands, so it might be better to keep it seperate. Also, as other users have stated, these are interviews with notable politicians. -- Cielomobile minor7♭5 07:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thomas larkin

Originally tagged as a CSD by Heimstern Läufer (talk • contribs • count). The author of the article (Stranger101 (talk • contribs • count)) contested it and gave (what I consider to be) a semi-valid reason on the talk page. After this, another editor Kaustuv (talk • contribs • count) contested it, and reccommended it come to AfD. Personally, I'm sitting on a weak delete, subject to change either way. Daniel.Bryant 03:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Don't Delete: He is indeed quit known to the Youtube community, but he provides people with a normal persons propesctive on the veiws of the world today. Quite frankly, I see no harm in letting him have his own wiki page. He does not have any harm towards the youtube ommunity, and also, he is only increasing in popularity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by XvXAlucardXvX (talk • contribs)
  • Delete: Anyone can become a "star" on YouTube, and this article gives no verification that Larkin has done anything to influence anyone or truly make him notable. Heimstern Läufer 03:46, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: As Daniel.Bryant points out, I originally listed this for speedy. I felt that saying "He is known to the YouTube community" did not count as asserting notability. Apparently not all agree with this, so I'll be a little more conservative in applying this criterion in the future. Heimstern Läufer 17:57, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
      • To be fair, I think CSD A7 was a fine rationale the first time. However, in this case the author reposted the page twice after deletion. I tend to believe a repost following a speedy should automatically force an AfD because it counts as a contested speedy. Per AGF, it is improper to characterise these recreations as "vandalism" because they are violating guidelines, not policy. I therefore also contest the blocking of User:Stranger101. It would have been much better to invite this user to participate in an AfD, which is less obviously antagonistic than big red boxes and the banhammer. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 21:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as not meeting WP:BIO. No mentions of him in a LexisNexis and a ProQuest search. 50 videos on youtube with a mere 60,000 views is pretty low even for youtube celebrities, and not a single one of his youtube videos has ever been a "featured video" on youtube. He thus ranks lower in notability than renetto, boh3m3, and so on, who also don't meet WP:BIO in my opinion. Note: I have made some small cleanups to this article. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 03:50, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete So you post to You Tube. Big deal. Resolute 05:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete ugh. NN. Eusebeus 16:11, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete YouTubecruft. Danny Lilithborne 16:29, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Vanispamcruftisement. SmokyMirror 23:36, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Thomas Larkin is not a youtube "Celebriity" But he is noticed in the youtube community.I dont know of another Thomas Larkin or he hasnt been posted yet.So i say let him have a page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.171.245.27 (talk • contribs)
    • Comment The above annoymous user deleted SmokyMirror's vote and replaced it with his own comment. Danny Lilithborne 01:52, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I would argue that Thomas Larkin is moving toward notability on YouTube, but his notability is marginal there. I do think that we should be more liberal in accepting these popular YouTube entries, but this case has not yet stood the test of time. He is a new user and not known outside of YouTube.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] International School of Management (ISM)

There are many schools called "International School of Management", which have no connection to this one (for example this German school called International School of Management). This one, however, is NOT accredited. Its claims "accreditation" from World Association of Universities and Colleges, which IS NOT recognized by ANY government as legitimate. In fact it will accredit for around a $100 USD. Thus, without this being accredited or a public school it must meet WP:CORP and have WP:RS. Arbusto 03:39, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nomination. Durova 04:41, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I'm sure their diplomas look Mahvelous! - Richfife 04:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. MER-C 08:06, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. The school figures prominently on our List of unaccredited institutions of higher learning, something the nom knows full well. Our list guidelines are fairly clear. They state: "Ideally each entry on the list should have a Wikipedia article but this is not required if it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the future." [33]. It makes very little sense to do lists of institutions - accredited or not - but then seek to delete articles on the underlying components of the lists. Furthermore, the best way to avoid the confusion indicated by this nom is to have an article on the school. Citing WP:Corp is also as stretch, given that most if not all the institutions on List of unaccredited institutions of higher learning would fail wp:Corp. An institution does not get a free ride to be on a list if it does not qualify for an article. --JJay 14:58, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
1) Note the use of the word "ideally" in the sentence you quoted. Perhaps, once this is deleted it should be removed from the List of diploma mills too. 2) Feel free to nominate unaccredited institutions that fail notability. Just because there may be unnotable "unaccredited schools" (I say may because you failed to give examples) that is no reason to give every questionable instituion an ad space on wikipedia. Arbusto 23:27, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
This is really like arguing with a child. If YOU think the list of mills should be put up for afd then YOU do it. If YOU think this is notable YOU should give sources. Arbusto 01:19, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Not a child, although it is a bit childish to start shouting or bolding your comments. I think if we are going to do lists of non-notable diploma mills - and let's admit it, they are all non-notable, meaningless and obscure - we should have articles on those diploma mills so we know what we are talking about. Doing lists of non-notable subjects is a waste of wikipedia time and space. The non-notable diploma mill list needs articles on all its underlying components, per the list guidelines, or it should not exist. --JJay 01:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Then put the list up for afd, and let's see if anyone agrees with you. Before you do see the reasons it was kept: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of unaccredited institutions of higher learning. Arbusto 01:39, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't waste my time nominating articles for deletion. I'm interested in expanding the extent of coverage at wikipedia, based on existing guidelines. However, copying diploma mill names from government websites in order to construct a pseudo-official diploma mill list at wikipedia that goes no further than the name of the school, and then deleting articles on the underlying diploma mills, does a disservice to the users of this reference work. It provides no better information than can already be found in outside databases. It violates both the meaning and spirit of the list guidelines. In my view, it is a sad waste of resources and editors' time. --JJay 01:57, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
That a serious claim perhaps you better deal with it then if it "violates both the meaning and spirit of the list guidelines." I guess if you don't deal with it then the claim is WRONG and smokescreen for you to attack me in another afd nominated by me. Arbusto 02:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
If anyone needs proof JJay is doing this for WP:POINT see his comments on a copy and pasted list at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of ...for Dummies books (2 nomination), which happened to be nominated by me as well. Directly taken off a publishers webpage and the list does not contain wikipedia articles. Arbusto 02:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
I am "dealing with it" by voting to keep this article, just like with the unrelated list you are hammering on about, just like with the vast majority of my participation here. As I said, removing information on topics of interest to wikipedia users, such as this article, does a disservice to users of this reference work. It should be avoided when at all possible. --JJay 01:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn diploma mill. Eusebeus 15:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. To respond to JJay; the arbitrary inclusion of an institution on a list is not an argument for keeping an article about it, since anyone can write an article about a non-notable institution, add the institution to the list, and then argue to keep the article based on it being on the list. That doesn't make a lot of sense, and it seems to me that the article should be judged on the encyclopedic merit of the institution itself, which appears to me to be an unremarkable degree mill. --MCB 00:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • See the list guidelines. We have entire lists of these types of institutions, "unremarkable diploma mills" in your words... They are either worthwhile subjects for listing and, as per the guidelines, articles, or they are not. In that case we should not be wasting our time doing lists of diploma mills- almost all of which are obscure, non -notable, non entities. They all fail wp:corp--JJay 01:14, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • delete as per nom. Pete.Hurd 08:14, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Nufy8 03:43, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hot Girl Magic

No sources listed, plus it sounds an awful lot like Yung Joc's "Dope Boy Magic". Sounds like a hoax to me. Tom Danson 03:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete At the very least it's crystal ballery - Richfife 04:30, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. This probably won't deserve its own article even if it actually gets made. Robert A.West (Talk) 07:06, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above.--Húsönd 15:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Nufy8 03:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Free Haven Band

Fails WP:BAND. De-prodded without comment. -IceCreamAntisocial 03:46, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete NN. Arbusto 04:09, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. MER-C 08:06, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Jll 16:27, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Nufy8 05:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vango Adventure Farm

This article was already deleted once, see this for that debate. Although it's no longer crystal ball-ism, it's still NN.Dismas|(talk) 04:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete "will evolve through 10 phases to possibly become the largest theme park in Norfolk County". That's some pretty faint praise. - Richfife 04:31, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete. Doesn't even come close to meeting notability requirements of WP:CORP, and no credible, third-party refs as required by WP:V. --Satori Son 04:56, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as spam. MER-C 08:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete --Robdurbar 11:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] American Federation of Colleges and Seminaries

I originally created this page thinking this was more notable than it was. However, this is an unrecognized "approver" linked to 6 unaccredited and unnotable schools. It was started by a operator of an unaccredited school in an attempt to give his school legitimacy. I get 67 yahoo hits for "American Federation of Colleges and Seminaries", and that includes wikipedi and its mirrors. Possible accreditation mill and lacks verfiblity. Arbusto 04:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per Arbustoo. Durova 04:39, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Kind of a pity because keeping it could sort of act as a public service, but there's no way to do that without getting into NPOV and OR issues. - Richfife 04:43, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete - CSD G7 (author requested deletion). Tagged as such. MER-C 08:08, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 10:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Godavari Express

An article that lists the stops for a train along its route. Non-notable listcruft. Valrith 04:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Neutral Route has had a semi-famous crash: [34], so article could be minor snark material. The name seems to be understood in that part of the world as common knowledge. - Richfife 04:40, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, article asserts no notability whatsoever. If it's had a crash, then that could be mentioned, but currently it's pure listcruft. JIP | Talk 10:26, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of transportation-related deletions. -- Mereda 10:36, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Mereda 10:36, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep It's a stub within Category:Named passenger trains of India and this express service is certainly cited by name often enough for that, including national-level media coverage. --Mereda 10:36, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep This service is just as notable as other named passenger trains, the article is part of the ongoing work of the Trains and India WikiProjects. Slambo (Speak) 11:57, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Article asserts that this is a famous Indian passenger train and has a reference. That speaks louder than the nom's claim. --JJay 15:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment So assertion is now being treated as equivalent to fact? What an interesting development. I suppose this means there's no longer any need for references to reliable sources, notability standards etc. Tripe. Valrith 04:09, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment. Hm. I deliberately cited The Hindu as a reference when I deprodded it earlier. Mereda 10:10, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - famous railway, notable.Bakaman Bakatalk 23:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - I don't even understand why this has been nominated. Any named passenger train is sufficiently notable for Wikipedia. - Axver 00:33, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep  Doctor Bruno  22:22, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless expanded The article gives no info about the trains history, its significance, its effect to the local economy in the stations it stops. It is just a list of where it stops. The article is just not encyclopedic. It has to give more info like The Ghan or the Rajdhani Express --Ageo020 (talk • contribs • count) 02:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 it. "Keep or merge?" is an editorial debate — continue it on the talk page. — CharlotteWebb 21:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kicaster Creek

Minor geographic feature. Nothing that asserts notability -Nv8200p talk 04:15, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Weak Merge (Is that an option?) to Kicaster, Texas (a ghost town nearby). Neither are terribly notable, but perhaps together they can work - Richfife 04:28, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge per above. --JJay 15:05, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per above. Eusebeus 16:12, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I added references and the category Category:Rivers of Texas. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 07:57, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to Kicaster, Texas. It's an eleven mile long stream (as in, it's geographically classified as a stream). That's really not notable enough for its own article, whether it's put into categories or not. -- Kicking222 12:04, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per WP:LOCAL or keep. Verifiable. JYolkowski // talk 22:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was baleet. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:17, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bamburgers

Deprodded by an anon, with no comment. Couldn't find any references to this term or the people who are claimed to have coined it. "References" is just a list of books that don't seem to exist either. The Bethling(Talk) 04:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as Hoax or Delete as NFT. Decisions, decisions. - Richfife 04:35, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as (likely) WP:HOAX that utterly fails WP:V. --Satori Son 06:21, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Protoneologism at best. NFT applies. Robert A.West (Talk) 07:09, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator. JIP | Talk 10:26, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, the refs section seems to be a hoax.--Nilfanion (talk) 13:22, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. SchuminWeb (Talk) 14:02, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete hoaxalicious. Danny Lilithborne 16:29, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not Urban Dictionary. --Dennisthe2 17:49, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Sounds like a ground young venison patty on a bun.Edison 20:52, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete — per Richfife --Deon555talkReview 22:59, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - WP:NEO, WP:NFT, etc. Ryūlóng 01:57, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete not quite at the protologism stage yet (does that make it an eologism ?). Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:25, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. RFerreira 22:55, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:24, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stargate Atlantis DVD

Wikipedia is a not dvd shopping guide websites--Andd 04:26, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Users can find DVD info through the central article's links - Richfife 04:33, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete crufty and of ephemeral relevance. ENeville 05:10, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - original research. MER-C 08:09, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Unnecessary info, no encyclopaedic content, ad.--Húsönd 15:18, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and redirect to Stargate Atlantis. Alba 17:41, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to Stargate Atlantis. RFerreira 22:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Information contained in article is already duplicated in the "Straight Outta Lynwood" article, so no merge is needed. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 04:05, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Do I Creep You Out

Was not released as a single and is non-notable. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canadian Idiot for a similar debate. Delete as nom. Michael Greiner 04:27, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom, although if it gets released as a single it'll start to look more notable. BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 04:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Recreate if released as a single. Resolute 05:09, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Individual album songs are not inherently notable --keepsleeping slack off! 13:43, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep really? theyre not?? what about all those songs listed under polkarama they all have articles. This article should be expanded on. Barcode 15:03, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
The songs in Polkarama! are all singles that were released as singles, got a lot of radio play, and did well on the charts; otherwise, they wouldn't have been selected for the polka. Of course, feel free to try to expand the article. I understand there might be a music video for it soon. --Maxamegalon2000 17:03, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
the video is on the album(dvd side) and is all over youtube Barcode 20:06, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
If by "all over youtube" you mean that there's one video of a fan singing it and one copy of the official video, then you're probably right (this is in relation to Polkarama). Similar comments can be made about this song as well. BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 22:56, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 21:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Virus removal

How to articles do not belong on Wikipedia. This one doesn't belong anywhere, as the advice is unlikely to help with any real virus infection. This could be a speedy deletion candidate as an advertisement for Hijack This. Mr Adequate 04:49, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom Valoem talk 05:12, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. We may want to have an article on this subject, but none of the current text will be useful. Robert A.West (Talk) 07:14, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. MER-C 08:09, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • DeleteEven if this is and ad for the product, it is not informative. Emeraude 08:55, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator. JIP | Talk 10:27, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete unhelpful, and WP:NOT a set of instructions (these are hardly instructions but I think thats their intention.) --Alex (Talk) 12:29, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per all of the above. Good grief. Michael Kinyon 09:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 16:54, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rocket Arena

  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}}

Article gives no indication of satisfiying WP:SOFTWARE, WP:V or WP:RS Whispering(talk/c) 04:50, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment Due to the sources put in the article I'm retracting my nomination. Whispering(talk/c) 12:40, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Apparently it's a review of this free map, no effort whatsoever made to pass WP:SOFT. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:09, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
    I'm convinced by Hahnchen. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:05, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. As above. Spam for freeware is still spam. Robert A.West (Talk) 07:12, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki if a gaming wiki wants it, else delete. Wikipedia is not a game guide. MER-C 08:10, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep this is a notable modification(If you talk Deathmatch, and the subject of Rocket Arena doesn't come up, the conversation is incomplete) of a game series that is itself notable, not a game guide or advertisement. It'd be one thing if the mod was only made for one game in the series, then I'd say pack it into that article. But Rocket arena is available for all of the Quake series, and there are equivalents in other games, like HL and UT. FrozenPurpleCube 15:13, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Eusebeus 15:44, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, although the article could use some cleanup to make it more encyclopedic. This mod certainly is a long-standing modification for many FPS games. With regard to the issues raised: 1) if it lacks sources, source it; 2) verfiability is hardly an issue since there is only one source (so see number 1 again) and 3) the software criteria are only guidelines (which I believe are met for this mod). I see no case for deletion here other than the highly arbitrary call to gamecruft. See also: [35] Rocket / Clan Arena is released on Sept 25th, 1997 and quickly becomes the 2nd most popular Quake mod and is still popular today. Only CTF is played more than RA. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 16:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Let me explain: this certainly is a long-standing, often played, well-known modification. I never play Quake or Unreal, but I have heard of this mod many times. There are even references to a magazine in the article (and this has been covered in many magazines). Therefore, more should be added, I agree, but that is NO reason for deletion. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 08:14, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Very few game mods are notable. This is one that is. —Wrathchild (talk) 16:22, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - According to Reinoutr, "verfiability is hardly an issue since there is only one source". Only one source? Last I heard, Wikipedia articles needed from non-primary sources. Fails WP:V/WP:RS. Wickethewok 18:07, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Not if there's no dissension about anything. See also the WP:Auto section. Besides, there are plenty of other magazine articles on Rocket Arena. FrozenPurpleCube 22:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - I'm not sure why there's a sockpuppet banner on the top of this nomination, I don't see any invasion, but let's keep in mind that this is a discussion, not a vote when you read my incredibly awesome discussion. Rocket Arena is not a review of a fan-map, it's a deathmatch game concept which has been around since Quake and so popular that versions of it are available for current games. Even though I have never played Rocket Arena, I can tell you exactly what it entails. Just a quick Google gives some links of note, some news items at PCZone [36][37], some random inline mentions in Gamespot [38][39]. I also have a half-page print review in PC Zone of the UT version of the mod and a full page review of the Quake 3 version of the mod. This discussion craps over your votes. - Hahnchen 01:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - Note that there is an old AFD at Talk:Rocket Arena, although whether that is of revelence now is questionable. - Hahnchen 01:51, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - Hahnchen says it best. The Kinslayer 11:51, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Since the nominator has withdrawn the nomination shouldn't this discussion be closed? —Wrathchild (talk) 16:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. As per Hahnchen. Visor 18:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as a very notable game mode. Especially considering the nomination is withdrawn. Themindset 23:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:24, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Abraham Levy

No verifiable sources, probable hoax, providing "back story" related to Raul Julia-Levy (alleged first born son of Raul Julia). The "top landowner between the 1940s to the 1980s", one of the 5 richest men in the world, co-owner of Levi Strauss - but no google hits or any published source to back up any of these claims. Article's creator deleted a "prod" attempt. Rick Block (talk) 04:53, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete possible hoax article. I found no information on this "fifth richiest person" in 1960. Valoem talk 05:05, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and Valoem. Could find other Abraham Levys in Google, but not this "person". 1ne 05:05, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Re-Evaluate per captions for the pictures on the page. If they are translated, they support the article. Sources in Latin America are currently being examined by the family. user:otooledupree (talk) 11:05, 1 October 2006 (PST)
  • Delete. I'm not buying this. First of all, what exactly do these captions say? And as mentioned, it is rather strange that one of the 5 richest men wouldn't show up on google. If someone can come up with sources, I'll re-evaluate, but the picture captions aren't enough for me, especially untranslated. Cool3 18:52, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. No article in Spanish Wikipedia, another indicator of hoax. The Photon 01:31, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. and WP:V. How do we know any of this to be true? EdJohnston 02:31, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:24, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Coilhose Pneumatics

Company advertisement, with no references verifying notability. Article does not pass WP:CORP, and a previous attempt at deletion was just deleted from the page by an anon user. --Elonka 05:08, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:CORP, WP:V, WP:ADVERT, and WP:VANITY. --Satori Son 06:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Durova 06:22, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. MER-C 08:12, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. Their products are sold on amazon [40] and I'd like to at least see if someone can establish notability before we delete the article. I said "weak" because it looks like a corporate vanity article, given who created it. | Mr. Darcy talk 23:17, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Nufy8 05:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cedar Street Family Medical Clinic (Simcoe, Ontario, Canada)

NN business, fails WP:CORP. Dismas|(talk) 05:51, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. There are plenty of places for this. Wikipedia isn't one of them. - Richfife 06:06, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete NN and no assertion. Would qualify for speedy A7. Robert A.West (Talk) 07:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Not a speedy, because A7 doesn't cover corporations. MER-C 08:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. Non-notable business. EdJohnston 02:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FreeCNC

Fails to assert notability. Contested prod. MER-C 06:17, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Per nom. (hits head) Wow! It could have been an A7! Robert A.West (Talk) 07:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
    • No, it could not. Once again: Please actually read that criterion. Uncle G 10:02, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Per nom. The Photon 01:26, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tresta

Fails to assert notability. Contested prod. MER-C 06:24, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as spam. NN company, no third-party sources, most likely none exist. Robert A.West (Talk) 07:21, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above.--Húsönd 15:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete. Robdurbar

[edit] Propensity

Not an article - CrazyRussian talk/email 06:46, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - Not an article and can never be. Someone's non-article about one use of a word - Peripitus (Talk) 07:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Not even a good section for some other article. Robert A.West (Talk) 07:24, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, not an article, useless. This is some kind of nonsense. --Terence Ong (T | C) 07:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete - doesn't even tell me what propensity is. Tagged as such (A1). MER-C 08:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Emeraude 08:52, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Nufy8 23:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Whac Off! 106

Either very non-notable unlisted company or completely made up. No google hits, news articles or anything else to indicate it's real and significant Peripitus (Talk) 07:05, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Based on the creator of the article I'd say that this is a vanity effort also - Peripitus (Talk) 07:09, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia is not the place for things made up on You Tube one day. If this should be kept, the vandalism should be reverted, though. Robert A.West (Talk) 07:32, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - vanispamcruftisement. MER-C 09:28, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - YouTube cruft.--Nilfanion (talk) 15:32, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as nn youtube production group. --Dennisthe2 17:49, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Response My company is real and has been official for 9 years. The YouTube thing is only a recent addition to Whac Off! as it has only existed since the start of the year and the only thing that was specifically made for YouTube was the Matty And Deveski YouTube Show, and was created for non-profit purposes only and was made for fun nothing else, which is why I haven't advertised it offically on Google etc. The person who vandalised my page was a lonely loser who used my reputation for his own reasons, as he has no talent or motivation to suceed other than being a telemarketer loser, and being highly competitive and envious of anyone who isn't 27 and still living with their parents. Anyone who wants copies of the Whac Off! series which is free can email me on edrnet@hotmail.com, and I'll send it. With the world is disarray, comedy is our only thing which makes it livable. Thankyou Joel --trema_inc 17:49, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete. Robdurbar 11:05, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fred Astor

NN bio. No Google hits seem to refer to a dramatist. No Google hits at all for the alternative name "Gerald Astoria" Nehwyn 07:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. This doesn't even make a colorable claim of notability. Robert A.West (Talk) 07:35, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete - CSD A7. Tagged as such. MER-C 08:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete, either a hoax or mistake, no Ghits for his basic biographic data. MaxSem 09:26, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 14:13, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Norfolk County municipal election, 2006

A county municipal election is not notable enough for me. If there is a guideline for this, I couldn't find it. Dismas|(talk) 08:01, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep. There are a number of other articles on municipal elections in other cities (check the category), and they give coverage and information to those interested in politics. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:28, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I see the cat, although I'd like to see what happens with this afd before proceeding with a larger scale afd. I don't believe county level elections are notable enough. Dismas|(talk) 10:26, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete agree with nom. Are we going to have coverage of every local election in every jurisdiction across ther globe? Eusebeus 16:13, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. This is crystalballing as well - the election hasn't even started yet. What's more, Norfolk county only has a population of [Norfolk County, Ontario|60,847]. Ultra-Loser Talk | BT sites 06:34, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Um, no, not crystal-balling. These people are running, as the time for new candidates has been cut off. -- Zanimum 20:46, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is probably too large a topic to add to the Norfolk County article, so I would keep it as a stand-lone article. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 07:38, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I realize Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, but if you've actually spent two seconds in Wikipedia, one would realize how many articles we have on future elections. Just try and delete U.S. Presidential election, 2008. -- Earl Andrew - talk 18:20, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment, that's a national election though. This article is for just one small county. How small will we go? Dismas|(talk) 21:06, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Well, that's a matter of debate. It's my personal opinion, that Norfolk County qualifies. It should also be noted that this isn't even the smallest municipality with its own election article. -- Earl Andrew - talk 07:14, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Do we need to report on Wiki the results of every election? I don't think so. Let's avoid electioncruft. Vegaswikian 17:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Why not? Wikipedia is not paper. Obviously, smaller municipalities if they have articles, should be merged with other in their county or census division, but in the case of Norfolk, it's an entire census division, so it's too large to merge with anything else. -- Earl Andrew - talk 17:44, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Factual, verifiable, and most importantly keeps people civicly minded in an era of indifference. -- Zanimum 20:44, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Zanimum. In time, however, I hope that many of these articles can be merged, so tht this year's election page and the next election page and so on and on might become simply one page. Badbilltucker 21:45, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
    • So that it becomes a huge maintenance task? Why not just start it that way? Dismas|(talk) 22:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. W.marsh 16:14, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Metti

3rd party candidate of little note. Unlikely to win any election, and seems to have little national coverage. ghits: [41] NMChico24 08:12, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep per: Terjen (Has several pages of Google references, has run for office four times previously. Wikipedia is a strange place, where there are Featured Articles about video games and an article about a candidate for U.S. Senate in the most populous state in the USA is listed for deletion less than 24 hours after being created. It seems to me that sufficient verifiable information about this candidate (Wikipedia:Candidates and elections) might emerge during the campaign and someone might add this to the article. This is borderline for me, but seems premature). --Paul 09:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Clear precedent indicates that being a failed candidate does not in itself provide grounds for notability. Usually, candidates for major office have achieved notability elsewhere; definitely not in this case, however. Eusebeus 16:15, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete No notable independant news sources, few ghits, fails WP:BIO and the hundcred year test. No independant verifiable sources. Maybe he can get an article when he does something noteworthy. Ultra-Loser Talk | BT sites 06:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Has 15,000+ ghits[42] when including the middle initial in the search, many more than assumed above. Terjen 16:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per cited failed candidate rationale and failure of WP:BIO. Erechtheus 08:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep running for Senate on a recognized party ticket is notable. It's not that easy to get on the ballot. California voters interested in an alternative to the Democrats and Republicans, or any number of others interested in politics, might find a Wikipedia article useful. It would be far from neutral to delete all U.S. third party candidates as non-notable, as editors above seem to be proposing. It would be useful if editors who think the guy fails WP:BIO rules on candidates (itself a guideline not a policy) would explain why. Kalkin 19:26, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
    • His party affiliation has nothing to do with this nomination. He seems to have accomplished little of note other than launch a futile campaign for Senate. If he is elected, or does something else to garner national coverage and recognition, then he would merit an article. Simply running for office doesn't cut it. --NMChico24 20:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Has thousands of ghits[43]. Likely to get several hundred thousand votes in the upcoming election. Comparable third-party candidates in the same race with entries in WP includes Todd Chretien and Marsha Feinland. Substantial verifiable material can be expected to emerge during the campaign. I suggest suspending the AfD process until after the November 2006 election. Terjen 17:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I haven't been following this Senate race, but Metti seems notable enough. —Sesel 23:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus, so keep for now. (aeropagitica) 09:13, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brittany Chan

The case doesn't make any claim for the cases' notability. If this changes then I'd be delighted. There doesn't seem to be any notability criterion for law cases. JASpencer 08:30, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep the case is one of many lawsuits involved in the RIAA's campaign against casual file sharing. I'd say that's notable. Mitaphane talk 03:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Extremely borderline keep she's out there, but I can't find any independant, verifiable and NPOV news sources. The thing that sets her apart from the rest of the sued downloaders is that her case was dismissed. Scrapes WP:BIO (second criteria from the bottom). Ultra-Loser Talk | BT sites 06:59, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom -- the criterion for establishing notability is not to simply be a defendant in a court case. Yes, she's young and yes, the case was dismissed, but she's at best a note within the Recording Industry Association of America article. SkerHawx 19:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete At best, the article should be Priority Records v. Brittany Chan. since it is the case that is notable, not the defendant. However, there is so little in this article and it is unlikely that there will ever be much more so Delete, merging into an article about the RIAA lawsuits if such an article exists as I have to believe it does. --Richard 04:49, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep or possibly merge into a related article. This was certainly a notable case which embarassed the RIAA two different ways: firstly for suing a young child, then when the case was dropped. Deserves to be covered somewhere. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:45, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Are there any notability standards on court cases? JASpencer 16:22, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Not that I know of. If I had to make a general statement, though, I'd say that cases which make national or international news would usually be kept, while ones with only local attention usually wouldn't. Of course, if any of the participants are notable, it could be mentioned in their article. For example, the Nick Nolte article mentions his drunk-driving arrest even though it was by no means a major or important crime. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:22, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
So the test is essentially (at least for recent cases) how much media coverage they produce or whether they have a notable party? It seems to work - although the issue of precedence is important. JASpencer 18:35, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:38, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Peake Apparel

Seems to have no importance. Only external link is to the company website; nothing links to it. I have tidied the page, but see no reason for it to remain in Wikipedia. Emeraude 08:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete: makes no assertion of notability. David Mestel(Talk) 09:22, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per David Mestel. Not a speedy because CSD A7 doesn't cover corporations. MER-C 09:27, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
    What is a corporation but a group of people? David Mestel(Talk) 09:29, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
    A corporation is not but a group of people; it is a legally constituted organisation that has an existence over and above the people that form it.
    Oh, WP:SNOW, anyways. David Mestel(Talk) 10:37, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:38, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Corkman Irish Pub, Carlton

An irish-themed pub located in Melbourne, Australia which isn't notable for anything of an encyclopedic nature. Was previously listed for deletion in March 2006 and kept, which I noticed after this listing at AfD. Still, I don't see any encyclopedic significance in this hotel. -- Longhair\talk 08:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete -- Longhair\talk 08:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Longhair\talk 09:34, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - the first AfD was a fairly overwhelming keep as a historic hotel and building in Melbourne, and I don't see that anything's changed since then. --Canley 10:13, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Perhaps nothing has changed. That said, there's 50+ hotels in my home town of Geelong (an hour from Melbourne) that are "historical", ie, constructed during the 1800's. I'd not dream of ever creating an article on any of them unless something of note surfaced about their history. They're simply hotels. Wikipedia is not a pub guide. -- Longhair\talk 10:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
If it's true, the relationship of the pub to the local area and especially to the Carlton and United Brewery would make it reasonably notable I should think, at the very least at a local level. I don't get why this article has been nominated for deletion again after already surviving one vote - that's not on if there is no additional reason why deletion is warranted (unless supporting sources can be shown to say that the article's contents are bogus... in which case deletion is more than warranted). So please tell us - why delete it? I don't think people here value local history very highly. Yes, the article needs a cleanup, but deletion, no. I'm sick of people nominating articles again just because they don't like something on here. Can you please outline why this should be deleted now when the first AfD debate held an overwhelming consensus? (JROBBO 10:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC))
Comment: I've told you once in the nomination, but I'll tell you again as you've obviously missed it. "I don't see any encyclopedic significance in this hotel". The wording in the article makes a claim that isn't supported, like "probably aided in the consolidation of the brewery". Probably could mean it's probably true, or probably not. We're not here to decide. Ignoring those claims in the article and judging the rest, to me it reads like a pub with no claim to notability whatsoever, and Wikipedia is not a pub guide. -- Longhair\talk 10:32, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm not arguing against "Wikipedia is not a pub guide". It's not worth it if it were just an article about a pub. It well may be, but you have not established that. I am asking you about those claims, as it is these that establishes notability of the pub, not the rest of the article. I have said that there MAY be merit in examining the claims about the connection with the CUB Brewery. What you have given on this AfD is merely your own opinion that "I don't think it's encyclopedic." However that is not a reason for deletion on WP if it is your opinion that it is encyclopedic. Did you do any research on the pub besides running a Google search and check whether it was worth deleting or whether the historical claims had any notability at all? I gather you haven't. All I am asking is that you establish a definite claim to non-notability before you nominate an article for deletion that has already survived one debate. If there is no evidence that it is not notable it shouldn't be renominated. I think there are a lot of worthy articles with local history that are deleted just because people in another state or country have never heard of them. International interest is not the only thing served on this site, you know. (JROBBO 05:36, 5 October 2006 (UTC))
You might have missed my comment below: "Suggestions that it has high historical value appear to be unsupportable, as it does not appear on the Victorian Heritage Register or the Victorian Heritage Inventory." I think that qualifies as the kind of research you're talking about. Snottygobble 05:43, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Why do I need to do the research? Evidence of any notability should already be included in the article. If there's anything notable about this hotel that surfaces, then recreate the article, including evidence of that notability. It's that simple. For now, it has no notability whatsoever IMHO, just unsupported claims. I'm all for local history - but not when it's just a random collection of unproven facts. As someone else has already said below, "not a lot of thought went on in the last AfD", and I agree. At least this time around we're giving the article some scrutiny - and still, no evidence whatsoever of notability has surfaced. -- Longhair\talk 05:58, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Comment: I am with JROBBO on this one. We will never know whether our learned friends put much thought into the last AfD as we only have their comments to go on. Either way though the outcome was clear - 2 delete vs 15 keep. I think we are treading on dangerous ground if articles can be re-nominated AfD (when there has been no material change to content and the information has not been disproven) just because we don't agree with the previous outcome. This seems like double jeopardy. If, as the article suggests, this is an Australian establishment with 150 years of heritage then it has local history value even if it doesn't get the right Google hits or it isn't listed on the VHR. I do agree however that some further work may be neede to uncover notability and a rename is required for it to come up to standard. amitch 14:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Comment Please see WP:CCC. AFD is a verification and quality control process for encyclopedia articles not a criminal trial for human beings, so double jeopardy doesn't apply. Bwithh 22:10, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - I just don't see it as notable enough for an article. --Roisterer 10:18, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - The first AfD seemed to build consensus that this building has local importance. I believe establishments like this are part of the historical fabric of inner city suburbs and would be of interest to readers. I do think the article needs some work (as per WP:LOCAL), references, a picture and a redirect to Carlton Inn (which it was called for 150 years). amitch 13:37, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as in last AfD. Billy Blythe 15:06, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete as per nom. Very limited discussion in the previous afd - arguments in favour were that the pub has a website and gets some google hits; it's quite old; and let's believe what the article says at inflated face value. I don't see any evidence of encyclopedic notability or even claim to encyclopedic notablility. The claims to fame boil down to 1) it was one of the first pubs existing outside the city centre in Melbourne. No claim here even that it might be one of the very first pubs in Melbourne. No verifiable evidence given that this building is historically notable for its architecture. 2) a theory about the connection with Carlton beer and the suburb Carlton which the article states has been disproved 3) Speculation ("probably") introduced as historical fact that the pub "aided" the early business of a local brewery (I doubt that one brewery can survive just depending on one pub, and even if the relationship was that crucial, this is hardly encyclopedic). 4) the first pub owner was a postman at the university (not notable) 5) a local football club held their reunion in the pub in 1995 (not notable) 6) students and staff at the local university like it (not notable) Bwithh 15:15, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn pubcruft. Eusebeus 16:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
    • You say you live in Montreal... can you please tell us what you know about the non-notability a Melbourne pub? (JROBBO 10:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC))
  • Delete nn pub. As much as I enjoy drinking, there doesn't really seem to be anything particularly notable about this place. Lankiveil 00:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC).
  • Delete. Per Eusebius. Rebecca 06:39, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. 117 ghits, most of which are pub guides that simply list the address. Not alot of thought went on in the last AFD, as far as I can tell. Ultra-Loser Talk | BT sites 07:06, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Suggestions that it has high historical value appear to be unsupportable, as it does not appear on the Victorian Heritage Register or the Victorian Heritage Inventory. Snottygobble 00:41, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete --Peta 02:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. A friend of mine, sadly now deceased, used to manage the place. But that doesn't make it notable either. --Robert Merkel 13:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 16:56, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] David Asimov

At best, article fails notability, and some versions were negative and poorly sourced. If the article could be left as it stands, (just date of birth, son of Isaac Asimov), I guess it would be a harmless nonnotable spot on Wikipedia's hard drive, but I fear the stub will be a springboard for more poorly sourced negative edits. Rich 08:53, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. David Mestel(Talk) 09:21, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. MER-C 09:56, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep; marginally notable individual who happens to have some negative information about him that was fairly well sourced in the older version of the article.--Prosfilaes 10:15, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
    Being the son of someone famous isn't enough to make you notable. David Mestel(Talk) 10:34, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
    Mere relation is rarely but sometimes sufficient, but the relatives of the famous frequently become notable by actions that would go unnoted if done by others. I believe the notability argument goes out the window when you're talking about articles made by people unrelated to and personally unfamiliar with the the subject. They're notable, or the article wouldn't have been made.--Prosfilaes 10:52, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Older versions were not well sourced, and the idea that articles are automatically notable when made by those unfamiliar with the subject is untenable. Michael Kinyon 12:53, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Problems with sourcing information do not justify deletion. -- Four Dog Night 13:18, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, at least for maintaining his father's papers and possessions. Billy Blythe 15:06, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Mention can be made at Isaac Asimov and this can be turned into a redirect. Eusebeus 15:43, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Poorly sourced articles on living persons are a bad thing. Anville 17:24, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Does not add anything to Wikipedia. FCYTravis 18:29, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is a somewhat tricky situation. As the article stands now, it is probably a speedy under CSD:A7 (to me, at least, mere relation to a notable person is not an assertion of notability). However, it's probably necessary to look at the previous version of the article, taking WP:BLP into consideration, and determining whether the several factors (being the son of a famous person + the [well-sourced] allegations of criminal conduct + the [poorly-sourced] report of conviction on at least some charges) add up to suitability for a Wikipedia article, and I would conclude that they simply aren't. --MCB 20:37, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete An unemployed recluse living on $3,000/month from his father's estate, accused of a misdemeanor, is non-notable.Edison 20:57, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. He's the otherwise unnotable son of someone famous, whose brief moment of infamy was only picked up because he's the son of someone famous, which gave it a news hook. If he'd been the son of someone who worked in the Men's Wear department at Sears, this story wouldn't have gotten past a 3-graf item buried in the local daily. --Calton | Talk 06:24, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • So? Rosemary Kennedy, Nicole Brown Simpson, and Ronald Goldman are three people who would be completely non-notable except for their relation to a famous person. Whether it should be notable is completely POV and should never been an issue for Wikipedia; the quesion is whether they are.--Prosfilaes 12:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • If you're trying to make a counterargument, try to use examples that actually bear the slightest relation to it: Nicole Brown Simpson, and Ronald Goldman are non-notable except for their relation to a famous person in the same way Lee Harvey Oswald is completely non-notable except for his relation to a famous person. --Calton | Talk 02:15, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Except that LHO actually did something. Those three were just victims. The end-all and be-all of Ron Goldman's notability is that he was killed at a famous crime that was famous because it was allegedly commited by a famous person.--Prosfilaes 10:07, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Merely being the son of someone famous does not automatically make him famous as well. Only having 283 ghits doesn't help much either. Ultra-Loser Talk | BT sites 07:10, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Looks like a textbook example of Merge/redirect to me. The current one-line stub would be better placed as a line in the article on the venerable Isaac. Grutness...wha? 08:38, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
    • It's already there. --MCB 21:57, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Calton StuartDouglas 11:17, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and redirect to Isaac Asimov, particularly to a section dealing either with his family or with his papers. I'm sorry to hear that his son isn't doing much with his life but that's non-notable for Wikipedia; meanwhile, redirects are cheaper and more useful than anti-recreation page protections. Alba 17:44, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
    If something is notable for the world, it's notable for Wikipedia. Anti-recreation page protections should be used to protect vanity and ad pages from recreation, not to prevent the creation of a page people are actually interested in.--Prosfilaes 18:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Let me rephrase. This article belongs in the Isaac Asimov article until it becomes sufficiently notable on its own to merit a separate article. David Asmiov's only notability is his father. Therefore material on David should go under his father's article until circumstances merit otherwise. A redirect will efficiently underline this point. Alba 20:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • If something is notable for the world, it's notable for Wikipedia. Good point. Since this isn't notable for the world, out it should go. --Calton | Talk 02:15, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I disagree with those above who believe that some of the negative information in the article was well sourced or fairly well sourced. Most important, the quote was attributed to an unnamed officer. That is pretty hard to falsify, especially given David Asimov's low notability. A newspaper (or possibly reckless mouthed officer) is on safe ground. I mean, if he had been the son of a famous active politician with supporters and rivals, various parts of the press would cared enough to do further digging, which would give partial braking action on the unattributed quote. By the way, I think that "average" offspring of famous people rarely get press coverage, hence notability, unless the famous person is an active politician. Rich 00:06, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Since this is the sort of thing that comes up in interpreting WP:BLP, it's worth a little bit of analysis. I don't know if it's my post you're referring to above, but basically there were three negative items in the previous version(s) of the article: (1) that the subject was charged with a crime; (2) that a police officer commented on the nature and quantity of the evidence against him; and (3) that he was convicted of a crime, possibly as a result of a plea bargain. Item (1) was uncontestedly well sourced, via a reputable newspaper reporting on verifiable matters of record. Item (2) is well sourced as to the fact of the officer's allegation, but not necessarily as to the fact of the matter referred to. Under WP:BLP we probably should not use it even as to the allegation, unless corroborated. Item (3) appeared only in tertiary sources, that is, quotes from news reports that were not sufficiently identified to permit verification, and at least one was from an attack/advocacy site which is manifestly not a reliable source. This is the type of analysis that, I believe, BLP requires. --MCB 01:02, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
      • You're right.Rich 01:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and Merge verifiable information into his father's page. Badbilltucker 21:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • As has been pointed out in a number of AfDs, "merge and delete" is not a permitted option in AfD, since the GFDL requires retention of the edit history of the previous article. Thus, if an article is formally merged as you suggest, a redirect to Isaac Asimov would need to be left in place. As a practical matter, the information in the sub-stub is already there, so this article can simply be deleted. --MCB 23:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
You're right, my apologies, I should have used other, less official, wording. I was trying to imply that the creator of the page could put in some reference to the now-deleted arrest/conviction into the father's article if it were phrased in a non-objectionable way. But at this point, given the single event of notability of the son, creating a redirect would be pointless, particularly if his father's page is the only one he would be mentioned on anyway. Badbilltucker 13:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete if that's all there is to say about him. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:46, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 16:55, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Senuti

Software advert, does not meet WP:WEB criteria. Nehwyn 09:14, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about the deletions. Didn't know about it. Sr13 10:24, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
A question- Should Senuti be an article at all because of deletion guidelines (Senuti is Web content)? Sr13 10:31, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: I didn't make this article to sell something- just an informative article about a Mac/PC application. This product is not widely known yet; giving a good reason why I don't have much info. But it's out there. Sr13 19:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Passes WP:SOFTWARE. Subject of multiple articles in Macworld[44] [45] also mentioned/recommended in multiple mainstream non-computer press (though not featured). For example: cnn.com[46] and Boston Globe[47]. Article probably needs cleanup, but subject is notable. --- The Bethling(Talk) 23:06, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Articles for deletion archives This is an archive of a closed deletion discussion for the article Chris Chamberlin. Please do not modify it. The result of this discussion was delete, however the article has was re-created as the subject now meets the WP:MUS requirements. The article has again be deleted at the request of the author. The actual discussion is hidden from view for privacy reasons. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ebionite Restoration Movement

Non-notable subject Alecmconroy 21:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment: This seems to be a very small religious group. After an extensive discussion, the content was removed from the "Ebionite" article for lack of notability, and was transferred to its own page, with the understanding that after a period of time, an AFD nomination would be made to see if the content merits inclusion in the encyclopedia. After about a month, I haven't seen anything that convinces me that the group is sufficiently notable. --Alecmconroy 21:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete - It may be a distinct religious movement, but the article does not make this clear. If it did I would vote to keep. JASpencer 07:29, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and merge the Ebionite Jewish Community article (also up for deletion) into this one. IZAK 06:38, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete small religious group of no demonstrated importance.--Peta 04:12, 27 September 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 10:12, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I should mention-- when I say this is a "very small religious group", our best guess is we're talking 1-2 members total, such that this article borders on being a vanity page. --Alecmconroy 11:10, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn group, WP:V. Eusebeus 16:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Eusebeus. Pan Dan 20:05, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Alec made the case for lack of notability very well during an RFC with extensive discussion. Ovadyah 21:03, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless clear evidence of group being a real "movement" large enough to verify notability is introduced. Me and my brother haven't but the "Alpha Centaurians for Jesus" page in here yet, and we have two people, two cats and a dog with delusions of grandeur. Badbilltucker 21:54, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Existence not verifiable outside of a webpage of the alleged group. Jayjg (talk) 00:16, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Problems of fame and faith

This 'subject' does not seem to me to warrant an article. The information in it could possibly be added to the articles on the individuals named. Nothing links to this page, and I fail to see how anything could. Emeraude 10:17, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't usually like deleting articles, but I have to agree that this one (which I created, though I didn't write it) doesn't fit. It was originally an appendage to another article (which has since been deleted), where it stuck out like a sore thumb, so I moved it here. But I won't be sorry to see it go. David Cannon 12:09, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not encyclopedic, more like an essay. --Alex (Talk) 12:31, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Hello32020 12:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete under CSD G7, OR. David Cannon is only significant contributor to the article and seems to agree with the deletion.--Nilfanion (talk) 13:32, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: I am not actually the author of the article. Somebody else wrote it and tacked it, inappropriately in my opinion, onto another article. I didn't want to offend him by deleting it, so I moved it to its own article. But I'm happy to see it go. David Cannon 02:59, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per extremely clear OR and the above. -Markeer 14:49, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Original research. eaolson 22:24, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and comments above. RFerreira 22:58, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - today's featured article. ➨ ЯEDVERS 11:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This amounts to a plot summary of a video game, and video games are not notable.--James M. 11:09, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete.--James M. 11:11, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Defer until it is off the front page! This is today's featured article!! If possible, speedy keep. Carcharoth 11:17, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 16:13, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Harken, Inc.

This appears to be a simple company advertisement (spam). I'm not sure whether it should be deleted or not - so I thought the best way forward was to put it up for discussion at AfD MidgleyDJ 11:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. I beg to differ, because any business that isn't of Microsoft proportions that has a page here then is arguably spam. This company is very well known internationally among racing sailors, and I was surprised to see it didn't have an article. Anyway, I can see removing the "dominant" part (even though that is factual...definitely for AC boats, and I'm 99% sure for Olympic non-1D classes), or taking out the logo's slogan (not sure if part of original logo--from site), but outright deletion seems...odd. Anyway, if there's any specific promotional bent to it, definitely feel free to correct it. Antije 11:37, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment: It's worth looking over the guidelines for WP:Corp and WP:Notability. I'm unsure whether Harken, Inc. meets the criteria for listing in WP:Corp, but this isnt my area of experience. MidgleyDJ 11:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Thanks for taking the time to point that out to me, I was actually just trying to find more on the policy. Anyway, I am fairly certain it meets the first of the criteria. I remember seeing at least product reviews in Sailing World magazine or something of that ilk, and I've heard or read the story before (got most of the included details from the web though). Just looking at their site though briefly, looks like they've won the WI Governor's business awards a couple times, as well as the "Company of the Decade" award 01 for the marine industry. Either way, as I said, it's a highly recognizable name in racing sailors and probably the majority of crusiers as well. Of course I'm biased since I just spent a bunch of time putting together the article, but it seems pretty clear-cut all the same. Antije 12:06, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Harken may not be a household name, but it is globally recognized in the sailing community. Young sailors just starting out will notice their boats are most likely Harken equipped and for older, more experienced racers it is often the brand of choice when they seek to equip their boats. That being said, please note that I am not employed in any way by Harken or the maritime industry. Although I'm not 100% sure I also strongly suspect that Harken sponsors regattas and other sailing events in communities around the world. I think it deserves an article on Wikipedia. Quintana 11:00, 1 October 2006 (Eastern Time)
Comment:Taking cues from above--I should note that I have been employed in the marine industry, but it was the retail end and over 10 years ago. I am not an employee of this company. Anyway, I will leave the rest of the discussion to you guys, unless clarification is needed. I will however, include some links of "multiple [published] independent sources." Some mentions could probably be classified as trivial, some not. (For example, it is consistently listed in boat reviews as the selected hardware. Individual articles are probably trivial, but it's clear they are a major player and noteworthy brand.)
"Harken brothers-Sailing World Hall of Fame"
"AC Cup mention (SW)"
"AC Cup mention (SW)"
"~57 mentions in Sailing Mag articles"
"One of many Sail Mag mentions" Also see Blue Water Sailing Mag and 48 deg North.
"'"The Harken" regatta - International Youth Match Racing Championship" (Also, yes, I can confirm they are major and regular regatta sponsors)
"Harken Observatory, non-sailing philanthropy"
"Harken's Innovation Created International Market for Sailing Gear"
"One of several Practical Sailor/BoatUS publication gear reviews" Antije 19:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Please note that the official stance on acceptance criteria for corporate articles has recently hardened. See "Corporate vanity policy enforcement" by Brad Patrick, General Counsel and Interim Executive Director of the Wikimedia Foundation. I'm remaining neutral on this particular vote at this time. Bwithh 15:27, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Comment: After reviewing Brad's memo on Corporate Vanity I feel that the argument for keeping the Harken article is strengthened. The article does not seek to deface, insult or slander Harken, and at the same time it is not a marketing ploy to promote any of Harken's products. I feel that the article is more informative and educational on how Harken was founded, company history, and where Harken products are used. If the article needs to be edited further to remove any apparent marketing pitches please proceed, but I do not think it should be deleted if we are to follow Brad's guidelines and the Wikipedian spirit. User:Quintana 11:44, 1 October 2006 (Eastern Time)
  • Delete. The article reads too much like an advertisement, and I believe it won't have much general appeal. Sailing is interesting, but specific makers of sailing equipment don't seem very interesting. This company appears to make good stuff, but you don't expect to get product advice from Wikipedia. EdJohnston 15:20, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, this doesn't read significantly like an advert to me and they appear to be notable in their field. I would like to see a few more third party references though. Thryduulf 15:40, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Petros471 15:36, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Atheocracy

Neologism about a concept that is better dealt with at state atheism--T. Anthony 05:42, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:37, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - 35700 ghits, none in the top ten outside Wikipedia or blogs. MER-C 13:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination and WP:NEO. Wikipedia doesn't need to be the publicizer of proposed new words. EdJohnston 15:10, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 these, merge possible. W.marsh 16:07, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Golly! Ghost!

obscure none notable game will never be anything beyond a stub--M8v2 02:20, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:37, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - fails to assert notability. MER-C 13:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. On Wikipedia, all video games should be notable. Billy Blythe 15:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Released by Namco, that is probably enough to assert notability.--Húsönd 15:14, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Isdoc 15:51, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn 15-yr old game. Eusebeus 16:22, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I certainly disagree that all video games should be notable, but I think Billy more likely means ones released officially on consoles and arcade games. While I agree to a point, I think in certain cases many games might be best done up as single pages. Certainly there's no reason the two games in this series can't be combined into one, and I agree that being by Namco helps its case. As for anything beyond a stub? Well, no, it could theoretically be expanded, with screenshots and all. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 16:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep It's a real game, it may not be extensively described, but it should still exist. Still, I wouldn't mind if the two articles were combined, the two games aren't that different. FrozenPurpleCube 21:12, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: lack of notability by itself is not a reason to delete, and the precedent is that commercial arcade games get articles. Merge the information from Golly! Ghost! 2 into this article, to provide more context and keep all the information on the series together in one convenient place. — Haeleth Talk 12:14, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 these, merge possible. W.marsh 16:08, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Golly! Ghost! 2

Obscure none notable game will never be anything but a stub--M8v2 02:17, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:37, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - fails to assert notability. MER-C 13:05, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. On Wikipedia, all video games should be notable. Billy Blythe 15:08, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Isdoc 15:51, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep but redirect to the original article. The two games probably only warrant a single article, but they should get one. FrozenPurpleCube 21:14, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge into Golly! Ghost!. Where there's so little to say about individual games in a series, it makes sense to have one larger article that provides all the information in one convenient place, rather than forcing people to click between several stubs. — Haeleth Talk 12:10, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Merge and delete is not a valid option, so as I couldn't find anything that was significant in this article to merge I've gone down on the delete side. Petros471 15:45, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of the Muslim Empires

Two full fledged and fleshed out articles already exist which cover the same material Timeline of Muslim history & Muslim history. Tigeroo 12:44, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge any useful content, then delete as redundant. MER-C 13:06, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and delete per above. Ultra-Loser Talk | BT sites 07:21, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and delete, duh! Alba 17:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Redundant to the existing articles, and is so short it is unlikely to contain anything they do not. The author should be invited to help improve the existing articles. EdJohnston 15:28, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Petros471 15:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] M.U.S.H.A. Aleste

Well this article hasn't improved in long time. Also doesn't seem important enough to meet Wikipedia's standards! Also it does not contain enough information. ShadowKinght (Talk?!?) 03:56 1 October 2006 (UTC)

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - fails to assert notability. MER-C 13:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. No claim of notability, article has not been worked on in four months, very short. The game dates from 1990, so unless this was a very well-written article, I'm not sure of the interest. EdJohnston 15:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oprius Software

May fail WP:WEB. Alexa.com shows rank as 255,365; not too bad, not too good. Company appears to be expanding by graph, though. Patstuart 03:45, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Company and product is new, but starting to gain a lot of attention. It is featured on the front page of TurboGears here. Also has some independent blog posts written about it. You can see the start of the climb on Alexa.com FooManChu55 9:08, 29 September 2006 (PST)

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:39, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - fails to assert notability. Not a website, but a corporation thus not a speedy (yet). MER-C 13:10, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete no indication it pases WP:CORP or WP:SOFT. Eusebeus 16:23, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pseudo-Avars

  • del, a POV fork by user:Kaz from Eurasian Avars. It looks like he hates the term "Eurasian Avars" and replaces them by "Pseudo-Avars" without much discussion. I have no idea where his pet idea came from, but surely it is far from absolute truth to be propagated everywhere in wikipedia. I would also like to remark that this is utterly ridiculous to apply the term "Pseudo-Avars" to a people that lived way much earlier than modern Caucasian Avars. `'mikka (t) 03:00, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • del. Classic case of POV fork. --Irpen 03:26, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:39, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, POV fork. The last section seems nonsensical to me.--Nilfanion (talk) 15:30, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. There are serious POV problems with Kaz's edits. --Ghirla -трёп- 15:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Mikka and Ghirla et al. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 18:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Theodore Pappalardo

No assertion of notability, just of high affiliation. Djcartwright 05:47, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Abstain. I've just restored it per the user's request with the caveat that it would probably not survive long. - Lucky 6.9 07:57, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Thank you. I'm working on it, hopefully adding significant info that will make it notable enough for retention. Toniskids 09:10, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:39, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

What does that DumbBOT "imcomplete/listed" post mean? (Yes, I'm a newbie, I'm sorry.) Does that mean the article is still marked for deletion? I've added further facts and citations. Is there anything else I can/should do, or will the article be deleted in X number of days regardless?

Thanks .... Toniskids 16:30, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Toniskids: It's a procedural thing; articles nominated for deletion need to be listed on a couple pages, and the nominator forgot one or more of those steps. Zetawoof(ζ) 21:56, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Didn't "forget" anything. It was speedy-deleted in mid-process, and then restored later. I didn't bother to finish trying to delete an article that didn't exist anymore; wasn't counting on the possibility that it be restored later. Djcartwright 01:39, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Too long to be a stub, but still nothing demonstrating notability. The Photon 01:19, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, even in view of the additions since it was nominated, it still reads like a magazine article instead of an encyclopedia article, and doesn't explain why R. T. Pappalardo is notable in and of himself. Djcartwright 01:43, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wirthing

Rather incoherent, most of the links on this page redirect back upon themselves, no context provided, etc Lankiveil 23:58, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:40, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Almost a speedy. MER-C 13:22, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, no context provided. Part of a walled garden - only circular redirects link into this article.--Nilfanion (talk) 15:29, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as context-free nonsense. Make sure to clean up the redirects. Zetawoof(ζ) 21:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • The article doesn't explain what its subject is; nor does it cite sources from which such an explanation can be found. Looking, I cannot find anything, either. Unverifiable. Delete. Uncle G 11:19, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 but sources are required. (aeropagitica) 20:40, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aina Erlander

Article about a person who has no notability outside of who she married. Fails WP:BIO. Valrith 11:57, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment: As the wife of a prime minister who served for 23 years, she was a well-known, public figure. Category:Spouses of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom seems to supply some precedence for this type of article. up+land 12:31, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Uppland. MER-C 13:23, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. If she was that much of a well-known public figure, more than 133 people would be talking about her. I don't know much about the swedish press, but I don't think that many of those hits are from independant verifiable news sources. Ultra-Loser Talk | BT sites 07:24, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. As a Swede, she's notable enough for the original article in Swedish Wikipedia [48]. --Mereda 10:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Which is also entirely unsourced. There can't be any notability without verifiability via reliable sources. Valrith 20:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Fair comment. But there are reliable sources to verify her existence as a PM's spouse, including a photo at [49], so there are two questions. Is being a famous spouse sufficient? In this case, I think so (per Uppland's comment and the indicative fact that the Swedes haven't nominated the article for deletion) - let's see if there's a consensus view on that. Separately, does her chairmanship of a national organisation [50] meet WP:BIO? I'll try asking someone who reads Swedish to have a quick look. Mereda 08:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, per Uppland. In addition she seems to have been active in a number of relatively high-profile posts. There isn't that much about her on the internet, but that is true of many notable persons who lived before the WWW became popular. The article does need sources, but many articles need sources; there is no special reason to think the information in this one is false, and so a "references needed" tag is more appropriate than an "afd" tag. Thue | talk 08:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, agree with Uppland. Mereda, I can't find Aina E at your "Unga Örnar" link, but I would hardly expect to, as Unga Örnar is a youth organisation and the site is aimed at young people and children. The 1957–1966 chair wouldn't be a hot topic in that context. A Swedish Google search finds 173 pages, some mere blogs of course, but many in fact independant verifiable news sources. From the first Google page, these two are archive bios from highly respectable daily newpapers: Dala-Demokraten, Sundsvalls Tidning. Bishonen | talk 12:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC).
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Restitution Transfer and Recoupment

This is some libertarian's pet concept, with a grand total of 4 unique google hits including Wikipedia [51], excluding Wikipedia it gets nothing. It seems to be a model for a private police force and legal system, although it's hard to be sure: the article is written in technical legal language and a listy format. As far as I can see, 'RTR' has never been put into practice or discussed in any published work. In short, this article is original research, unverifiable and non-notable. I have also prodded the principal contributor's other main project Las Portadas for deletion as a non-notable proposed micronation. Nydas 11:09, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per above. --Richard 04:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as copyvio. "Permission granted by the patentholder and noted on original publication." is meaningless. Permission could only be granted by the copyright holder. (Also delete as WP:OR.)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Luna Santin 00:34, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Beneath the Burning Pyre

This entry fails to meet the criteria of WP:BAND. speedy tag removed by article creator. Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 13:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Business Desktop Deployment

This entry fails to meet the criteria of WP:SOFTWARE. Content was removed along with the prod tag. Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 13:09, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Strong delete: not only not notable, but written in vacuous, excessively abstract and uninformative prose, and entirely without context: complete bollocks. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:43, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Naconkantari 23:01, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete as a non-notable band, WP:Music refers. (aeropagitica) 20:37, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Man born blind

This entry does not meet the criteria of WP:BAND. The nobility claims are not sourced, and even if they wereI don't they would quality - the college radio chats and rotation on a single station (vs radio network). Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 13:18, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Does not assert notability.--Húsönd 15:26, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 16:43, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mebious.co.uk

This entry does not meet the criteria of WP:WEB. The changes after the prod tag were an improvement, but does not elevate the entry to the required criteria. Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 13:21, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - the article admits it is an 'obscure reference', 'briefly flashed onscreen'. The website itself (in reality - not sure if it's meant to be connected) is a grey background, with the words 'mebious.co.uk'. In neither the article nor the site is notability affirmed. --Mnemeson 15:24, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Although I do concur in that Wikipedia's entry on mebious.co.uk does not warrant its own article, the argument that the notability of the page (grey background, etc) is not valid because the the notability of the site doesn't lie in its straightforward content. As the arcticle's author (if that means anything), I've no problem in the arcticle being deleted. However, I do feel the infortmation is useful enough to be reworded into a sentence about Lain's equiment in the Serial Experiments article.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandwich-pirate (talk • contribs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:52, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PDF Zone

This entry does not meet the requirements of WP:WEB. No changes were made after deletion of the prod tag by an anon. Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 13:23, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. --Aaron 16:14, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete lacks verification to satisfy WP:WEB.-- danntm T C 19:08, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's part of a notable company, Ziff-Davis, and I added references. I first heard about this web site from the general manager of a printing company who recommended it. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 07:49, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Being owned by a big company doesn't assert notability, those references are not from reliable sources and do absolutely nothing to assert any importance for the site (one is three sentences, and the other is nothing but a link back to the site!), and pdfzone.com has an Alexa rank of below 90,000. -- Kicking222 12:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete as WP:SPAM. Article created by single purpose account[52]. Encyclopedically non-notable part of notable company. Recommend Speedy Delete under new "shoot on sight" guideline as per "Corporate vanity policy enforcement" by Brad Patrick, General Counsel and Interim Executive Director of the Wikimedia Foundation. Bwithh 19:49, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Ooh, I'm going to have to hold on to a copy of that memo! Thanks for pointing that out, Bwithh. (Note to Brad Patrick: Revert back to the original system of handing out admin tools - remember that line of Jimbo's about how "Getting adminship should be no big deal"? - and maybe you'd have the workforce you need to handle this sort of thing.) --Aaron 23:31, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Bwithh; CSD G11, but alas no longer speedyable. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:52, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Star Trek: Reborn

Non-notable fan fiction. (Not a fan series like New Voyages, but just scripts/stories) Mnemeson 13:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per our mini discussion at the project and for being non-notable, while i dont doubt that they produce good stories they just are not notable enough for wikipedia. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 13:53, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete --EEMeltonIV 14:22, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. The unwritten rule is to keep all Trek. Billy Blythe 15:09, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
    • And the written rule is this is fancruft. Delete Danny Lilithborne 16:33, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
      • The unwritten rule is to keep all Trek. Not even close. --Calton | Talk 07:01, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and thanks for explaining what this was. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:33, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Eusebeus 16:26, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - non-notable fanfic. Google search on ("Star Trek: Reborn" +virtual) brings up only 86 returns, 35 unique. Modifier added to search to filter out news stories on the new feature film, many of which use the phrase "Star Trek Reborn". MikeWazowski 18:28, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. People Powered 22:11, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable fanfic. I doubt this would fly even at Memory Alpha. --Calton | Talk 07:01, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:52, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rostek Horn

Non-notable Star Wars character, from a "fictional" Star Wars universe. Prod removed by anon Wildthing61476 13:57, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Strong keep. "Non-notable" Trek character is an oxymoron. They're all highly notable. Billy Blythe 15:10, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Immaterial, since this is, you know, a Star Wars character. You ARE ready these things before voting, right? --Calton | Talk 07:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Not if it's fan-created stuff.
  • Delete. Danny Lilithborne 16:32, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. --ArmadilloFromHell 15:12, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Don't confuse Star Trek with Star Wars or both groups will send their Nerdgoons to kill you. Eusebeus 16:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
    • LOL - an example of why SPEECH SHOULD BE FREE ON WIKIPEDIA!!! is a problem --'ArmadilloFromHell 16:34, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Not even close to notable. --Calton | Talk 07:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as fancruft. Ultra-Loser Talk | BT sites 07:26, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to List of Star Wars Old Republic characters. It's not fan-created; it's official. This guy was a character in I, Jedi. -LtNOWIS 18:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete but no objections to merging some of the data into the list above as backstory for the character. Badbilltucker 21:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:52, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Uaw local 900

Wikipedia is not a directory. This article contains nothing to justify a place, and potentially every UAW local could have a similar page. Possible merge into UAW article if anyone wants to make a section there on UAW branches. Emeraude 14:12, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, no encyclopedic content to merge. MaxSem 14:30, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Why shouldn't every UAW branch have a page? That's a good idea. Billy Blythe 15:11, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Delete & shudder. Eusebeus 16:24, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
    • No, it's not. Delete and salt. Danny Lilithborne 16:31, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Delete since Wikipedia is not a phonebook. Jll 16:39, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I pray that's sarcasm. Delete. --Dennisthe2 17:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
    • You appear to be in the wrong wiki. Yellowikis, the directory where all organizations do get pages of their own (pretty much just like this page, indeed, albeit that Yellowikis articles have better layout), is over there. Uncle G 11:31, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, not an iota of indication that this local satisfies WP:ORG. And I'm assuming Billy Blythe is being sarcastic.-- danntm T C 19:59, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • The article comprises solely name+address+telephone number. It is a directory entry. Get thee to Yellowikis! Delete. Uncle G 11:31, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was deleted by William M. Connolley as "junk". Zetawoof(ζ) 21:59, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fith Dimension

The page is nonsense, contains too many errors to be worth correcting (including spelling in the title!), has not been linked, is not linked to. This article is not needed. There is perfectly good article (Fifth dimension) which does the job. Emeraude 14:30, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete presumably a live sandbox. Markeer 15:01, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nonsense, redundancy. "Fith"?! --Húsönd 15:09, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete seems like nonsense to me. There may be a case to recreate as a redirect to Fifth Dimension...--Nilfanion (talk) 15:23, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Maybe it should be the "Firth dimension"? :-) Michael Kinyon 15:43, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete uh huh. Danny Lilithborne 16:31, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete G1 and redirect to Fifth Dimension per Nilfanion. --Dennisthe2 17:44, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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/withdrawn. W.marsh 21:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Temple Hardy

This article, as far as I can tell, fails WP:HOLE. I can't tell why we need an article about a minor British captain. Thanks, Luc "Somethingorother" French 14:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC) Nomination withdrawn; the article now clearly fufills WP:HOLE. Thanks, Luc "Somethingorother" French 21:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment I'm not sure whether to vote delete or keep, because it sounds like it is written about a man of some importance. The article should be written by Wikiproject Biographies. Alan Talk - Contributions 19:26, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep well researched article. Wikipedia has no temporal bias or POV. If he was notable in 1795 then he is notable. Besides, having six www references 200 years after one's death is quite good for a "nobody". -- Petri Krohn 01:09, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - individual is notable as per above. Maybe only third- or fourth-level notability, but notable enough for an article. Badbilltucker 19:57, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per the above comments. RFerreira 22:58, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep This isn't really what WP:HOLE is for, it's a disorganised but informative article about a person who was quite famous at the time and is still of interest to people who are interested in 18th century naval history. WP:HOLE is for one line stubs about irrelevant people.--Jackyd101 11:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Result was Speedy Delete. Gwernol 20:14, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The great toolset disappointment of '06

This is a disputed prod. Originally prodded as an unencyclopedic joke article; suggest deletion per WP:NFT. Muchness 14:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete. This article provides no meaningful content or history, and/or the text is unsalvageably incoherent. It is patent nonsense (CSD G1), and the information is redundant with Neverwinter Nights 2 and Wikipedia:Hello. My name is Bad Jokes. You Deleted my Other Nonsense. Prepare to die.--GunnarRene 14:44, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete bjaodn. Eusebeus 16:28, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete dumb. Danny Lilithborne 16:30, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete BJAODN if you can be bothered.--Nilfanion (talk) 16:31, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Dennisthe2 17:47, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete XD. BJAODN. -->So sayeth MethnorSayeth back|Other sayethings
  • Don't delete it! Is not nonsense! It's a proof of a real internet event, where a lot of people have been deceived, multiple times. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.105.238.56 (talk • contribs) 20:08, 1 October 2006.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete as unverified without sources. (aeropagitica) 20:35, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Ups and Downs

Nominate per, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. No verifiable sources given. Рэдхот 15:46, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was speedily deleted as spam by Vegaswikian. MER-C 09:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] World Wide Design Directory

No assertion of notability. Delete per WP:WEB. Haakon 15:55, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete A7' per new A7 web critera. --Aaron 16:14, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

World Wide Design Directory is a respected industry resource. It was noted by such magazines as How, Print, Computer Arts and many more, featured on BBC (Click on Line), and listed by many online resources, for example in DMOZ Best of the Web directory DMOZ Best of the Web directory. --Falkond 17:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - spam. Artw 22:10, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 22:23, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete A7 (unremarkable web content) or G11 (spam). Take your pick, tagged for A7. MER-C 04:07, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

How can you label something as spam that fast, did you bother to go to the web site? That directory is most inelegant way on the internet to find a design company, and Hundreds of people use it daily and find it useful. You list other niche directories on the List of web directories, why this one is not good enough? There are years of work and selection behind that directory, and you can make a decision in a few seconds that nobody needs it? --Falkond

It's probably a useful and nice service, but it has to fulfill notability criteria for it to be included in an encyclopedia. --Haakon 07:23, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) 20:29, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Johnny Ska

This article fails WP:BIO. None of the 42 unique search hits augments notability to encyclopedic levels. Erechtheus 16:14, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom--Jusjih 16:44, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Yet another MySpace/YouTube act. -- Kicking222 21:03, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

As a new member, I am inspired by feedback to make productive changes to the article in order to follow the guidelines and to help in my learning experience. I have made changes to the article to keep it within the rules for biographies of living persons. • Verifiability • Neutral point of view • No original research I would be happy to take on other feedback; I am doing this as a learning experience for future projects for my position. I have direct contact with the individuals the page is about, and I have their permission to publish the page. I have checked the facts in the page with what they have published about themselves, and with what is common knowledge. I found their biographies intriguing because of their large fan base, fan listing or "cult" following. I am still learning about how to set up the cite sources and should have more to add in the future. Please review the changes I have made prior to deleting and let me know what further links I need to read to make the corrections needed. Thanks Enamoredgirl

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

The result was delete as unverifiable with sources. (aeropagitica) 20:25, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Italian Hanger

Apparently unverifiable from any reliable source The Anome 16:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom--Jusjih 16:43, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: This position is obviously possible. The only questions are whether (1) it is notable enough to get its own article (2) whether the name "italian hanger" has any sort of general acceptance. Point 2 in particular should be applied to various other sex position articles. --Strait 18:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merged information to Fiscal year and deleted page. (aeropagitica) 20:04, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Accounting reference date

  • DELETE - the correct terms are "Calender Year-End Date" or "Fiscal Year-End Date". MapleTree 13:05, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep. It has 67100 hits and is widely used in accounting. See [53], [54] or [55] for definition and use, for instance. Just because you don't know the word does not mean it's not used... -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 17:06, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as failing WP:DICDEF. Don't see how this could ever be a substantive article Bwithh 17:52, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. In its current state, it does fail WP:DICDEF. I think, however, that it could be expanded, or if not, merged to fiscal year. (See my posts on Talk:Accounting reference date and on Talk:Fiscal year.) I will attempt to expand it, to see if it can be made long enough. The relevant quotation from U.S. (and other countries') law might be applicable, or any other information which makes it not a definition. --Iamunknown 20:23, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • SMerge to Fiscal Year. There is nothing that should be "here" which should not be "there". — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Smerge unless expanded. I still think it could be expanded, but I don't know how to go about it, and if it cannot happen in time for the traditional five day period (today or tomorrow) then I don't want to add to any cleanup backlogs in hopes it will. --Iamunknown 00:35, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete as a non-notable location. (aeropagitica) 19:51, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Letterkenny Shopping Centre

Advertisement for non-notable shopping mall. An earlier version of this article has previously been through afd and deleted. Pathlessdesert 16:43, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

  • well it is the largest shopping centre in donegal. is that not notable???????--Candelwicke 20:24, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • how can it not be notable because of its size. what about all those dublin shopping centres about the largest out of town shopping centre and so on. this is the largest shopping centre in donegal. not in the town of letterkenny the whole of county donegal. i think i've made my point--Candelwicke 20:37, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Find a reference to it being the largest shopping centre in County Donegal.Afn 08:38, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
    • You've made it, but it's wrong. The shed in my back garden is the largest shed in my back garden. Anything can be the "largest X in Y", for suitable Y. Our WP:CORP criteria are thus not based upon such things. They are based upon people having written and published non-trivial works on the subject, which means that even small things are notable if they have been the subjects of enough non-trivial published works. Please cite any published works on the subject of this shopping mall, if they exist. Uncle G 11:39, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

go ahead, i will be back do what you wish i tried my best i will fight |--Candelwicke 18:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

  • keep, but... Definitely not vanity/ad. Keep only if expanded, image added, etc... Delete if kept as is. --Shuki 18:49, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

thank you at last someone agrees with me. but i'll need some time to get a picture.--Candelwicke 19:58, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

i added some more. more will be added later. why complain i see other articles about shopping centres and they don't have anything notable and are like 2 sentences long. this articles is long enough. case closed. let me take care of the article and ye can worry about more important things. thank you for your assistance...--Candelwicke 21:25, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment: If you find any other unencyclopedic articles about non-notable shopping malls, you are free to post them under articles for deletion too. I have no idea why you think you need to "fight for Letterkenny", or why this process seems to involve creating pages about shopping venues in the town. I am sure that Letterkenny will survive without your help in this particular area. You should also consider using a single account in order to edit the Letterkenny-based articles, assuming that these are also you: Together&forever, The Big Brain, Qwertyuiopasdfgh vfen. Also, has it ever occurred to you that you could start your own website about Letterkenny? You could write whatever you like without interference from anybody. When you edit on wikipedia, you have to resign yourself to the fact that your material could be altered or scrapped. Pathlessdesert 21:58, 2 October 2006 (UTC) I hadn't realised that you had actually been blocked before for copyvios and obnoxious edits. I have tagged you as a sockpuppet. Pathlessdesert 22:33, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, as nom. Demiurge 19:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, Notable, after all it is the largest centre in Donegal--Water100 19:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - user's first edit. Demiurge 19:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

What--Candelwicke 19:49, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Shopping centres are businesses. The relevant standard is therefore WP:CORP. There is no assertion in the article that it meets the WP:CORP standards. Such an assertion would need to be sourced to reliable sources that are independent of the shopping centre. The article contains no sourcing, so is also a violation of WP:NOR, however I presume the latter is readily repairable by citing the shopping centre's advertising. GRBerry 02:44, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, mall is non-notable. --Terence Ong (T | C) 14:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 11:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Courtyard

Advertisement for shopping mall. See also The Letterkenny Shopping Centre. Pathlessdesert 16:46, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Unless something gets added soon to say why the centre is notable, other than as a place to see all those linked shops, delete Emeraude 17:01, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • why should this article be removed i think it should stay. if you delete this article then i might just delete the article about the crescent shopping centre. i dont see anything notable about that. it is no more important just because it is in limerick --Candelwicke 20:27, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Not notable. The Photon 01:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete It's not very notable or interesting, even within Letterkenny. Afn 08:41, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

i do my best i spend my days editing wiki and by god i will never give up. so you can wipe your up or whatever ye people do but lets get one thing straight i will never back down. i will fight for the town of letterkenny.--Candelwicke 20:00, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey Candelwicke, grow up. You're not fighting for the town, you're embarressing it. Afn 10:07, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, not notable. Demiurge 19:30, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Shopping centres are businesses. The relevant standard is therefore WP:CORP. Like the last one, there is no assertion in the article that it meets the WP:CORP standards. Such an assertion would need to be sourced to reliable sources that are independent of the shopping centre. The article contains no sourcing, so is also a violation of WP:NOR, however I presume the latter is readily repairable by citing the shopping centre's advertising. GRBerry 02:44, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 11:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of English words of Bengali origin

Appears redundant. There is no list, despite the article being created 2 March 2005. There IS a link to a list in Wiki Dictionary, which contains but 3 words. Shame: I expected there to be something worthwhile and interesting here, but alas..... Sorry, but I can see no reason not to delete. Emeraude 16:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Petros471 15:52, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Peter Niehenke

Not notable per WP:BIO. Leibniz 17:02, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete unless expanded. From the article on de it looks like there is more that could be said about him, my German isn't good enough to tell if it is sufficient to warrant an article here though. Thryduulf 15:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. All the publications listed in his German Wikipedia article are in German. Amazon.com does not show any books of his that are available in English. Since we would not be able to show any English-language printed references in our own article, I think he fails notability and verifiability for us. (If he were a truly major figure we would overlook this). Plus the article is very sketchy and not too interesting. EdJohnston 15:46, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 16:02, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism

It is a POV fork if I ever saw one. The whole purpose is try to distinguish anarcho-capitalism as something other than a legitimate form of anarchism. Even the title implies that anarcho-capitalism is not a type of anarchism. There is already a Criticisms of anarcho-capitalism article, so why the need for another POV fork? Any claims that anarcho-capitalism is not "legit" anarchism should go in there. DTC 18:00, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete POV fork (I am the initiator of the vote). DTC 17:44, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Comment - This isn't a fork, but instead a related article, concerning not criticism of an-cap but a discussion of an-caps position within the wider anarchism movement. --GoodIntentionstalk 06:11, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep This is really an entry about the debate over anarcho-capitalism, which is real enough, and it serves a useful purpose. Libertatia 17:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment There is already "Criticisms of anarcho-capitalism." Why the need for multiple POV forks? Take anything useful out of there and put it in the Criticisms article. DTC 17:57, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Because saying an-cap isn't a form of anarchism isn't strictly speaking a criticism but rather a description. --GoodIntentionstalk 06:20, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment It looks to me like the article proposed for deletion has seen more and better editing than the article with which merger is proposed. I agree there is no need for both. If, however, an article dealing with the debate is retained, I'm inclined to think we're moving towards deleting the wrong one. Libertatia 19:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete As it IS a POV fork, however I agree with user DTC that anything useful should be kept, but within the Criticisms article, or within the Anarcho-Capitalism article in the appropriate spot. Green hornet 22:43, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, needless POV fork. Sandstein 09:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • See also Anarchism vs. anarcho-capitalism (AfD discussion) and Anarcho-socialism vs. Anarcho-capitalism (AfD discussion) for some prior related discussions. Uncle G 11:44, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge anything NPOV to Criticisms of anarcho-capitalism and delete. Alba 17:47, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete This is an obvious pov fork and a clear attempt at undermining an opposing point of view concerning the legitimacy of varying types of anarchism. Imagination débridée 01:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
No, it's a discussion of the question of an-cap's place in the wider anarchist movement. It's the most NPOV discussion of this problem on WP! --GoodIntentionstalk 06:20, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Scrapes of this article can be added to the Criticisms of anarcho-capitalism. Intangible 02:05, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep This article discusses the opposing viewpoints as to whether or not anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism. It also compares and contrasts traditional anarchism and this new anarcho-capitalism. There is enough information and controversy about these two issues to merit a separate article. What's in this article isn't criticism, but rather an importantant description of profound ideological differences. -- WGee 03:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, POV fork and OR. -- Vision Thing -- 20:32, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Although the POV and OR dangers are obvious (and although the idea that AnCaps are not anarchists is like saying that Stalinists were not socialists) this is a very real question that comes up with the whole AnCap philosophy. It should have an article. JASpencer 20:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Comment And isn't legitimate form of anarchism coming close to an oxymoron? JASpencer 20:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
The degree to which this is untrue, or rather insufficient, is the problem this article was (painstakingly, I might add) written to address. There are two arguments against accepting anarcho-capitalism as anarchistic, which are similar to why one might not call Zimbabwe a democracy despite the claims of the Zanu PF. Firstly, the "an-cap is an oxymoron" argument states that because capitalism (and in particular an-cap) supports the authority of ownership absolutely what would be achieved under an-cap wouldn't be a lack of a state but a series of private states, thereby a non-anarchy. The other argument is to point out that anarchism is more than a concept but a historical practice and a body of theory, one being entirely, incontrovertably anti-capitalist. This article sets out to address this, and shouldn't be deleted but made the cornerstone of the WP approach to an-cap-as-anarchism. --GoodIntentionstalk 06:07, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep "Anarcho"-capitalism is not accepted by most real anarchists and this should be reflected, despite the wish of the ancaps that it's ignored. Donnacha 21:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. The article might need work, but it's still legitimate. --AaronS 00:18, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete If the article is supposed be about whether anarcho-capitalism's claim that it's a form of anarchism is a false claim, then why isn't the article called "Arguments over whether anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism"? As it stands now, Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism can be about anything, and that's probably what explains how incoherent the article is. There is no hope for the article. Delete it and move some of the criticisms to the Criticisms of anarcho-capitalism article. What is the point? To show that anarcho-capitalism is not like other forms of anarchism so that it will be concluded that it is not a form of anarchism? Since when does a form of anarchism have to be like other forms of anarchism? This article has a fundamental POV problem that cannot be fixed. It is best to just delete it. PlayersPlace 01:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
"If the article is supposed be about whether anarcho-capitalism's claim that it's a form of anarchism is a false claim". It isn't this - it is a discussion on that claim but especially on the relationship between the an-cap movement and the (universally socialistic) anarchism movement that predates and rejects an-cap. It is concerned only with an-cap-as-anarchism, and is not a discussion of the criticisms of an-cap at all. --GoodIntentionstalk 06:07, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
"Since when does a form of anarchism have to be like other forms of anarchism?" When the point under discussion makes the two mutually exclusive, like the support for capitalism in this case. To those who view an-cap as non-anarchism say anarcho-capitalism is like enviro-strip mining. --GoodIntentionstalk 06:20, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - POV fork? It is, or rather should be, a discussion of one particular problem, like omnipotence paradox or human rights in Myanmar. For it to be a POV fork would require an Anarcho-capitalism as anarchism and Anarcho-capitalism as non-anarchism page or equivalents, instead both are discussed on this single, informative page. I'm sure every who has commented on this has had a lot of exposure to this type of argument, and having an article on that argument is quite necessary, and especially not a POV fork! --GoodIntentionstalk 06:07, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment An article dealing with discussion of one particular problem is fine when that problem is widely discussed in literature. However, question whether anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism is not a theme of any scholarly work that I know of, so content of this article is original research, and subject itself is non-notable. -- Vision Thing -- 17:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Lectert 12:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is an important issue within anarchism. the article presents the issue thoroughly and clearly from many viewpoints. i vote for improvement rather than deletion. Blockader 18:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment It looks like a useless article to me and I don't really care whether it's deleted or not, but at the very least the title should be changed to something like "Anti-capitalist anarchism and anarcho-capitalism" or "Social anarchism and anarcho-capitalism." The title as it stands now seems to indiciate that Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism are two different things which, in my opinion, they're not. So it's a POV title.Anarcho-capitalism 18:31, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Isn't this a fork, and expressly not allowed? A user got banned for this on the anarchism article. This article is also heavily POV. - MSTCrow 01:02, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge with Anarchism and capitalism, the sensible place to describe the relationship between capitalism and various varieties of anarchism. *Dan T.* 03:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is a very real source of debate between traditional anarchists and anarcho-capitalists, and it doesn't belong either directly in the Anarcho-capitalism article or in the Criticisms of anarcho-capitalism article, since it is ancillary to both. A merge with Anarchism and capitalism would also be a mistake, since this is a dispute between anarchism and the political philosophy of anarcho-capitalism, not just with the concept of capitalism itself. The article does need to be revised since it is clearly POV, but it still provides significant information. --Academician 10:01, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment There is no such dispute between anarcho-capitalism and other forms of anarchism in academia. It's simply some editors on Wikipedia debating over it and that's why there shouldn't be an article. You too seem to be assuming that anarcho-capitalism something other than anarchism in your wording that "this is a dispute between anarchism and the political philosophy of anarcho-capitalism." Anarchism is an umbrella term than includes various kinds of anarchism. A debate between anarchism and anarcho-capitalism makes no sense at all and is inherently POV because the POV being pushed is that they're two distinct philosophies. DTC 16:18, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment Blatantly untrue. Real scholarship on anarchism is rare, most cited works are simply broad works on philosophy and politics that mention without any real analysis what people say. Proper scholarship on anarchism is by anarchists - Chomsky, Peter Marshall, Paul Avrich, Howard Zinn, etc. Proper scholarship on "anarcho"-capitalism is virtually non-existent, aside from its own proponents. It's been nearly 100 years (1910) since one of the most respected works of reference, The Encyclopaedia Britannica, requested that Kropotkin write the section on anarchism because they recognised that the hostility against its ideas blighted virtually all other sources. This remains true, those who truly analyse and document anarchist ideas are anarchists themselves, thus the dispute between anarchism proper and "anarcho"-capitalism is central to the primary academic discussion of anarchism. Donnacha 16:31, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment I can assure you whether anarcho-capitalism should be included under the umbrella of anarchim is not discussed in academia. If anyone needs sources from a wide range of scholars taking for granted that anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism, look at my Userpage for a large list. This is a dispute manufactured by some people on the internet that does not exist in academia.Anarcho-capitalism 16:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
          • Comment So, Chomsky's not a part of academia now, really? Donnacha 17:01, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
            • Comment Chomsky says it's a "strain of anarchism" and calls it "right-wing anarchism." Sure, he doesn't like it but that's because he's a leftist.Anarcho-capitalism 17:04, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Although I can see why some say "just put the contents into CRITICISM of..." I disagree with the POV proclaimers -- because a LOT of the content is not pro- or anti- but instead is just comparing to / contrasting with individualist anarchism (many people equate the two -- see esp. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism_and_anarcho-capitalism#Anarcho-capitalism_as_a_form_of_individualist_anarchism ) so perhaps THIS article could have any alleged POV content removed/edited, and the rest stay as-is and linked to from the "criticism" article?199.214.27.205 21:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. This looks like a bad faith nomination to me. If the nomination instead was based on that it gives undue weight to ancap then it would perhaps be another issue. // Liftarn 12:49, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. POV fork. Davey Lloyd George 18:37, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 11:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Greco-Roman deities and their Norse counterparts

No source is mentioned, which is logical inasmuch as the value of these equivalences seems very doubtful to me, for several reasons.

The chart gives equivalences between Greek and Norse gods but:

  • there was no such “equivalences made in ancient times”, because pagan Greeks had no contact with Scandinavians, and because later Scandinavian writers of the Middle Ages had a mostly Latin, not Greek, cultural background;
  • I’m not sure these equivalences have very often been “proposed by modern scholars”, at least over the last century. Interesting comparisons can be made only between religions who both share important Indo-European features, which is not really the case of Greek paganism (cf. Georges Dumézil’s work, who hardly ever dealt with Greek myths).

A few equivalences exist though between Norse and Roman deities, made both in ancient times (cf. Tacitus) and by modern scholars (cf. Dumézil again), but they’re far from being as numerous as in this chart, and far from being as obvious too. For instance, Odin is given here as the counterpart of Zeus / Jupiter, but he’s sometimes given as the equivalent of Mercury (cf. Wednesday) or Mars.

Finally, most of these equivalences are very much questionable: for instance Gefjun / Tyche, whereas Gefjun is generally connected to Diana (sometimes Vesta), or Járnsaxa / Athena: Járnsaxa is not even a goddess, but a giantess. I could give several other examples of deities who have nothing, or hardly anything, in common.

That’s the reasons why I think the few interesting facts should be mentioned in Interpretatio romana, and the rest should be deleted. Sigo 18:05, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Sigo asked me to comment and as it happens I agree with him. This rather looks like original research and should be merged into interpretatio romana. That article could use some beefing up, though. For example the interpretatio romana of (early) Thor is Hercules but the interpratio germanica of Jupiter is Thor. Haukur 18:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment since the article does claim that ancient sources and modern ones to make the claims, I'd say we need sources for that, not just the claim. However, with just one principle contributor to the article, I'm not sure whether or not it's accurate. Still, even I, someone who is not a follower of mythology, is aware that there's at least something to the interpretation. FrozenPurpleCube 21:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I found myself drawn in and a bit fascinated by this article before I read the whole Afd, the nom's apt criticisms and realized it was uncited to boot. That's probably why original research doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Dina 22:18, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as original research, if no sources can be found. The Photon 01:04, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom; either WP:OR or interpretatio graeca on which we already have an article. Nothing (s)mergable leaps out at me and it is an improbable phrase for a redirect. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:44, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep per cleanup. (aeropagitica) 19:47, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Police v City of Newark

Delete per WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. Jersey Devil 18:17, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Wikipedia is not a casebook.-- danntm T C 20:24, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • The article was a straight dump of parts of the the court's decision. It is now, however, a proper stub on a subject that made the news. Keep. Uncle G 11:58, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep the cleaned up stub. The best outcome of an AFD discussion is an improved article. GRBerry 02:47, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 11:24, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fossy

Urban dictionary neolgism, fails WP:V and WP:RS. Irongargoyle 18:21, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom unless a reliable source turns up. Looks like an attack page to me. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:34, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: It does show up in Urban Dictionary, so it's probably not a complete hoax. But with only six entries in urban dictionary, it's just not notable. Heimstern Läufer 21:36, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
    • The existence of an entry in Urban Dictionary does not demonstrate that something is not a hoax. Urban Dictionary is a self-submission web site that actually encourages the submission of made-up stuff. Entries in Urban Dictionary carry little to zero weight. Uncle G 12:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Well, that's why I said "probably". :-) Heimstern Läufer 14:50, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
        • One entry is from "Fragmaroom", same name who created this article. Femto 13:17, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, juvenile slangcruft. Speedy if this is another repost of phossy. Neither User:Fragmaroom [56] nor User:Bass-roach [57] look like reliable editors. Femto 13:17, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 11:24, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chevrian statistics

Delete. An article about an analytical method developed by some high school students. It does not give any sources, nor does the term show up on Google (and I even checked Google scholar just in case). Prod tag removed by author. ... discospinster talk 18:23, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete WP:NFT indeed. -- Kicking222 21:10, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination, and almost every policy rule, including WP:OR, though it's hard not to be impressed by the Powerful Lightning Smartypants Method! EdJohnston 03:24, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NFT, etc., etc. Yes, it is amusing. Michael Kinyon 08:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, scope of the article or possible move can be discussed on its talk page, doesn't seem like there's a consensus to delete it just yet. W.marsh 16:00, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Web application development

Somebodies private essay article, with strong how-to aspects, covering an area that is already heavily covered. Artw 18:29, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

First, it's not a private essay article. I did gather some information on the subject. I started this article because I don't think this topic IS heavily covered, and I would like to see some community input. For example, what development methodologies do people developing web applications use? I couldn't find this information on Wikipedia. There's plenty of information on web design. And there's plenty of information on software development. But I haven't seen much about web application development.

Now, I'm making the distinction between web design and web application development. Are you making the same distinction between web design and web development? If so, maybe we could merge these articles, since I don't see nearly enough useful information on the web development page. DRogers 18:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Move to Wikibooks per nominator. -- RHaworth 03:09, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and clean up. What other articles cover this area? Web application development is certainly related to (or a subset of) software development, but anyone who has worked on both traditional software and web app projects will tell you that each has distinct challenges. Kla'quot 06:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and clean up. If we decide to keep it, we should first determine what is and isn't in scope and what level of detail is appropriate. There's a bunch of info on here about software development, but not how it relates to web app development. DRogers 04:15, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete It has the flavor of a how-to article, and is not able to go into detail anywhere. The result is an article that just sounds like common sense. EdJohnston 15:05, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 11:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Emotionics

Original research, neologism and advertising for public speaking workshops. Author is head of the "Collective". Didactylos 18:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete due to lack of notability, verifiability and references. This risks being considered a vanity page, thus falling under WP:SPAM. EdJohnston 03:43, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete 39 ghits. Delete per WP:NEO. Mitaphane talk 03:43, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Vanity page and neologism.Fmandog85 19:40, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 11:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] REUNITE!

Hoax, no Google hits, the official page of the artist does not include information about this single. I have already tagged the image as an attack, but the article can't be speedied as far as I know. -- ReyBrujo 18:49, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

  • strong delete - I am surprised this article is not going through speedy deletion. mirageinred 19:29, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Apl66 23:26, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, a fansite claims it existshttp://www.ayumi-hamasaki.org/singles.htm, but couldn't find anything on the official Japanese website on it. Only "UNITE!" but not "REUNITE!".--Andeh 00:24, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Maybe I'm blind, but I can't even see any mention of REUNITE! on the fansite you linked to. Moreover, there doesn't seem to be any discussion of it in that fansite's forums -- something that would certainly be there if there was even a rumour going around about a new single. Consequently, delete this per WP:V unless something compelling comes up soon. — Haeleth Talk 12:20, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 11:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Legacy Project

The user didnt edit this article in months, leaving the 'Methods' setion pretty much empty. Their is no link to the site, they say they are going to implement that govermental system in a decade, and the neutrality is already disputed. Alan Talk - Contributions 18:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as per nomination.
  • Delete per nomination. Lack of notability and references, and a fragmentary article. The name 'Legacy Project' is reused for everything in sight, but the one founded by Zephir can be seen here:[58]. Google finds just two inbound links to that address. EdJohnston 03:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, bad-faith nomination. Naconkantari 01:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] OS-tan

DELETE WP:OR, WP:CRUFT, WP:SPAM Iufd 19:15, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment, probable single purpose account. As for the nomination, the topic itself has 7 intrawikis, including the japanese one. I get 135,000 hits at Google for "os-tan", although the only notable mention is at Kotaku, here. However, the fact that a japanese intrawiki exists (and with so many different contributors) leads me to believe it is notable enough (otherwise it may have been deleted time ago from there, as any non-notable english topic would be deleted from the English Wikipedia). -- ReyBrujo 19:46, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep I find it awfully suspicious that the nominator's first (and only) edits are to nominate this article for deletion. There's nothing spammy about the article, but the OR and cruft concerns could be taken care of. Nevertheless, smells like a bad-faith nom to me. NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 21:34, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Seconding what NeoChaosX said. --Theredstarswl 00:49, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep Not the best written article, but interesting and informative. --Ideogram 01:15, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep It looks a lot different than the last time I saw it, and there is OR and CRUFT, but neither are grounds for deletion, and I dispute the SPAM. Kelvinc 01:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep This article may have its flaws, but it is interesting and informative! Plus it has several pages that depend on it. I do not know what the guy trying to get it deleted is thinking.--NewYinzer 01:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 11:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Highcore

Prod removed one week ago, but no improvement since then. Article does not state the importance, is just a list of bands that one unnamed man feels are one genre, although it isn't said what makes them different from other bands not included. Neologism by unnamed person with unclear definition, so fails WP:OR, WP:V, and WP:NOT Fram 19:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete I can't even think of anythign to say about this article besides how dumb unnecessary it is. For the record, as if it wasn't apparent, Google searches turn up nothing (related) but this article. -- Kicking222 20:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete someone is using us as free webspace. There's no way anyone believes this is a legitimate encyclopedia article. Opabinia regalis 00:05, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Doesn't make any sense, and it all seems tied to what one unnamed man thinks. And I'm not sure that englobe is a word. --Joelmills 01:24, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete lowspam ~ trialsanderrors 08:33, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 11:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Butt Nugget and the Silent Cane

The article is deceptively long but it's still about an unnotable Myspace-band that self-produces its music and whose claim to fame is being in the "top 50 general comedy chart" on soundclick.com, hardly a reliable measure of his importance. The creator of the page is 84theman (talk · contribs) which brings in a problem of vanity (as "The man" seems to be the artist's self-chosen nickname). Ghits at 1300 but actually, that's 42 unique hits [59] pretty much all sites that freely host anyone's music. Pascal.Tesson 19:41, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Interesting, and probably valid, points all around. Forgive me for not reading the notability guidelines before posting. While it is true that BNATSC has not had any major commercial success, as far as "internet" bands go, BNATSC is, in my opinion legendary. A look at the artist's statistics on mp3.com, purevolume.com, myspace.com, soundclick.com, and download.com will reveal that BNATSC has received well over 120,000 listens, something most "myspace bands" never accomplish. Add in the fact that, BNATSC does not tour or promote his music regularly, and you'll see that the sheer volume of his popularity is quite impressive for being a result of heresay alone. A quick search on youtube.com will also reveal several fan videos of BNATSC songs.

Regardless, does this entry stand up as valid in light of the notability requirements for musicians and bands? I do not believe so. Though it does stand up against the vanity argument. My name is Todd and I am a long-time fan of BNATSC from Littleton, CO. I wrote the article to suit the interests of myself, the artist, and other devoted fans like myself.

I will not delete this article, but, in the light of my comments, feel free to do so. 84theman 13:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 11:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fybertech

Article describes a website, its proprietor and a fictional project hosted on that website. None of these things appear to meet our standards of notability. The website does not have an Alexa rank, and nearly all relevant Google results are from the proprietor's LiveJournal, etc. This article appears to be promoting a project known to a small group of people, rather than reporting on something that is already notable. FreplySpang 20:10, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Wikipedia is not for plugging your tiny internet forum and its ever so original project. Opabinia regalis 00:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete not even good enough to be spam. It's Treet. Danny Lilithborne 02:18, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Fybercruft. Anomo 00:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 11:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fluff in Brooklyn

Article does not pass WP:WEB and should be deleted. A thorough Google seach turns up thousands of hits for hundreds of profiles and directory listings, but no non-trivial independent coverage (quick mentions in blogs I'm counting as "trivial"). Among those directories, profiles, and blog links, the overwhelming majority are not even about the comic, but rather the related podcast. For background, the article appears to be a vanity creation by the webcomic's creator, judging by the contributions of the account and IPs involved: Thecarla (talk · contribs), 146.151.33.67 (talk · contribs), 64.115.119.154 (talk · contribs), 72.225.219.230 (talk · contribs), and the licensing tag on the image in the article (Image:Island9modified.jpg). It is also effectively an orphan article, as it is only linked to from the articles of a small collective of affiliated comics, and the linking all appears to have been done by the above user and IPs. Wikipedia is not for advertising is a principle that applies. — Saxifrage ✎ 20:11, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete per nom and the new {{db-web}} CSD A7 rules; otherwise, delete the old fashioned way. --Aaron 23:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete webspam; speedy if possible. Opabinia regalis 00:09, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per all above and my original PROD ("[n]on-notable web comic. No third-party WP:RS indicating notability. Fails WP:WEB; Alexa rank 3,438,073."). --Kinu t/c 01:44, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Fluffcruft. Anomo 00:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (aeropagitica) 19:28, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edison Courts

Non notable apartment complex, prod removed with no reason, Delete-- Jaranda wat's sup 20:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

  • KeepNotable as first low cost public housing with solar water heat, per New York Times article cited, 1939.Edison 21:23, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. Claim to notability should be moved to lead paragraph. Pan Dan 21:27, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - given the language used in the New York Times title, the houses "to get solar" rather then "have got solar" and the image provided does not appear to have solar roof panels I have to question the only claim of nobility as being acurate. Since the source provided only can be accessed by subscription, I have to wonder about the verification of the claim. Unless further source is provided, I will have to vote delete.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 22:01, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Just so you know, given that it is the New York Times, there are plenty of ways to read it, even old issues from the 30s. Possibly even at your local public library. Yeah, you might have to do some legwork to read it, but it's not that much. FrozenPurpleCube 01:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • CommentSome readers may have access to NY Times online via their public library or school library, so I provided the link as a convenience, but it available on microfilm at any large public library. I hope providing a subscription online link doe not disqualify a reference as verifiable.Edison 16:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete partly due to verifiability concerns, but even if the solar thing were settled, "first public housing complex with solar water heat" is a pretty thin claim to notability. Opabinia regalis 00:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • CommentPossibly more notable than every song by every rock group, every high school, every numbered road, every character in a video game, or every bus route in the world, all of which seem to have articles.Edison 16:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Don't think I don't agree with you. Opabinia regalis 03:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 with only two votes, both for retaining the article. (aeropagitica) 19:23, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BrainBread

Has been nominated for deletion before and closed with a "no consesus". The only keep arguments put forth were "is widely played" and "first zombie mod for HL". Fails WP's policies on verifiability and reliable sources as well as proposed software guidelines. Delete as such. Wickethewok 20:27, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep, as BrainBread is a considerably notable Half-Life mod. The mod is continuously in the top 20-25 ranking of all Steam multiplayer games and mods being played at any time (Official Steam Stats); it was picked by Valve to be listed in Steam's store, both on the official Steampowered site and through the program itself, as a free mod to download (See its listing at the Steam store, also note that only 24 mods, out of the hundreds and hundreds available, are listed); and it is one of the more popular Half-Life mods today. For example, Brainbread is, even to this day, consistently in the top 20 downloads of the week at HL2Files.com, which is, quite interestingly, a major site in the FileFront network dedicated to Half-Life 2, not Half-Life. It has currently amasssed over 115,000 downloads on this site as well. As it was hand picked by Valve Software themselves to be listed in Steam, and it is one of the most popular Half-Life mods around, I believe that Brainbread is notable enough to keep. MarphyBlack 21:17, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • You did not address any of my concerns regarding failing WP:V and WP:RS. Being listed at some mod sites does not make it meet WP's policies for verifiability.Wickethewok 22:15, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Steampowered is not just some mod site. It's Valve Software's official homepage for their Steam program. They made the site and they made the program. And they are also the ones that made Half-Life and Half-Life 2. If someone is playing Half-Life 2, Counter-Strike: Source, Day of Defeat: Source, etc, then they have Steam. Wouldn't the developers of the game that the mod is made for be considered reliable? It's not as if Valve is arbitrarily deciding that any mod made for one of their games is worthy enough to be officially listed through their own content distribution program. MarphyBlack 01:26, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - OF COURSE this mod exists, it's listed by Valve Software itself along with only a handful of other Half Life Mods, and steampowered.com is about as reliable and verifiable a source for the existence and notability of a half life mod as you're ever going to get. --Aim Here 01:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • This fails WP:V#Burden_of_evidence which directly states "If an article topic has no reputable, reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on that topic." This does not have any reputable, reliable, third-party sources, thus, there should not be an article. Wickethewok 14:33, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Erm, you're wilfully ignoring what we've been saying about Valve Corporation and steampowered.com. Do a whois on steampowered.com, go to the damn website and knock yourself out, verification-wise. If you were half-smart you might have a go at challenging the notability of the mod, but the verifiability is a no-brainer. --Aim Here 17:45, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I would like to mention that the listings on Steampowered contain little more than a couple sentence summary and links to the mod's website. While clearly it shows existence, almost all information in the article remains unverifiable without original research. But, yes, you are quite correct in stating that the notability of the mod has certainly not been proven. Wickethewok 18:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • You talk as if being officially recognized by Valve, quite possibly the most authoritative source around on the subject of Half-Life mods (they made the game, after all), is merely something to scoff at. Anyway, I think that you fail to grasp the concept at hand here. Valve is not simply just listing the mod on their site (although this in of itself is an exceptionally high honor), but they're actively helping to distribute the mod by directly advertising it through Steam. The same can only be said of about 20 or so other Half-Life mods.
  • If you want more "reputable, reliable, third-party sources", Brainbread was also Mod of the Week (Or month, depending on how you look at it) at Planet Half-Life, a very notable, insanely well-known, and nearly definitive Half-Life news site run on the GameSpy network. If for some reason you wish to question PHL's notability, check Google's first result for a search of "Half-Life". MarphyBlack 22:18, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 21:31, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Firearms (computer game)

Has been nominated for deletion before, and was kept because only of vague arguments about the fact that people play it. As it is, the article has never shown any reliable sources or shown any verifiability. Delete as such. Wickethewok 20:35, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

  • speedy keep - The nominator has suggested that there were only "vague arguments about the fact that people play [Firearms]." In reviewing the previous nom, I quickly came across this: "This was the number 3 mod after CS and TFC for halflife 1 until DoD came out. It was on contract with valve for distribution with all new HL cd's I believe starting with game of the year edition. It was featured in PC Gamer magazine. Won mod of the year from PCGamer and runner up game of the year for 2000." A re-nomination really should be done on the basis of considerable concern over the validity of the previous result, not because the article has not been improved. If that's the concern, then improve the article. -Harmil 21:43, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • If someone can provide a link/citation to the PC Gamer article, I will withdraw the AFD. Wickethewok 22:34, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable, if only historically. Was an extremely popular mod, won several awards, was published by valve on their GOTY and CS retail releases, and an appreciation of its characteristics has direct relevance to upcoming HL2 mods such as WaW and FA:S. It also debateably introduced a number of features which are now common to FPSs such as stamina, reinforcements, territorial control game mode and going prone. Admittedly the article isnt in a very good state atm, and could probably be regarded as a stub, but that in itself not grounds for deletion, just for improvement Modest Genius talk 22:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep As per Modest Genius's reply. --Falcorian (talk) 02:49, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - This is so lazy. You're nominating a mod that came with the official retail release of Counter-Strike. - Hahnchen 00:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, very notable Half-Life mod. MarphyBlack 22:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, Your reason to delete it is even more vague than the arguments put forth in the first deletion process. We've covered this before. It isn't the greatest article in the world but that means you help it become something better, not help it become something worse. Or in this case, nothing at all. Natrapsmai—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.1.139.16 (talk • contribs) 11:39, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was withdrawn due to new information. Wickethewok 18:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dystopia (computer game)

Doesn't seem to meet verifiability or reliable sources. Was previously nom'd before, which triggered massive sockpuppetry. There have been no attempts to make the article compliant with verifiability policies since. If there are reliable sources (which I haven't found), the article makes no mention of them. Wickethewok 20:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep Previous result was keep, after discounting sock-puppetry. Not much has changed since. If the nominator feels that the article has portions that are unverified, then the nominator should edit them to resolve these issues. However, the topic itself was determined to be notable enough for an article. -Harmil 21:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm saying that it isn't verifiable through reliable sources, which is cause for deletion. Please prove me wrong. The first paragraph of WP:V#Burden_of_evidence makes this quite clear. Wickethewok 22:17, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't really understand what you're saying is unverifiable? In case it was the download count, I've gone through the sites which have download counts shown and used this as the new number. Can you please be more specific about exact what parts of the page you consider to be not verifiable through reliable sources? (full disclosure; I'm the project manager for Dystopia. This is also the first edits I've ever done to the Dystopia entry) Fuzzwah 05:28, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep mod has won an independant awards. Something not many mods do Mitaphane talk 04:04, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep - The game has won multiple awards, is extremely notable, and are rumoured to be in talks with Valve regarding distribution and developing it as a stand alone game (much like The Ship) The Kinslayer 07:56, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - The article hadn't even been tagged with the {sources} tag, which would probably have elicited a more prompt correction to the article. I can easily provide links to the awards it's won, proving it's notability (as indeed Mitaphane has done.) The Kinslayer 09:39, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - This is a mod which has won non-trivial awards like the IGF prize. This isn't some random online poll crap like the WCCA. - Hahnchen 23:56, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - We've been through this before and it was kept, why would it be on trial again? - Cyanyde 20:30, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Kinslayer and Hahnchen. Nufy8 19:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - What do you claim is not verifiable, and which warrants the article deletion? I only see one 'citation needed' tag on this article. Do you really think this mod doesn't exist? --Aim Here 01:46, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Is it possible to protect this article from further AfD noms? I believe we've proven beyond reasonable doubt that Dystopia is notable, verifiable and worthy of inclusion here. (To be honest I'm still not sure why it was nom'd in the first place!) The Kinslayer 10:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • No, however articles that have been nominated and been kept are less likely to be deleted or nominated for deletion in the future. Wickethewok 18:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 me. This is one of a number of articles that are either a hoax, vandalism, or the product of psychosis. See User:Johnfox2007 for more. - Richardcavell 02:04, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] John Fox MP

Part of a series of hoax articles made by User:Johnfox2007. This Member of the UK Parliament does not exist, nor does his ministerial post Minister for Making Poverty History, which I am including in this nomination after the prod was removed without comment. Nydas 20:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete both per nom. -- Kicking222 21:13, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete both per nom. (heh) -Harmil 21:33, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete both-- danntm T C 21:59, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 11:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alana Moore

Vanity article for a non-notable porn actress. Attempt to bring sources and notability into question was simply reverted without comment. Harmil 21:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete No assertion of notability.--Húsönd 21:37, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Yet another non-notable porn star. JDoorjam Talk 05:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Eusebeus 13:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 11:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Candace Von

Non-notable bio. Prod was removed by original author without comment or resolution of the concerns. Harmil 21:30, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete this one as well.--Húsönd 21:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or speedy delete as {{nn-bio}}; her having "round buttocks" is the only sort-of claim to notability here. Sandstein 05:09, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Sandstein. JDoorjam Talk 05:46, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Nufy8 22:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Door from hell

Non-notable YouTube movie. Unlisted in IMDB. Can find no reliable sources talking about the movie or the blog it's now associated with. Prod contested by anon editor. Article's creator is Doorfromhell (talk • contribs), so a likely vanity article. eaolson 22:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete YouTubecruft. Danny Lilithborne 02:15, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I believe this is speediable, no claims to notability whatsoever. Themindset 22:49, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. W.marsh 15:58, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Riblja čorba

Prod removed but I cannot establish compliance with WP:Music. Delete. Bridgeplayer 22:30, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep Has a notable band member, ergo notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.45.201.128 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete, but mention on the notable band member's page. Just having a notable member isn't enough in itself to merit an article. Thryduulf 15:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Subject lacks notability; article is too short and uninteresting. EdJohnston 15:37, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus, so a default keep for now. (aeropagitica) 19:17, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Strata (band)

A non-notable band. Detect VanityGreen hornet 22:33, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep - They have an album on a notable label and their work has been featured in notable movie and video game releases. May not meet the letter of WP:MUSIC as far as having TWO releases, but seems to meet the spirit of what Wikipedia is trying to accomplish. The inclusion of the article feels written in more good faith then these kind of AfDs are. PT (s-s-s-s) 23:02, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete -The label is more of a "anyone can produce their album" here kind of label. Their sole notability is as a local band that occasionally plays at small clubs. There is a reason for the WP:MUSIC policy. It is important to keep Wikipedia a serious encyclopedia, rather than a catalog of pop culture references and pages about our friends bands. Until they release a second album they should use myspace as a place to post their band info and promote their album. Wikipedia is not for promotion. The band does not have enough notibility to have had a page authored by someone who isn't a fan or acquaintance. If a member of the band, an acquaintance, or fan authors a page about someone it is possible vanity. Delete on grounds of non-notability of music band per Wikipedia itself, as well as Vanity, and self-promotion rather than informative content. If everyone puts up a page about themselves or their favorite local band against Wikipedia standards then Wikipedia will cease to have any order and serious content.Green hornet 23:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. The band's site makes a vague reference to an international tour: "Sept. 6, 2005: The past year or so has been a lot of fun - touring in support of our album, shooting videos for 'the panic' and 'never there' - getting out there and meeting all of our fans, friends and supporters across the US and Canada." More specifically, please see http://www.stratadirect.com/sections/tour.html and http://www.stratadirect.com/sections/tour_previous.html for a list of venues where the band has played, which I think is sufficient for WP:MUSIC --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 08:50, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Per their tour page, they've done many national tours with many notable bands. That more than passe WP:MUSIC. -- Kicking222 11:58, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia. Put Elvis in there. You can even put Rev. Horton Heat in there. Those fellows were famous. They had a lot of music released. This band isn't notable according to Wikipedia policy. They have one release? How did it chart? Did it chart at all? Because anyone can have a cd out these days on certain labels. International tour? Maybe Canada is technically international. Its within walking distance of many American cities though. And playing all-ages venues that fit 50 people is a far cry from the kind of international tour that an actual notable like U2 puts on. Let's keep Wikipedia clutter free.

I am Friedchicken88 18:19, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, no reliable sources confirm this band's claim of notability: we can't really assess if their tour was significant enough per WP:MUSIC since it is only mentioned on their own website. MaxSem 18:41, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per TT. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I live in Los Gatos near where the band is from, and I follow the local music scene. This band isn't that big even in the local scene. Non-notable. friedchicken, maxsem, and hornet are right about reliable sources and WP:MUSIC. I just read them. Mj the deletionist 17:45, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, WP:NOTE, WP:RS and WP:MUSIC. Daniel.Bryant 01:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keeep. Claims to notability are valid, notable label, notable game, and the tour is just one more thing that achieves WP:MUSIC. A search of band strata on google yields plenty of results. Themindset 22:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I did the google search and the results included their wikipedia article, which would be an absurd result to justify itself, as well as their own webpage, which anyone can have and will come up in google, and then a couple hits for the same local entertainment paper for a city that I had to look up. I don't think that google can be an exhibit of notable-ness unless the standard for notable is very low. I looked my own name up and came up with dozens of hits for myself, and dozens for other people with my name, despite its uncommonness. In the case of Strata also, many of the hits did not directly pertain to them, but pertainned to other things 'strata' since it is also a common word as well as their proper name. Google is easily misconstrued as a clue to notable, which it can never be- anyone can show up dozens of times. Try typing in your own name. Likely you will find comments you made in usenet, or a review of your high school football skills from 1989, or mention of you in the local Rotary chapter's web newsletter, or your myspace page. etc. Bluetie46 01:39, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per PT. - Lex 05:49, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 11:54, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 30uv1437

This article is for a non-notable speedrun, about which the claims made just can't be verified. There's no reliable source claiming that this is the fastest ever, nor will there ever be, since the reliable sources that cover video game world records don't cover tool-assisted speedrunning (or much speedrunning in general, for that matter). This may be a world record, but it's a world record in such a narrow category (tool-assisted human-controlled Doom II speedrunning) that it's never going to be verifiable.

This was prodded but was deprodded with the justification that it's difficult to verify such things in reliable sources. I argue that things that cannot be verified do not belong in this encyclopedia. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:36, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Not notable enough for its own article even if it were verifiable. --Mr. Billion 00:41, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Mr. Billion and nom. Individual speedrun video files are a rather narrow category. Zetawoof(ζ) 00:59, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete inherently not notable. Danny Lilithborne 02:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Cool, but not notable. Banpei 07:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 11:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Samoa Joe's winning streak

Nothing but fancruft and listcruft Patstuart 23:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. TJ Spyke 23:10, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete This can be useful and interesting information, but it belongs as part of Samoa Joe. It doesn't need or deserve its own page. Stephen Day 02:47, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. RobJ1981 19:44, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 16:38, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yatti

Fails WP:NEO; "Yatti marijuana" on google comes up with nothing worth noting Patstuart 21:35, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

  • There are multiple spellings. Let me get back yo you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Duttyp (talk • contribs)
  • Delete per nom and WP:OR. --Aaron 23:14, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of verifiable knowledge, not a how-to guide on getting high, which is how that article reads. Furthermore, the image seems to imply that its submitter is in possession of illegal paraphernalia and drugs- a crime in Canada that could fetch 5 years in prison.Mj the deletionist 23:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

but there are other entries in wikipedia itself that read like how to guides for drugs so you argument for that is irrelevant (such as, the shotti page, the bong page, and even the coke page is way worse) and the fact that you don't even understand the legal charges that invole the possession of illigal paraphernalia or pot, would only get you around a month or less in jail, a fine, or they might just let you off. It seems to me like you are just being difficult in this situation for no reason, but if your webpage is supposed to be this great encyclopedia, well then excluding one page while allowing others in the same category is wrong, maybe the page does not get the hits you think it requires, then tell the page creators how to change that, and if you do not believe that the popularity of yattis is not on the rise you are wrong, I live in Canada as well and I have herd of them, I garuntee in 5 years it will be all over the place and with this page your site will be ahead of everone else, either way you should not be attacking the page the way you are, treat all people the same no matter their background, all are equal, thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.173.164.121 (talk • contribs)

no, the problem is not how many hits the page gets; the problem is that the term "yatti" appears non-existent on the internet; in other words, the term gets no hits on google at any other site either. Which means it's a neologism, and any other articles in such a category are flagged for deletion as well. I hope this clears things up. -Patstuart 21:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

poor editing and inappropriate content on other pages are no excuse! because the comment by 129.173.164.121 did not log in with a user name I am forced to respond here, but I would like to remind that person to more directly address their own reasons for keeping or deleting the article here and direct the extraneous criticism of my viewpoint, in a manner that does not directly pertain to the AfD, to my talk page. I would do the same, but it would not reach someone not signing in without a username. Canadian drug law has a maximum sentence of 5 years for marijuana possesion. It *is* the maximum, and would not be used for a first offense, but it does agree with my statement that it could fetch 5 years in prison. See Controlled_drugs_and_substances_act and drugtext.org. Furthermore, yes I should be attacking this and any other page that doesn't meet the standard of quality I expect from wikipedia. And it is in way about treating people in any manner regarding background. I stand behind my vote. Please sign your comments! neologism and an encyclopedia should report about drug use not instruct on how to!Mj the deletionist 09:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as nn. Arguments that extend from the crappiness of other articles are not valid. Themindset 22:43, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 20:24, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of bands with punctuation marks in their names

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and this seems too much like "bandcruft." --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 23:52, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete This list doesn't even have an encyclopedic purpose. --Tarret 00:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. --Mr. Billion 00:39, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete a great big "so what". Danny Lilithborne 02:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Who cares? MER-C 04:06, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom as indiscriminate list. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:48, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Per WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information or a punctuation fetishist's audio playground. Create List of postmen I have known instead? QuagmireDog 19:55, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps List of everyone named Bob? Delete per nom. JPG-GR 07:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
You see, if only I'd thought of that..QuagmireDog 09:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep The notorious article on the heavy metal umlaut is evidence that bands are playful with orthography. I used this article yesterday when trying to recall the name of Sunn 0))). Would it be better as a category? -- or as a discursive article? Omassey 09:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Comment A discursive article sounds an interesting prospect, but this is unlikely to form the basis of it. Warofdreams talk 16:22, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep It doesn't seem to me like any cruft so much as a reference point, useful because it links throughout the site. I could argue that the list serves as a platform for interested users to link between these bands and see what they have in common. At least it's useful for checking to make sure you know how many exclaimation points there are in Gravy Train!!!!. Electronique 14:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 11:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Global reality

Nomination for deletion Article is vague, contextless and unencyclopedic. Fails WP:V/WP:RS. Concept appears to be related to obscure trance spiritualist medium New Age thinking centered on Jane Roberts as described in Personal reality - but there is no assertion of encyclopedic notability here. The use of a common phrase for this concept makes google check difficult. But there are zero hits for "Global reality" and "Transformational Processing" (a high level term from the website in the article's external link) on google, googlescholar, google books [60] [61][62]. Nothing for "global reality" + "jane roberts" [63][64] on gscholar and gbooks. Only ~125 hits on main google[65]. While I also find it highly questionable, I am not nominating the Personal Reality article at this time as there are much more substantial results from a google search incl. Jane Roberts. The connection between PR and GR also stopped me from prodding. Bwithh 00:09, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Uninformative and vague. --Mr. Billion 00:38, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete uh huh. Danny Lilithborne 02:14, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • If it's a 'hard concept to grasp', it ain't notable or verifiable. This looks like someone trying to understand postmodernism and failing. Delete. Alba 17:50, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. The article says almost nothing, there are no references and the content is not verifiable. EdJohnston 03:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

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