Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 October 21

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< October 20 October 22 >
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 per author —Quarl (talk) 2006-10-21 09:05Z

[edit] Chemin de la Montagne

I am nominating this page for deletion as even if I created this page in the first place but way back in March 2006, I realized (I made a mistake) that the vast majority of the road (after the amalgamation of Gatineau in 2002)was located outside Gatineau's limits while the portion that is still inside Gatineau is not notable while the old and more notable portion called Chemin de la Montagne Sud was renamed.If the name haven't changed the article would have remained but now I'm asked for a deletion. --JForget 01:52, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

You can just go to the article and put a {{Db-author}} tag on top of it, which will request a speedy deletion. Since nobody else has ever made any major edits to it (all the other edits were just stub sorting, putting in a category, etc.) any admin is free to pull it on your request. --Aaron 02:57, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

.

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

The result was speedy keep. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 08:36, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Hell Teacher Nūbē manga chapters

Wikipedia is not shopping guides Zhaieo 23:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)— Possible single purpose account: Zhaieo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Timeline skew theories for The West Wing

Entirely original research. This is an article on fan theories about The West Wing. It is unsourced, and cannot be traced to reliable sources. Phil Sandifer 00:08, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Keep per first AfD. Needs clean-up, not deletion. — Scm83x hook 'em 00:11, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
What sources can be used to clean it up? It's an article about fan theories - it's next to impossible to keep this from being OR. Phil Sandifer 00:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete It's OR, which is not allowed. TJ Spyke 01:04, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Comment: I got rid of all the OR at the end of the article and just cited all of the claims. I suggest a name change to something like Real-world timeline comparisons for The West Wing. — Scm83x hook 'em 01:51, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
This is still all OR - it's constructing theories about events in the West Wing based entirely off of primary source material. Phil Sandifer 02:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
It can't be OR if it's just a comparison of the two timelines, the real one and The West Wing timeline: "This is The West Wing timeline, this is the real world. Here are the differences." That is what the article is now with the addition of the cited theory by the TV magazine, TV Zone. It's too much to go in the larger article, which is why it was split off in the first place. — Scm83x hook 'em 02:17, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete it's not OR if you can point to specific people/places where these theories have been put forth. That does not, however, answer the question of why in the world we would want or need an article on what random internet people think about the timeline of events on a TV show. Opabinia regalis 02:12, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree that those articles you list seem to be original research and should probably be deleted as well, or at least drastically reduced to verifiable content and merged, except for star trek physics maybe, as that has been written about by several people. Wickethewok 03:49, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I disagree that any substantial progress has been made. You have cited basic facts from the series, however, you have failed to address the far more important concerns regarding the synthesis of these ideas into more complex conclusions. This article has been around for nearly a year now, so its not like it hasn't been given a chance since the last AFD for this. Wickethewok 03:56, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Phil Sandifer and Opabinia regalis. GassyGuy 03:13, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete - Excessively original research. The article consists of unobvious and dubious conclusions drawn from basic data, which is most clearly a violation of WP:OR. There are citations for some of the basic facts, but then these are extrapolated in a fit of assumptions, fan theories, and other unverifiable synthesis. Wickethewok 03:39, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - I would like to see this material kept in some form. A quick look through the references currently in the article shows that attempts to resolve the timeline skew do exist in published media. However, a lot of the current content could be pruned, and perhaps this article should be merged into another. savidan(talk) (e@) 04:09, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
For reference, article was already forked from the FA The West Wing. — Scm83x hook 'em 04:14, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, as a vote that hopefully carries some weight as I was the nominator in it's first AFD. This subject requires coverage, given the importance of dates in politics (especially a show modelled after real-world politics). The FAC showed the information needs to be split, and this article covers an effective radius of information. Do I think it needs a rewrite? Sure. But deletion? No. Staxringold talkcontribs 05:02, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete This is textbook original research, not to mention fancruft. The articles cited by Scm83x should be considered for deletion too. -- IslaySolomon | talk 05:51, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Harmless and interesting. All statements about the show are supported, and most of the theories presented are based on other sources. There is, I suppose, some analysis of claims put forward by others which is arguably OR, but I would guess that one could source it, at least to message boards and such. I suggested before that the best solution to this would be to include a discussion of the timeline skew in an article more broadly about the fictional universe of The West Wing, and I think that that would still be the best solution, but nobody seemed to care. john k 16:21, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. The subject of the article is just OR. The citations provided are just the episodes, and all they can be used to reference are the facts; they do not have any bearing on the theories advanced by the article. The timeline skew theories themselves remain uncited. Andrew Levine 16:23, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and find references. --Benn Newman 16:33, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
    • This assumes that the references exist - I'm uncertain that's possible. Phil Sandifer 17:03, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Googling "West Wing" timeline skew gets a total of 313 results that are not from Wikipedia. Most of these turn out to be irrelevent or reposts of Wikipedia content that doesn't follow the GFDL. I can find exactly one LJ post by a fan that attempts to create a timeline. In other words, there are no sources here. Phil Sandifer 17:07, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • MergePut a brief discussion in the main article for the show, if sources that are not OR can be found. The cites to the actual episodes from which infrences are made do not avoid OR synthesis.Edison 22:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete may be interesting, but it is not harmless. Original research as charged. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:32, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete even if it is not Origial Research, the dates have little notability in themselves. Any notability is in the real-world events that are compared. Half a list is no list. Delete. 168.103.119.81 14:55, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Theories are a completely valid and already covered material for wikipedia. -- Freemarket 16:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
    • This doesn't seem to address any of the concerns. Phil Sandifer 16:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Even after the attempt to source material, it is original research - none of the conclusions or speculation are sourced, just what was on the show when. It is also non-encyclopedic. After this much time (the first AFD to now) with the verifiability of the article under challenge, it is safe to presume that it is not verifiable. The only source about the timeline that is cited is the TV Zone article, so there is no evidence of real world significance or notability. As a side problem (but not an additional reason for deletion) the article does a poor job adhering to the manual of style guide requiring articles about fiction to be about the real world significance of that fiction. GRBerry 14:04, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. I agree with what john k wrote. --- OldRightist 14:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as far as I could tell, only one of the sources actually makes the arguments upon which the whole article is based, TewfikTalk 00:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. The altered election date is a significant and unavoidable aspect of the WW. Because of that, it must be recognized with an article. With time, this article can improve to be without any original work. More people will edit it to make it better. That's what wikipedia is all about. -- HowardDean 16:44, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Again - are there any sources? If there are not sources that can be added, no amount of effort can be added to fix this article. Phil Sandifer 17:39, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep - Seems to be a good number of references at the bottom. Might not seem like a great article to me but somebody put alot of work into it and better to err on the side of Caution.Chris Kreider 19:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] E-marketing

The time has come to nuke this crap from orbit. This article may have been around since 2003, but is one of the biggest farces ever on Wikipedia. If you read the article, it barely touches on E-Marketing, instead it focues on David Chaffey's emarketing book. Why is that? Well, that's because User:Dchaffey wrote the damn thing to promote his book in 2003. And since then no one has done anything about it, oh, apart from when his advert got too long and ended up split to Online marketing. I've tagged it with cleanup and merge, but its best to just kill this dead. I'm sure our link did wonders for his google rank, especially as this article was linked to from Template:Marketing (link since removed). For further comments see Talk:E-marketing. - Hahnchen 00:12, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. This term appears to be a valid one, but it's almost synonymous with online marketing, for which we have a far superior article. Redirect to online marketing (but don't merge, because there's nothing worth merging). I don't think that there's enough general information on all types of e-marketing to warrant a full article on it. Ultra-Loser Talk / Contributions 01:04, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and Redirect per Ultra-Loser. TJ Spyke 01:05, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and redirect per above. --Dhartung | Talk 01:20, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
    • YOU ARE ALL WRONG - Redirect to Internet marketing after a delete. Online marketing is another farcical advertisement from David Chaffey. I have not yet nominated Online marketing as they may be some germs of ideas worth keeping in that one. - Hahnchen 01:34, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete don't redirect, it's a ploy article designed for advertisement of a product.--MonkBirdDuke 01:50, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per MonkBirdDuke eaolson 02:11, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete first, then redirect to Internet marketing. Get rid of advertising. --N Shar 04:21, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and redirect per Ultra-Loster. Consequentially 05:37, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and redirect to Internet marketing. Robertissimo 04:59, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. EVula 06:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Emeraude 11:09, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and merge At the very least this page should be a redirect to online marketing, and the (small amount) of information moved there. No reason to have this as a blank page when we can redirect visitors to what they're looking for. Mike | Talk 15:37, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, no merge, no redirect: vague and abstract, tautological prose. So E-marketing is marketing that uses electronic technologies, is it? What will they think of next? - Smerdis of Tlön 18:08, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, we have three of these articles that are all basically on the same subject. We only need one. Pogo 18:11, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per all above.UberCryxic 20:48, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. My personal opinion is that this kind of stuff will be our biggest problem for years to come. Vandals and cruft we can handle, but this kind of stuff is truly insidious because of how well it is done. See Raul's Sixth Law of Wikipedia. -- Satori Son 02:24, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOT soapbox. Ohconfucius 10:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] November 1998 TRL Countdowns

Incomplete list of videos that appeared on the top 10 countdown of TRL. This list falls under the category of indiscriminate lists of information. Metros232 00:24, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was Delete - Yomanganitalk 11:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of celebrity supporters of AFL clubs

This page is an unsourced mess, with 8 citations and 255 supporters, 27 redlinks and a huge amount of people that I have never even heard of. This is the sort of article that critics use to attack Wikipedia's credibility.  Jorcoga  00:35, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Bduke 00:58, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. The people listed mostly have WP articles so they are notable. It may interest some people. --Bduke 00:58, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I have removed non-notable people from the article. However, this seems to be a random collection of facts although verified supporters could be added to individual articles if deemed necessary. For example, Eddie McGuire is Club President at Collingwood and an influential figure in the history of that club apart from other claims to fame. Others people listed are less credible such as Condoleezza Rice (Adelaide Crows), Jerry Lewis (Brisbane Lions), Mischa Barton (Carlton), Rob Lowe (Collingwood), Samuel L. Jackson (Essendon), Andre Agassi (Port Adelaide) and Fernando Alonso (Western Bulldogs). It needs tighter verification if it is to stay. Capitalistroadster 01:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and allow a longer length of time (a few months) in order to find appropriate references for each person on the list. -- Chuq 01:26, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Indiscriminate list. That many people on this list are notable themselves does not confirm notability on this list. Resolute 04:48, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge into the individual club articles. JROBBO 07:23, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a gossip magazine. Punkmorten 10:15, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete for similar reasons to those raised in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Arsenal F.C. Supporters. A prime example of an indiscriminate collection of information. Oldelpaso 17:26, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, I agree with Bduke.Noroton 00:39, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Having lived in both Australia and the UK, I think there is a bigger deal about having notable supporters of AFL Clubs than there is about Arsenal supporters. This comes from both the notable people who support a Club, openly and frequently stating that they do, and from the Clubs themselves. This list may be more notable than editors from other countries realise. Not sure whether I can find a cite for this, though. --Bduke 01:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per JROBBO. P.B. Pilhet / Talk 03:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete -- unless list entries can be supported by valid references. -- Longhair\talk 10:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I'd feel the same way if it were American Football League celebrity supporters. Football (soccor) is notable on its own. Celebrities, if notable, are notable on their own, not because they support football. This is exactly the type of list that adds nothing, unlike more structured lists. Entries like the red-ink ones under the Melbourne Football Club listring give away the fact that much of this is vanity or promotion of non-notability. To the extent that material is relevant and notable then it should be in the respective articles. For example, if the fact that Adam Gilchrist attends occasional football games of the Carlton Football Club with his son is notable, namely is an important part of his life, why is it not mentioned in his article? The answer is that it is a non-notable fact, mostly if not entirely irrelevant to his life. Similarly with respect to the Carlton Football Club, the fact that Adam Gilchrist occasionally attends a game with his son is not a notable part of what the Carlton Football Club is about. Think about it. Bejnar 15:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment This isn't a soccer league. It's Australian rules football.  Jorcogα  07:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete AFLcruft. Lankiveil 13:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC).
  • Delete not a defining characteristic of any of these people, if it were, put it in their biographies, many of which don't exist (yet). Carlossuarez46 21:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete totally unverified and on the fring of notability, TewfikTalk 00:51, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. If we got sections like New_York_Yankees#Celebrity_fans, Detroit_Tigers#Famous_Fans, San_Francisco_Giants#Celebrity_Fans, we should keep this list (even if we are not in Australia).-- User:Docu
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete - CrazyRussian talk/email 08:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Seven Worlds

This reeks of OR and lack of notability. I'm no Kabbala expert, but without sources… Avi 00:16, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Agreed, this certainly isn't in proper Wiki format, and Google doesn't really turn up much evidence that this exists at all, and the total lack of sources sure doesn't help. As an aside, this article's previous AfD attempt seems rather odd, keep was the unanimous consensus, but the only reason I can find was "I can sort of see where it's coming from." -Elmer Clark 01:25, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. The issues of possible original research and unsourced statements are serious. The article says this appears in several books of Cabbala, but fails to mention even one source. Nonetheless, the material appears to be notable in the context of Cabbala and should be kept. Note the two links in the article to Adamah and Arqa. 129.98.197.86 01:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I saw where Adamah was also proposed for articles for deletion, and it is not a very good article itself. OfficeGirl 06:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
    • It utterly lacks context and is unsourced irreparably. JFW | T@lk 11:35, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge into the Kabbala article until it warrants it's own article through sourcing. Does that work as a reasonable compromise? --Brad Beattie (talk) 02:14, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge into the Kabbala article as noted by Brad unless someone can clean-up the article and expand it. AQu01rius (User | Talk | Websites)  02:35, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  • DELETE. Since December 4, 2005 there has been no new information added to the article, only some formatting and re-arranging of text, but not enough to bring it into proper wiki format. In June 2006 it was proposed for deletion and the proponents of keeping it all gave the reason that they believed that more information and further development of the article would make into a worthwhile article. It appears that after four months no one is available to bring us the requested further information, and without that further information there is no justification for keeping the article. Perhaps someone can offer a good article on the topic at a later date, but this doesn't belong in Wikipedia. OfficeGirl 06:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per all of the above. TheRingess 06:27, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge Doesn't read like OR to me, it's citing Kaballa's opinion, not the author's, but doesn't currently deserve its own article. --Dweller 08:39, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Which Kabbalah? Zohar, Sefer Yetzirah, Kavvanoth, Henoch? See my example about "science" below. JFW | T@lk 11:35, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete because this qualifies as a violation of Wikipedia:Patent nonsense. Do not merge this trash into the Kabbalah article which is fairly well organized. IZAK 08:55, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. If this conceptual framework exists at all in Kabbalah (which is not quite clear to me) it is not worth its own article. Presently it is unclear why it is titled this way, it is unsourced (just blindly citing Kabbalah as a source is like saying that "smoking causes cancer, says science"). No merge candidate, no context available for a good merge. JFW | T@lk 11:31, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. - CrazyRussian talk/email 12:05, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete As unverifiable. WP:NOR and WP:V requires those who wish to keep an assertion to produce verification when challenged. The prior AFD should have been viewed as such a challenge. Four month later, with no sources, we should view the article as unverifiable. Merge is only appropriate for sourced material, so no merge is right to do, even if the perfect target to merge to was found. GRBerry 14:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unverifiable original research. May even be a hoax. Jayjg (talk) 14:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge Into Kabbala.Gobawoo 16:17, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment – This concept appears to have validity. I have found the following sites which mention the "Seven Worlds":
  • Hebrew Wikipedia, at he:שלמה (Solomon), where it claims (unsourced) that these worlds are mentioned in a book he wrote (The "Book of Worlds"), and
  • this Kabbalah Centre site (also Hebrew). The Kabbalah Centre site gives these sources:
  • ספר הזוהר, תיקוני הזוהר, כרך י"ז, עמוד צ"ו סעיף רט"ז
  • ספר הזוהר, כרך י"א פרשת ויקרא, סעיף קל"ז-קמ"א, קמ"ד
Also, there are some few details mentioned in English at the following sites:
Finally, the Kaballah Centre site makes it seem that these worlds are physical planets, which I assume is not the only interpretation.
So the question is: Is this a notable concept that deserves mention? I have found very little actual information aside from the Hebrew Kabbalah Centre site, which is very similar to the information in the article. The four sites above were not easy to find, either. --Eliyak T·C 19:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete – Based on the above, the seven worlds concept, although real, seems to be non-notable, and would not be appropriate in the context of the Kabbalah article or on its own terms. --Eliyak T·C 19:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 19:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, per User:OfficeGirl, above. Smeelgova 20:11, 20 October 2006 (UTC).
  • Delete per nom and OfficeGirl. EVula 06:19, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • 'Delete per WP:RS. A source request was issued months ago, no sources have been provided. Most of us editors don't know enough about the field to tell if this is reliable material or total hooh-hah. That's why thesourcing policy is there. If no sources are provided in reasonable time, the article should be deleted, and that should be that. Best, --Shirahadasha 00:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • delete don't merge. if the topic is recreated with source we can review it again then. Jon513 12:25, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • delete not verifiable. Mukadderat 17:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 1998 TRL Countdowns

This list falls under the category of indiscriminate lists of information. It is intended to be an archive of lists of videos that appeared on MTV's TRL top 10 video countdown. Metros232 00:53, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete this and the November link in the article. TJ Spyke 01:07, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete — per nom American Patriot 1776 17:21, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Pepsidrinka 18:59, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. ENeville 21:29, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 23:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete; Total Request Live countdowns are nowhere near as notable as official record charts. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Extraordinary Machine 00:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Riddle vision

Neologism, slang, about 500 Google hits reveal a host of possible meanings. Deprodded. Accurizer 00:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was no consensus (thus keep). -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 11:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] California Patriot

First of all, I'm flummoxed. I've been at Cal for nine years and have never even heard of this publication. If this is distributed free of charge on campus it must be somewhere I've never been to. But since this could be my oversight I tried to look into circulation numbers, but the Patriot conveniently forgets to mention them [1]. So I looked at independent coverage it received. It turns out (per Newsbank) that the editor was cited in one article in the Oakland Tribune on "Which political party has whinier children?" A check on Lexis-Nexis for coverage on University Wire gave me five articles total, all by the Daily Californian. So absent other sources I propose deletion as a marginal student publication with no non-trivial independent coverage. ~ trialsanderrors 01:13, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

    • I think I see a strongly-worded editorial about trialsanderrors on the horizon.... a la the conservative campus paper, the Stanford Review's response to User:Aaron's afd: http://www.stanfordreview.org/Archive/Volume_XXXVII/Issue_3/Opinions/opinions4.shtml (in which, for one thing, the editor mulls over the problem that university students are so busy that they just don't have time to argue effectively with Wikipedian afd research efforts). Bwithh 02:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Hermmmm. I vote Delete for now. A Factiva search brings up a quite short CNN interview transcript with this publication's founder about the newspaper, as well as a shortish article about the newspaper in Time magazine in Feb 2003. That seems to have been enough shock value about launching a conservative newspaper on a an "ultra-liberal" campus to get attention from these media outlets. There doesn't seem to have been anything significant after these stories though. However, as I have expressed many times, news coverage, even in well known channels, does not equal encyclopedic notability - and these are quite shortish articles. It is unclear that this newspaper has attained encyclopedically significant status since its trumpeted beginnings. Bwithh 02:29, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep It sounds like a somewhat notable publication since its been featured on CNN and Time Magazine. This nomination sounds somewhat politically motivated, and the article will probably grow as the publication grows.--MonkBirdDuke 02:51, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
well, of course trialsanderrors hasn't seen any copies around campus because the samizdat publishers can hear the medals on his political commissar uniform jingling from a mile away. Bwithh 03:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Yeah I admit I'm a card-carrying member of what is the true silent majority on campus, the Association of Students Who Don't Give a Fuck About Campus Politics. We tried to get our own magazine started, the "Daily Whatever", but for some reason we could never get it off the ground. ~ trialsanderrors 04:21, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. This reminds me of The Stanford Review and its deletion process, which clearly was politically motivated. On the other hand, I agree with Bwithh that this publication has done little since its founding to warrant inclusion in Wikipedia. Perhaps the very fact that it's in a tiny minority is enough? I'm not sure, which is why my "vote" is weak. --N Shar 04:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Didn't the Stanford Review editorial express relief that the afd nominator was a Republican, so the afd didnt actually seem to be politically motivated? Bwithh 13:37, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Actually, I think he expressed nonplussedness; something along the lines of "the fact that he's a Republican didn't make me feel better." In any event, N Shar's WP:NPA-violating statement is, of course, complete bullshit, as anyone who actually read that old AfD would have known. The Stanford Review article wasn't put there to promote the Stanford Review; it was put there as part of a walled garden to try to create notability for some guy's publishing company. Since it had never been improved upon by other editors beyond its original creation, it would have been illogical not to add it to the overall walled garden AfD. That's all there was to it. As for this article, I'm going to !vote a strong who cares. The paper may well be noteworthy, but this article sure doesn't do a very good job of asserting it, and I don't know enough about it to be able to try and fix it. --Aaron 19:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - I'm inclined to be inclusive on political publications. I might have opined differently in the Stanford Review case because of the commercial exploitation of Wikipedia issue, but I don't see evidence of such here. ENeville 21:40, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as per ENeville.Noroton 00:43, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete doesn't seem to be notable enough. M1ss1ontomars2k4 (T | C | @) 01:39, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • DeleteUnless someone can find evidence of notability better than what is on the page now.Edison 03:48, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per above. -- Nikodemos 03:55, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I see no reason to remove this article, to me it seems that something does not have to be noteworthy to have an article written about it, but as far as noteworthy the Cal Patriot blog has recieved an honorable mention for Best Berkeley Blog by The Daily Californian. GreatGreg 05:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • "Best political blog" -- let alone this one's "honorable mention" -- from a student newspaper isn't even within shouting distance of "noteworthy". --Calton | Talk 07:12, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and Bwithh; trivial reporting doesn't demonstrate notability. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:39, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, not mention the unreferenced and boastful weasel wording. --Calton | Talk 07:12, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep The Bill O'Reilly thing seems notable enough, but it needs a source. - Lex 21:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable, TewfikTalk 00:55, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep per ENeville. Non-NPOV material needs to be cut but could be a valid subject of a very short article; it additionally generated some media attention after having all of its issues stolen by political opponents. Dryman 05:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vehicles in Unreal Tournament 2004

Wikipedia is not a game guide. There's some precedent over here. MER-C 01:16, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

E-Support Options ) 17:36, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was merge into Sharon, Pennsylvania. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:06, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sharon Police Department

Small-town police force, fails WP:Notability, though it might be desirable to merge some information into Sharon, Pennsylvania. Thunderbunny 01:29, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep. Police departments are interesting enough to have articles. -- Necrothesp 01:47, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. But are they notable or verifiable? Something being "interesting" or "useful" does not make it encyclopedic. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 01:57, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment American police departments are easily verifiable. Even from the government town of Sharon webiste [2], and a local unbiased newspaper [3] (which are not excluded as sources in WP:N).--Marriedtofilm 02:15, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment: Both of the sources you mentioned relate to Sharon, Massachusetts. The police department described in this article is in Sharon, Pennsylvania. Thunderbunny 04:42, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
          • Comment Hah hah! you're right! I was realizing that as I was reading Consequentially's comments below. My point is still American police department references are easy to come by. Whichever Sharon it is, my vote is still "merge". --Marriedtofilm 05:07, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment. "Something being "interesting" or "useful" does not make it encyclopedic". Really? What does it make it encyclopaedic then? I don't know about you, but I go to an encyclopaedia to look for interesting and useful information! If the information wasn't either useful or interesting then I wouldn't need it. I'm curious as to what other use you might have for an encyclopaedia. -- Necrothesp 23:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to the town's article. Individual local police departments don't need their own articles unless they're specifically notable for something. "Uses a different car than the next town over" doesn't count. Opabinia regalis 02:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to town's article. I don't really see anything notable about this small town police department. Did some checking through google and couldn't find anything of encyclopedic interest (famous cases, pioneering techniques, etc.).--Marriedtofilm 02:50, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Category:United States municipal police departments savidan(talk) (e@) 04:10, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment I'm sorry, I don't follow. That's simply a list of articles in that catagory, not WP policy/guidelines. --Marriedtofilm 04:37, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge into the town's article. While we do have a category for municipal departments, 22 of the 33 articles are on the police departments of major metropolitan areas. Three of the remaining 11 articles ((Bellevue Police Department, Lincoln Police Department, Fremont Police Department)) seem to share the same circle of editors -- notably Lpd1571 who appears to be something of a police hobbyist. I would contend that the articles on smaller police forces are of a simliar vein -- created and maintained by local editors with law enforcement interest. I don't want to get into a debate about how big a department has to get before being noteable, but Sharon, PA seems to be the smallest of these cities, and the information in the article could easily be housed within Sharon, Pennsylvania. Consequentially 04:49, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge, there is nothing notable about this police department and we don't need articles on 5000 local police departments. The city article needs perhaps a line about the complement of officers and cars and the name of the chief, but the stuff about dogs and tasers is just basic equipment inventory. --Dhartung | Talk 20:50, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • MergeOr look out for an article for each small town's fire department, health department, water department, sanitation department, forestry department, etc, etc.Edison 22:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge Could be moved to provide more info on the town's article. P.B. Pilhet / Talk 23:04, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge It would make an OK section of the municipality's Web page.Noroton 00:47, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Merger would indeed preserve the information, but this article probably has more detail about the Police Department than the typical reader of the Sharon article would want. The readers are better served with a summary in the municipality's article and a link to this one for more information. If other departments of other municipalities are treated the same way, I don't see a problem (wiki is not paper); and if they aren't, I don't see a problem (a volunteer organization will always cover some subjects better than others that are comparable). JamesMLane t c 09:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:ORG as a mere branch. However, I would not oppose content be merged to Sharon, Pennsylvania. Ohconfucius 10:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge with the municipality's article - it isn't notable enough to merit its own entry, TewfikTalk 00:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Destruktur

This looks like a hoax. I can't find anything out about this band, if it does exist, aside from a puzzling myspace page. The list of albums is a list of Guns 'n' Roses and Bon Jovi albums with dates preceding the release of those albums by the latter bands. I think this is total B.S., but maybe someone can vouch for this band. Maybe it's real but heavily vandalized. From the article itself: "Unfortunatly commercial success has yet to bestow itself onto Destruktur." That means "not notable" to me. Mr Spunky Toffee 01:56, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete A little digging brings up nothing. Looks like a big hoax. --Daniel Olsen 02:07, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete non-noteable, isn't even written for an encylopaedia, and looks like a hoax anyway. SMC 05:13, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as a clear hoax. Album titles give it away. Also, 3 Google hits (all MySpace) for destruktur +"thrash metal" and no page on Encyclopaedia Metallum. Prolog 20:39, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete hoaxalicious. Danny Lilithborne 23:07, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as hoax. -- FaerieInGrey 00:30, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy (Deleted by the author)

[edit] Microbial population biology references (2000)

This is just a list of journal articles related to a particular field. No assertion of notability to any of them, or any explanation for why they are listed here. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Nor is it an article indexing service. Deprod-ed by author with the explanation "Explicit reference to article this entry is documentation for," where he also added a link to Microbial population biology. This article doesn't "document" anything presented at Microbial population biology, which has only a few paragraphs of useful text.

Also nominating:

  • Microbial population biology references (2001)
  • Microbial population biology references (2002)
  • Microbial population biology references (2003)
  • Microbial population biology references (2004)

eaolson 02:04, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete WP:NOT a list of all of the publications on a particular subject. --Daniel Olsen 02:16, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as the editor originally prod-ing one of these lists (2003?). Not only is Wikipedia not an indiscriminate collection of information, neither are we Google Scholar, JSTOR or any other database of citations of articles relating to a particular field. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 02:17, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete we are not an article database, and using a wiki like this is a very bad way of creating one. Note that this author has a history of posting every publication ever on a number of other microbiology and bacteriophage-related articles: phage meetings, phage monographs, the entire further reading section of phage ecology, the entirety of phage experimental evolution and cyanophage... He's also made some good contributions; I'm surprised no one has told him not to do this yet. Opabinia regalis 02:35, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Comment Oy vey. Some of those reference lists are the sorts of things a university professor would quietly dash off for a student in need of help. I'm sure they're exceptionally useful reading material, but a tad on the side of overkill. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 12:16, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Userfy all of these should be moved to User:Sabedon's userspace. Sabedon created all of them, and they seem to be potentially useful references for articles on Microbiology. Move them to userspace and leave a note for Sabedon. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 17:36, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I was the one who reluctantly prodded it, as it seems like it's very useful to someone, but it's just not an article. Mr Spunky Toffee 19:56, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily deleted by Firsfron (csd a7). MER-C 03:04, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Homebwoi

NN/wtf --Macarion 02:12, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bob and George

In 2003 there was an AFD with no consensus. I see some subcomic of this being deleted and I check this and I see that it clearly fails WP:WEB. It's another NN webcomic. Anomo 02:16, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep. This comic is simmilar to Penny Arcade or PvP in that it's a popular webcomic with a large following that's had an influance on other comics. It's noteworthy in the same sense that the two mention comics are.Neito
  • Delete, speedy if possible - no real assertion of notability apart from being around for six years. MER-C 03:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - I would have tagged this with {{unsourced}} and {{importance}} first. As someone who's been deleting webcomics for absolutely ages, I think this is one of the popular ones. - Hahnchen 03:46, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
    • You might be interested in this. - Hahnchen 03:52, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete Long-running and popular (by internet sprite-comic standards), but I don't see the multiple non-trivial media mentions that would help it pass WP:WEB. Can you believe we also have subarticles Characters of Bob and George and Storyline of Bob and George? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:24, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and clean up. This is one of the few actually notable webcomics, as shown by 35,100 Google hits (searching for "Bob and George" comic, and quite a few of them appear to be relevant), the Wired News article on it provided by Hahnchen, and this source, which indicates that the site gets 1.5 million visitors each month. The various Google hits include multiple sites that indicate that it was one of the first successful sprite comics. --Coredesat 04:45, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep might as well AfD Sinfest or Penny Arcade while you're at it. Danny Lilithborne 11:57, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep seems notable enough. - Mike | Talk 15:41, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and clean as per Coredesat. -- FaerieInGrey 00:32, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment This is the one Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Karnak Hates Everything Show that people wanted to get rid of; it was a subcomic of this one. Anomo 00:47, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Even ignoring the reasonably large readership, Bob and George is notable for it's influence on promoting sprite comics as a viable comic form. Brian Clevinger (of the incredibly popular 8-Bit Theater) was directly influenced to start his comic on seeing BnG link
  • Weakish Delete The Wired News source is a good start for suggesting this is at least a borderline case, but I'd like to see more reliable sources. Note that we don't decide what is a "reasonably large readership" or what web site is "notable for." We rely on reliable sources (like Wired News) to do that for us. Also, the sub articles are overkill. -- Dragonfiend 22:03, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep First of all, I will admit, I am somewhat biased... I am a member of and staff on the Bob and George forums, and of course a reader of the comic (although, obviously, simply being a reader of the comic should not automatically imply bias). However, I am a perfectly intelligent, self-respecting person, so please don't consider my argument automatically vanity (I don't really get some sense of pride from the five or six degrees of seperation between the article and myself). I agree that it is well-known enough to be significant, and more-so it was the first comic to spawn the trend of sprite comics (there are arguments of it being the first sprite comic ever, but that is another discussion altogether - almost all if not all current sprite comics can trace existance back to Bob and George, even if through others like 8-Bit Theater, which directly credits Anez). It is an important part of the history of internet sub-culture. Even if it is not notable to Johnny Everyman walking down the street, it is notable within the online comic community - as explained in an interview in Comixpedia or an article (admittedly, about 8BT but discussing the significance of BnG in the introduction) The Webcomics Examiner. Also, I feel the need to say that there is no reason that a subcomic being non-notable reflects on the main comic. There have been more than 10 subcomics in the history of the site, not to mention non-'comic' sub sections such as art pages, so of course they are less notable than Bob and George itself. That is completely irrelevant to whether Bob and George stands on its own itself. Now, if you feel the article is larger than the comic's significance would warrant, you may have some case. I was honestly surprised at how much information there is in this page, and probably some of it is fancruft (there is in fact a wikia page for the site). The key, however, is that if you feel this way, it should be cleaned up, not deleted. --Author X 22:51, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, Pretty Notable, Derktar 05:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC).
  • Keep. It's the father of sprite comics, man. Joshua368 14:23, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong KeepNot only is it one of the first sprite comics which inspired many more sprite comics,there are Wikipedia articles relating to Bob and George,such as Storyline of Bob and George and Characters of Bob and George.Cake and Biscuits 15:12, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep This is the comic that started Spirte Comics. Pata Hikari 17:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep If nothing else, notable simply for the effect it had on others. Also, more press coverage can be found here in an article from the Kentucky Kernel.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 03:30, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep This article is necessary as an example of a popular Sprite_Comic, seeing how it was an inspiration for a number of them. Halfling Daniel 19:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete whole series unless notability is asserted and sourced, TewfikTalk 01:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep- Bob and George is an awesome comic. Please keep the article for newer fans. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.12.116.73 (talk • contribs) 03:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Clear Keep - among the most important webcomics, both historically and artistically. Phil Sandifer 04:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 00:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thesa

Non-notable per WP:MUSIC, prod filed by User:DWaterson, endorsed by User:N Shar with the comment "website doesn't exist, no photos as musician -- I suspect a hoax". Only claim to fame is album produced by brother's company. Prod notice removed by User:Christstyles w/o comment. Xtifr tälk 02:17, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment: In addition to the non-existent website, the article is in some fairly preposterous categories, i.e. Category:Grammy Award winners and Category:Hollywood Walk of Fame. The inclusion in Category:Adult models for someone who is billed as a "Christian musician" is amusing, albeit plausible, but no evidence is offered for any of this. Note that the principle/sole author, User:Christstyles has two earlier warnings on his talk page about inappropriate editing of AfD notices and/or discussions, so this AfD should probably be monitored. Xtifr tälk 02:17, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete. I endorsed the prod with the assertion that the article was a hoax, and I stand by that assertion because of teh utter lack of evidence for anything on the page. Additionally, the fact that all photos are family photos suggests that this is someone's fantasy. Google hits for <thesa "christian music"> are not topical. --N Shar 04:32, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Probably vanityDefinite conflict of interest. EVula 06:21, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Comment - the use of "vanity" is now discouraged. Instead please use "apparent Conflict of interest" per WP:COI Jpe|ob 08:09, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Comment Noted and changed. EVula 17:15, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, obviously. :) DWaterson 20:15, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The anonymous contributors don't provide any policy or guideline reasons for keeping, and most of the sources provided do not talk directly about the organization in question. The notability guidelines ask for multiple non-trivial, third-party sources. There only appears to be one, which is not "multiple". --Coredesat 00:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] United Confederation of Interstellar Planets

  ATTENTION!

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

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

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

This article still does not currently address the problem that was raised on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UCIP: There is no evidence or sources cited on how the UCIP (United Confederation of Interstellar Planets) website is notable. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:36, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

  • I also completelly disagree. UCIP is one of the pioneers in Star Trek simming on Internet. It also have valuable information and works on a Information Developing in her Academy Courses. The Wikipedia have information about Corporations and business. Why not having about Internet Institutions like UCIP?
  • Hmmm I disagree as a long standing member of this organization; UCIP is notable for being one of the longest running Star Trek and General SciFi Role Playing groups on the internet. UCIP has a database system that has been adapted by several Sim organizations to fit their needs. This is truly a notable entry and a notable group. 206.229.248.249 02:57, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Being a member of UCIP for nearly two years and holding nearly every imaginable post; I stipulate that the organization is a real online SIMming facility that incorporates Star Trek and other Sci-Fi genres with a very diverse group members. Prior to talk or mention of deletion of this valid article within Wikipedia, perhaps a visit is in order? - With regards.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.225.166.73 (talk • contribs)
    • The question is not whether the organization in question exists (although hoaxes do happen at WP), but rather whether it is notable or important enough to warrant an encyclopedia article. eaolson 04:40, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • As a long-standing member of UCIP (seven years this December) I feel that UCIP has been, and still is, one of the most notable SIM organization on the net! Tango Fleet, StarTrekPBEM.com, they've all found somthing to model off of in our organzation. Just the other day a non-member told me we were the "secret organization," with "so many SIMs, an excellent infrastructure, but no public apperences." I think that after over a decade of service to the fans of Science Fiction, UCIP has earned a page here.
  • Strong Delete 98 unique google hits [4] and an alexa rank of over 6 million [5]. Clearly fails WP:WEB. The article consists of original research, fanlistcruft and sycophantic copyright warnings. Pointless and puerile.-- IslaySolomon | talk 04:09, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as StarCruft. It also has a whopping 13 sites linking to it. [6] eaolson 04:40, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • UCIP is a pioneer for Star Trek RPGs on the Internet. Having been around since 1994, and, having been a member myself since it's formative years, I can state definitively that it has defined SIMming on the internet, over IRC, and via email. They were the first to have an Academy system - that all other Academy Systems are modelled on. They were the first to have a universal IC environment for their systems that others have tried to duplicate, and never succeeded with. They pioneered the first character database, which others have built and expanded upon. To say that none of this is 'noteworthy' is ludicrous, and is a completely uninformed opinion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.69.56.114 (talk • contribs) . — 70.69.56.114 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    • Comment In order to inform your opinion, may I suggest that you read WP:WEB, the notability criteria for web content. Considering the creator's edit history [7]a look at WP:AUTO and WP:COI might be a good idea too. -- IslaySolomon | talk 05:11, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I know for a fact you guys were not the first to have an "Academy" System, since I graduated one before you set your sim group up! EnsRedShirt 07:37, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. No real assertion of notability. Resolute 04:55, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Most internal links point to the organization's website, and it offers no references to support claims like "it has defined SIMming on the internet, over IRC, and via email." On the off chance such information can be produced, the article still reads more like a brochure than an encyclopedia article. Consequentially 04:58, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • So what you are asking for are citations to verify the assertions. It would have been nice if some one had said that in the first place. We are endeavouring to find the links and interviews that have been done regarding this organization by external third parties. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.69.56.114 (talk • contribs) 05:41, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment The message "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable." is displayed every time you edit a page. -- IslaySolomon | talk 05:59, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Yes, but you weren't talking about the above comments were referring to notable, so we were discussing what makes it notable... third party verficaition and notable are not the same thing. 70.69.56.114 15:35, 21 October 2006 (UTC)Jaeneva
  • Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not the place for fancruft. EVula 06:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per all that comes before me. EnsRedShirt 07:37, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. I tried CSDing a couple of incarnations of this for precisely the reasons outlined by those advocating deletion, but if this is the way it has to go, then this is the way it has to go. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 12:21, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Do Not Delete. I believe that this organisation and its website have provided a social and developmental environment for numerous amateur authors who have through the use of the media of play by email simulations and IRc simulations have enhanced and honed skills in the development of decriptive and narrative writing. If some of these people are involved in studying English then the site and its associated aimulations may contribute in a very positive way to the educational process. I also believe that the site develops a multiracial and multicultural positive ethos with contributors from all around the world exchanging views and opinions on a common topic. This while not being unique is something to be encouraged in our world today. 86.141.109.152 14:09, 21 October 2006 (UTC) Kang 86.141.109.152 14:09, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Comment. UCIP was voted the "best StarTrek role playing site" in an online readers poll. The editorial staff at Interenet Life Magazine did not rank it, and this sub-section of the ILM is run by fans, not serious journalistic contributors. Take this quote, directly from the opening paragraph: "To sort it out, we asked our online readers to vote on their favorite spots, from Best Overall Resource to Best Anti-Trek Site." That isn't exactly like winning a Webby, and I don't consider it to denote notability. Consequentially 00:51, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. This org has gone down hill for the past five years and the only reason they are trying to keep the wikipedia article is to try and use it as an Ad to bring in more members to their strugling sims. As I recall that is not what Wikipedia is for. - Ariela 24.218.160.243 14:24, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Do not delete. The point of this conversation is to determine whether or not the article is suitable for placement in the encyclopedia, so derogatory comments from ex-members of the organization should not be posted here. At any rate, we are attempting to establish the noteability of this article, and have provided several sources. Here is where UCIP is mentioned in Yahoo! Internet Life: http://web.archive.org/web/20001119220700/www.zdnet.com/yil/url/9812/9812a.html. I am still trying to find the exact article where it mentions UCIP was voted best Star Trek RPG, but the archives are tempermental. Hopefully I will find it shortly. Gerrin Chaye 14:42, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Funny all this... lets look at other articles included on wikipedia in a similar vane. First, Alt.starfleet.rpg, an RPG community that originated from Usenet according to the article. Second we have Christian_Gamers_Alliance which is a community for Christians interested in role playing games. Third we have Diversity_Fleet which is a subsidiary group of The Simming League and consists of (near as one can tell) a single SIM. Finally there is the Star_Trek_Simulation_Forum which also originated on AOL, much like UCIP did. Given that UCIP has well over 15 SIMs and somewhere in the neighbourhood of 150 members (and I am being conservative) from across the globe it seems a little asinine that these articles exist and are not under threat of deletion while the UCIP one is. Further to this, Wikipedia itself references UCIP in one of its articles, Simming. To have noted UCIP in an article is clear evidence UCIP is indeed a notable organization or else it would not have been included in the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.52.151.93 (talk • contribs) .
    • From what I can tell, alt.starfleet.org and Christian Gamers Alliance are both notable on their own. The Star Trek Simulation Forum is notable, in my opinion, because it appears to be an official, Paramount-approved entity. Diversity Fleet, on the other hand, is non-notable, and as such, I've submitted its AfD. EVula 17:11, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Are we discussiong Opinion or Fact? I wouldn't call either alt.starfleet.org or Christian Gamers Alliance 'notable'. I also would not call the Star Trek SIMulation Forum 'notable' as it has not made any large advances in SIMming for the online community as this organization has 70.69.56.114 17:31, 21 October 2006 (UTC)Jaeneva
        • My conclusion is just that, my conclusion. Another editor is free to submit an AfD for those three articles, but I didn't feel that they warranted one (as opposed to Diversity Fleet, which I did feel warranted a deletion). EVula 17:36, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
          • Comment The "if article X exists so should article Y" argument doesn't hold much water in this case. The existence of the articles cited by 70.52.151.93 is not a precedent for the existence of this article. It simply means that we have so far failed to delete them. -- IslaySolomon | talk 18:23, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
            • Its not a matter of if X exists then Y exists. Its a matter of consistancy. If one article is to be deleted only days after it was put up because it is deemed not noteworthy by an admin, why do organizations with equal or lesser notability not face the threat of deletion? The admins are asking for evidence of UCIPs notability, yet have not questioned the notability (to my knowledge) of the organizations above. I guess the question is, what flagged UCIP's article so quickly in comparison to the others? Further, why wasn't the previous UCIP article flagged, in which there were a copious number of unsupported or uncited claims, as well as a link to an article on one of the founding members?
Comment Again, a false premise. Any organisation without notability (or perceived as such) risks having its article deleted here. Just because any given organisation hasn't been nominated for deletion yet doesn't mean that it won't be - it just means nobody's done so yet. You're welcome to do so if you feel that the standards being applied to UCIP mean that any other organisation is also non-notable. The place to question the notability of other organisations, however, is in their own articles or AfDs, rather than here. What flagged this particular article in comparison to any other is probably the simple fact that someone found it. I found one incarnation of it at the New Pages list, for example. Additionally, the previous UCIP article was flagged and was in fact deleted. See the link at the outset of this AfD. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 21:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

But where are the facts? We have been asked to provide hard evidence that UCIP is notable, and we are doing that. Therefore, I must ask that you submit hard evidence for these other organizations as well, or we are talking about a double standard.

Comment. You're confusing the various issues. This is the place to provide evidence that UCIP is notable and you're certainly having a good go at doing that. The place to provide evidence for the notability or otherwise of other organisations is in their articles or - should it come to it - their AfDs. The only thing up for discussion here is "Should the article on the UCIP be deleted?" The other organisations have very little to do with the case. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

KEEP: Too much evidence, this is a legit organization, per articles, structure etc. Here is a question for all you "deleters" :: How many articles in wikipedia are currently incorrect or not updated?

Comment. The quality of other articles is not a factor within this debate. You're arguing that we should let bad content stay in the encyclopedia because there is bad content in the encyclopedia. Bzzzt. Wrong. You get rid of the bad whenever you can find it, and keep an eye out. Consequentially 02:40, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Comment - Further, nobody's saying UCIP doesn't exist (which I presume is what you mean by saying that it's a "legit" organisation). I exist, you exist and so does everyone else contributing to this discussion, but that doesn't mean we should all write articles on ourselves. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 02:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Numerous items concerning the notability of UCIP has been given, which is what was asked to be done originally. Those references have been stated in the article. Now, given that, why is deletion still being discussed?

For two main reasons. The first is process: AfDs run for about 5 days, sometimes a bit longer depending on how rapidly admins spring into action or how contentious the issue is - they can be closed earlier, but only in situations where the article's already been deleted (a speedy delete), or the nominator retracts the nomination, that kind of thing. The second this is that, as a number of contributors here have said, the evidence provided isn't too great. The award cited was a fan poll, for example - and as other users have also pointed out, it doesn't look like it meets WP:WEB which is a useful thing for it to meet in order to be notable. Yes, information has been provided, but it isn't necessarily enough. Therefore, deletion is still being discussed partly because that's the way we do things and partly because notability hasn't yet been proven. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 04:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep due to relative notability in this category. The about.com and yahoo magazine mentions are par excellent among simming organizations, few of which receive any notability in 3rd party publications. The issues with the article's content can be salvaged by better attention to the whole category. Unixan 06:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn organization. --Pboyd04 01:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as this AfD has only produced one third party source listing, TewfikTalk 01:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete per G11. --Coredesat 04:49, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Geodesic Foam Scenery

minor branded product Tfine80 02:59, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete as spam: creator's Jbragdon (talk · contribs) only edits were to this page, six months ago. Furthermore, look at the first sentence: "GEODESIC FOAM SCENERY was developed by Joel & Jenny Bragdon of Bragdon Enterprises in 1995." So tagged. MER-C 03:08, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete Naconkantari 16:30, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Rivero

  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}}
  • Delete non notable individual, fails to meet WP:BIO. Strothra 03:02, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. TJ Spyke 03:05, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Move any relevant details to the many conspiracy articles. --Tbeatty 03:07, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - I do not find any reliable sources other than his own website. He is another conspiracist writer who is not as well-known as his fans think. Tom Harrison Talk 03:44, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - I have added a number of reliable third-party sources and info to the article, including info from Popular Mechanics, The Yemen Times, The Register, and Source Watch. See the page history for more information. There are tens of such sources, but it takes tedious page by page searching through the hundreds of thousands of google hits for whatreallyhappened.com. Michael also appeared on CSPAN on 15 May 2003 as reported in this blog [8]. It is totally premature to delete this article. We need more time to locate valid third-party sources and improve the article. Tiamut 02:10, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment Blogs are never a reliable source except as to what that person said. I don't think Source Watch is reliable, either, but I'm not going to delete it. Appearing on CSPAN, if verified, is reasonable evidence of notability, so I'd change my !vote to weak keep if that were confirmed, and he was actually a speaker, rather than being one of a number of interviewees. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment Good point. Searching all the CSPAN websites I know of (c-span.org, www.c-spanstore.org, www.booknotes.org, www.booktv.org and www.q-and-a.org) for "Michael Rivero" got zero matches. I googled for “+"Michael Rivero" +5/15/2003” and lots of similar search strings, without finding any more mentions of a CSPAN appearance. If there was one, it's well hidden, unlike everything else about Rivero (including his repulsive anti-semetism — checking the Google hits was not fun). It now seems very unlikely to me that he was interviewed on CSPAN. CWC(talk) 09:22, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
          • I found links to three different blogs, all of whom despise Rivero, who mention that he was interviewed on CSPAN in May od 2003 (15 May?) by Bill Herbert. See here: [9], [10],[11]. These are not fans, so they have no interest in making him seem more important than he is. I think that should suffice in establishing that the program actually took place. No? Tiamut 22:24, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
            • Yeah, I found those. Bill Herbert is the blogger at two of those blogs, not the interviewer. The third blog post is just asking "Is Bill Herbert pulling our leg?". Mr Herbert says that CSPAN broadcast footage of Rivero making claims. He does not say that CSPAN interviewed Rivero. Being shown in a report is a lot smaller claim to notability than being interviewed. CWC(talk) 00:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
                • Thanks for pointing that out. I hadn't noticed that Bill Herbert was the author of two of three posts mentioned there. Still, the point stands that he was sure enough of having seen Rivero on CSPAN that he repeated it on two different blogs an he is no fan. So why say ithappened if it did not? Still, I am trying to locate a more authoritative source. Maybe writing to CSPAN themselves will help. Tiamut 14:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Violates Wikipedia:Vanispamcruftisement and doesn't cite reliable sources, unless you consider whatreallyhappened.com, 911myths.com and sicmuse.com as reliable (which they aren't under WP:RS). Be prepared for the whatreallyhappened.com meatpuppet Anschlüss. Morton devonshire 05:35, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Of course, he'll just think that all of us are part of the cabal, but that's just how he rolls... EVula 06:25, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. This entry meets WP:BIO. Michael Rivero has "A large fan base, fan listing or "cult" following." A search on his name in quotes in google produces 111,000 entries. A search on whatreallyhappened.com, his site, produces 335,000 entires. Whether you agree with his views or those who share them is irrelevant. He is definitely notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. Tiamut 10:44, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Did you honestly just argue that his own website has lots of information about him? How many of those google hits are real and do not include his site or reproductions of works on his site? --NuclearZer0 12:03, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I think what he was saying is that the website itself produces 335,000 entries in Google, which was one of the arguments used against the deletion of the website's old article. - EmiOfBrie 17:59, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, no assertion of notability, no major media attention, grossly undersourced and difficult to find reliable sources beyond the echo chamber of conspiracy theory blogs. Most assuredly does not conform to WP:BIO, nor does his website merit a mention under WP:WEB.--Rosicrucian 13:39, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Tom and Rosicrucian. --Aude (talk) 13:46, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - conspiracy theory fame aside, he is still a notable visual-effects artist! Lost, The Day After Tomorrow, Stargate, Trek TNG, that is quite a distinguished list! - EmiOfBrie 14:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment An impressive resume, but not an indicator of notability. If he had received major media attention based off of his work on these, or an industry award, perhaps. There are far more notable effects artists who do not have articles. In fact, while Rick Baker remains a stub I can't really say that Michael Rivero rates more attention.--Rosicrucian 14:38, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I agree with Rosicrurian - science fiction movies employ large teams of visual effects people, these people make important contributions to the movie to be sure but they arn't necessarily big contributions (I remember hearing that on the Star Wars prequels visual effects guys were responsible for 2 seconds of film a week). The visual effects supervisor may be notable, but an animator is no more notable than a casting supervisor or a gaffer or any of the zillions of other people whose names you see in the credits. GabrielF 17:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: If it's shown that he has won an industry award, would either of you consider a keep vote? *Sparkhead 00:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Comment Possibly, as that would go a long way towards establishing him as meeting WP:BIO as an effects artist, and only as an effects artist, via:
  • The person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field.
  • Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work.
  • Painters, sculptors, architects, engineers, and other professionals whose work is widely recognized (for better or worse) and who are likely to become a part of the enduring historical record of that field.
Make sense? I don't believe I'm applying an unfair standard here, and if people are trying to claim his effects career alone is enough to keep him, this is how I see it.--Rosicrucian 03:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • The article would have to be rewritten to promote his notability in special effects and considerably downplay his conspiracy cruft if that's what his notability is going to be built around in the article. --Strothra 03:59, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Makes sense and I don't believe you're applying an unfair standard either. Checking some history, I'm suprised "Whatreallyhappened.com" was deleted as advertisement, when other comparable entries exist (not arguing that one today though). On topic, a search of his name and his production company "Home Baked Entertainment" reveals claims of awards: Mr. Rivero's awards credits include gold, silver, and bronze medals from the New York International Film Festivals, two Clios in graphics, the Cable Car award at the San Francisco Film Festival, an emmy nomination, and gold & silver Hugos.,[12] and the Hawaii Student Film Festival site notes him as "award winning"[13], but I've been unable to verify a single one from another source. Clio site, IMDB, even the Hugo Award site which lists every (major?) award for the last 60 years doesn't have his name on it, that I could find anyway. Interesting. *Sparkhead 11:32, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Interesting that you're having trouble verifying his awards - maybe he's overstating his role on his website and it was the film or the team he was part of that won the award. More generally I'd say that an award itself doesn't necessarily prove notability. In academia a Nobel Prize guarantees notability but does a Guggenheim Fellowship? How about a best thesis award from a university? GabrielF 15:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Anyway, here's his resume [14] and here are some samples of his work [15] I'm not an expert in this field but it doesn't look like he's more notable than the average visual effects guy. GabrielF 16:09, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I see no evidence of notability. Browsing through the first 20 pages of google results I don't see any mainstream media coverage or anything else that would convince me that this guy has any notability outside the world of conspiracy theorists. GabrielF 17:41, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 17:47, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Meets WP:BIO. Badly written pages should be rewritten; not deleted. This guy has been notable among conspiracy whackos for years -- the following cites are listed on the talk page:
  1. New Orleans Times Picayune February 22, 1998 p. A21
  2. The Denver Post, September 30, 2001 p. A7
  3. Newsday (New York), July 17, 2006 p. A33
happy researching.--csloat 00:51, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Doesn't make him notable even by WP:BIO's standards. --Strothra 01:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
I've put on the talk page the paragraphs where they mention him. It's too thin to change my mind. Tom Harrison Talk 17:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keepThe three sources cited above might be sufficient to establish notability, depending on whether they are more than passing references. Whatever they say about him could and should be cited in the article. His coauthorship of a book on graphics programming and multiple movie credits in his IMDB entry are also valid towards notability. If those other factors establish notability, then it is legit to mention other things that might be mentioned in any biography, like his politics or his hobbies or whatever conspiracy theories he might have.Edison 01:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn.--MONGO 11:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete This one looks like he could be worthy of inclusion, but finding reliable sources is complicated by the multitude of conspiracy references out there. If he were to meet WP:BIO standards, it would more likely be for his industry work which, as is currently written in the article, is close but not quite enough. GassyGuy 13:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Yeah, that's a lot of the trouble as I see it. Being an online conspiracy theorist drives his Google signal-to-noise ratio waaaaay up, especially given how controversial his views on "Zionists" are. He's heavily blogged about and linked, but none of those count as reliable sources.--Rosicrucian 16:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. Brimba 15:47, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. NN. If notability is to be based upon his special effects work, then I would expect that the bulk of the article would be about that aspect of his life, with only a passing mention of his conspiracy work. In this case, it would seem that his day job would be used as an excuse to push non-notable conspiracy theories and POV, violating the spirit and intent of WP:BIO. - Crockspot 17:36, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete as mentioned above, source that can be found would be against reliable sources and not appropriate for Wikipedia, further his online presence taints the reliability of google hits. --NuclearZer0 19:55, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Google hits aren't really ever a "reliable" source for proving notability. --Strothra 19:59, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Coverage is trivial, would be nearly impossible to write a WP:V compliant article. JoshuaZ 20:14, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Article does not establish any notability for visual effects (BTW, he was only one of a dozen or so visual effects producers for Lost), and not enough notability for conspiracy-mongering. (Oh, look! He blames the Jewszionists! How original is that?!) CWC(talk) 16:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • To be fair, he includes Christians in his definition of "Zionists" as well...basically, his definition would be anyone who (he feels) is deliberately trying to bring about the end times and therefore be raptured (with "Zion" being another name for paradise). Given some of the USA and Israel's actions recently (especially Israel's attack against Lebanon for the actions of a private organization who even Lebanon officially does not approve of), I'm not surprised Rivero believes that way. -EmiOfBrie 17:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Appears to meet the bar of inclusion in several different fields. Any non-notable conspiracy opinions of the subject of the article can be removed without needing to nuke the whole thing. Gamaliel 18:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as nominated. Subject claims bin Laden video was doctored – Wow! Where have we heard that before? References provided give a false impression of notable standing. And blog hits from Google search do not establish that he is worthy of an article. As I have mentioned earlier in another one of these cases, we have executed criminals in the U.S. that had plenty of news time, and we do not have articles about them. So, several newspaper stories do not establish a page here. JungleCat talk/contrib 18:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as nominated. Special effects film credits are not adequate for notability, and the rest of the article is taken from his own web site(s). Coverage of him and his web sites in the mainstream media would be necessary, but not sufficient, for inclusion. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Still Delete as nominated, in spite of additions. Withdraw vote if the CSPAN interview can be confirmed and he is a major participant in that interview, as opposed to being one of a number of censored conspiracy theorists. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: WP:BIO is a guideline and not Wikipedia policy. It notes that the entire concept of notability is a contentious one, and specifically says that any person who meets one of the criteria listed can be considered notable. Further, it notes in bold that even if they fail to fit any one of categories listed, that the list is not an exclusionary one. The guideline is there to help improve the NPOV and quality of articles written, and NOT to be used to raise the bar selectively against those with whose views we disagree so as to delete entries. Rivero's website www.whatreallyhappened.com has already been up for deletion twice, and was deleted on the second attempt after a very contentious debate. No doubt articles will be written on him again since he does have a cult-like following in some quarters, and constitutes part of an online phenomenon that is notable to anyone with any familiarity with alternative news sites. It would be a shame if this entry were to be deleted simply because some people find what he writes about to be beyond the pale. An online encyclopedia should make use of its unique tools and assets to challenge and expand the notion of notability, rather than work to shrink our sphere our knowledge by upholding dogmatic orthodoxies. Tiamut 14:25, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment I fail to see how WP:BIO is being used to raise the bar. He's perhaps a notable person in a very small group. That doesn't make him notable on the larger world stage. EVula 14:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Per JoshuaZ. Jayjg (talk) 22:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep meets WP:BIO IMO. --Deenoe 02:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per recent article improvements. If you disagree, give it some time to improve further. *Sparkhead 02:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Crockspot and JoshuaZ. Sandy (Talk) 21:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete fails WP:BIO since the notability is established for the website and not for him, TewfikTalk 03:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep Remove everything cited with links to his website, and decide from whats left. --Uncle Bungle 03:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment The article is about Michael Rivero and why is he notable, and it is includes the website he runs which has received mainstream media attention. While the website may not be a reliable source for other articles, it is a certainly relevant source for the article on Rivero and his website. Not to include information from the website when it is part of what is under discussion in the article is just weird. Tiamut 12:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. While merges end with redirects and not deletion, this is an implausible search term, and would be an inappropriate redirect. --Coredesat 00:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adrenaline Combo

Wikipedia is not a game guide. Suggesting a transwiki to an appropriate gaming wiki. MER-C 03:03, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

An anonymous user decided to be bold and merge the content already. Delete as content is now a part of Unreal Tournament 2004 Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 23:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Way too much detail for a small part of a game. Wickethewok 16:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Not important enough for an own article –– Sensenmann 16:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Considering that most trivia is unverifiable, and we're supposed to avoid it anyway, the main article won't benefit from a merge. -- Steel 00:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nintendo DS trivia

A whole article just for Nintendo DS trivia, with no references at all. Mushroom (Talk) 03:04, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - "This article is listing random facts about the Nintendo DS." Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate repository of information. MER-C 03:11, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete (after edit conflict)"This article is listing random facts about the Nintendo DS." So, an indiscrimate collection of information then. -- IslaySolomon | talk 03:13, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete If trivia sections are to be avoided in articles, there clearly shouldn't be entire articles for trivia. Dancter 03:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Dancter 03:30, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Article is home to such gems as "In a Thomas English Muffin commercial, a boy can be seen playing a Nintendo DS." I can't wait to whip out that l'il factoid at my next cocktail party. This is really trivial trivia. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:31, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge content into relevant articles. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 05:59, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, indiscriminate cruftopia. It even mentions what ports the DS uses to connect to WiFi. This is information our grandchildren and future world leaders desperately need access to! GarrettTalk 09:25, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom, there is a lot of trivia like this about in other articles too. --tgheretford (talk) 14:07, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Zqpsdw 14:58, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge with Nintendo DS, and redirect the page there. Mike | Talk 15:38, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - per MER-C and Dancter. This shouldn't even exist as a redirect because it would give people the wrong idea. ENeville 21:49, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete dumb. Danny Lilithborne 23:08, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per MER-C, or Merge. This article might stand a chance, but it would need to be so heavily revamped (and probably renamed), that we might as well start over. -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 23:11, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per MER-C. If any truely useful information, move to relevant article, but it doesn't look it to me. -- FaerieInGrey 01:19, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per MER-C M1ss1ontomars2k4 (T | C | @) 01:26, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • IT DOESN'T FIT INTO THE NINTENDO DS ARTICLE WITHOUT BLOATING IT SEVERELY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 68.34.2.3 04:31, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge two or three of the most notable ones and delete it. Sorry, 68.34.2.3, but we can't have articles about trivia. Please read Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles. The Nintendo DS could have a "Cultural references" section written in prose about, but not a list of trivia, and much less an article about trivia only. -- ReyBrujo 18:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per MER-C. Combination 19:50, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete/merge. Andre (talk) 20:55, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Do NOT merge very much of it. Wikipedia discourages trivia, while it's not banned... a whole trivia page shouldn't be merged with the regular article on it. Wikipedia is not a fan's guide to every little trivia/note about things. Encyclopedia, not a trivia guide. RobJ1981 03:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:01, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Singapore Urban Explorers

Not notable website, Internet group. Vsion 03:05, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment, for disclosure, this website/Internet group (SUE) was mentioned in a newspaper article [16] in three paragraphs:"On a smaller scale, there is online community Singapore Urban Explorer, ...., dedicated to discovering lesser-known sites in the city, ... The website has over 400 registered members ...". I believe the news article is authentic. In addition, the group does organise some activities outside cyberspace, physically exploring Marsiling jungle, etc. Nonetheless, I don't think the group is notable. --Vsion 18:55, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - fails WP:WEB even if someone verifies the media report, since it requires two coverages. MER-C 04:24, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. *drew 14:24, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per MER-C. Nice-looking article, though; notability is my only concern. | Mr. Darcy talk 18:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 all as CSD A7 (no assertion of notability). — TKD::Talk 06:55, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mouzam solkar

it's a personal ad and not a real article Karasuman 03:15, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Support per nom.Bakaman Bakatalk 03:25, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • (edit confilct) Speedy Delete A7. This is just a C&P from the contributor's userpage (or the other way around), otherwise I'd say userfy. edit: mind as well tack Mouzam and Mouzams onto this AfD as well. --Daniel Olsen 03:27, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • 'Speedy delete all Karasuman, check out WP:CSD for criteria when articles can be speedily deleted. This one is a clear A7. ~ trialsanderrors 06:44, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Collusion between business and government

Appears to be a POV fork from Hong Kong. I would merge back except the content is POV and having "Collusion between business and government" redirect to Hong Kong is kind of POV too. - Richfife 03:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - Criticisms of Hong Kong's economic policy should be in that article, but such a povfork is unecessary, and such a title very unhelpful. savidan(talk) (e@) 04:12, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete irrelevant, not enough information to warrant its own article.--MonkBirdDuke 06:19, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, the alleged examples are unverifiable given the number of other reasons beyond "collusion" that might explain the lack of a minimum wage etc. DWaterson 20:34, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete not enough info per MonkBirdDuke. M1ss1ontomars2k4 (T | C | @) 01:25, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep important issue in HK, sparked multiple protests, debates in LegCo, extensive coverage in media, etc. 600000 hits in Google using the Chinese term and Hong Kong. The title is the standard term used to refer to this phenomenon. I added more info and links. WP 08:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Reply That may be true, but there needs to be a better place to put the information. If it can't go in the Hong Kong article, then it really can't go anywhere. - Richfife 02:22, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and merge into the appropriate Hong Kong article, TewfikTalk 03:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Chick Bowen 22:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tomorrow's Nobodies

Non-notable web series. Fails WP:V and WP:RS due to a lack of independent reliable sources. Looks like it fails WP:WEB as well. Was deleted previously: HERE. Wickethewok 03:37, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete as repost. So tagged. MER-C 03:43, 21 October 2006 (UTC) Delete - fails WP:WEB. MER-C 04:58, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Regular delete. It's not close enough to meet G4. It still fails WP:V and WP:WEB. --Coredesat 04:53, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Does not pass WP:WEB, WP:V, or WP:RS. --Simonkoldyk 19:05, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. The article is clean and well organized almost every statement is backed up by an external link, and these guys were praised by someone who gets more traffic than MCDONALDS. I would call that notable. "Web-specific content[3] is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria" "# The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster." Maddox definitely qualifies as a notable online broadcaster. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Superslash (talk • contribs)
  • Being linked to or mentioned by Maddox or whatever is trivial. Maddox has talked about a lot of things and I'm sure linked to them as well. Wickethewok 20:53, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Your personal opinion on maddox doesn't change the fact that he is one of the most trafficked websites on the internet. The same goes for newgrounds, another place their material is published. Consdering the nature of most of these comments, that only 3 of you are here and calling for a delete, and the way the last few attempts were handled with extreme prejudice it almost seems like you have something against TN. Face it man, the article just doesn't quality for deletion, whether you like them or not has no bearing on it. They meet the criteria for notability. --Superslash 00:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I like Maddox, but that has nothing to do with anything. Being linked to from a blog-like source would make just about every Geocities site valid for inclusion. I've probably nominated hundreds of articles for deletion, and assure you I have had nothing personal against any of them. Wickethewok 04:24, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete fails WP:WEB, TewfikTalk 03:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:03, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alien Swarm

Game mod that doesn't meet WP:SOFTWARE. Wikipedia is not a game guide. MER-C 03:51, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. -- moe.RON talk | done | doing 22:01, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete. Their previous project (Thievery UT) got significant coverage (including a whole column devoted to it in PC Gamer), but I haven't seen similarly significant coverage of this one. I'm not sure about the worthiness of the rankings mentioned above (ModDB certainly doesn't cut it, but Gamespy might). GarrettTalk 00:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Comment - The GameSpy Network encompasses all of the Planet sites (FilePlanet, PlanetUnreal, PlanetDeusEx, etc.) as well as GameSpy.com. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 21:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, In my opinion it's an notable mod. -- Sensenmann 16:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless a second source is found to establish notability per WP:SOFTWARE, TewfikTalk 06:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - In addition to the awards, this mod has spawned a fully fledged commercial game. And was the reason I removed the prod. This article should and will cover both the mod and the game. I thought this would have been obvious. Here, Alien Swarm: Infested does exist http://uk.pc.ign.com/articles/608/608624p1.html . - Hahnchen 15:56, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep if creation of stand-alone game is properly sourced. --Alan Au 19:55, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Comment - I don't know about standalone, but Forbes is noting that the next Alien Swarm incarnation will be deployed via Steam. [17] Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 20:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was deletemania. --Coredesat 00:17, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Corpsemania

Game mod that doesn't meet WP:SOFTWARE. Wikipedia is not a game guide. MER-C 03:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Though I'm not sure about game guide part, looking through google (after filtering forums and wikipedia) gets about 76 hits, none are reliable sources in the least. As far as I can tell, the mod doesn't even have its own offical site to check this article's information. —Mitaphane talk 05:14, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Deletemania non-notable. EVula 06:26, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. --Brad Beattie (talk) 08:13, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per EVula. M1ss1ontomars2k4 (T | C | @) 01:25, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result wasno consensus. --Coredesat 00:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FEMA Trailer

  ATTENTION!

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

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

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

Neologism, original research, merge relevant bits with articles about FEMA and the two hurricanes Ponch's Disco 04:05, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Rewriting. At 19:00, I converted the article "FEMA Trailer" to "current-event" status, after rewriting and adding 6 sources for facts. Upon close examination, I found the article contained unsourced general information (not "original research" to FEMA), including new events up to last month. Now it is a totally different current-event article, and never was a neologism since FEMA uses the term: "FEMA Trailer Hotline" and such. -Wikid77 19:15, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • But this does not solve the original underlying problem. Ponch's Disco 01:27, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 04:07, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. MER-C 04:16, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. TV Newser Tipline 04:23, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I've heard the phrase, but... it's a trailer, owned by FEMA. It's self-explanatory. --Brianyoumans 04:33, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Unfortunately, I thnk this will be deleted, but it was a big part of alot of people's lives. It was a symbol of what a lot of people deemed shoddiness of the Fema program and noncommitment on the part of the federal government. Some of this appears to be original research, but I think a livelier debate should take place on the merits of such an article other than "Delete per nom". --MonkBirdDuke 06:23, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • All valid points, but which belong in the FEMA article and articles about the two hurricanes. Ponch's Disco 08:29, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep This is an important article and needs to be kept. It has been nominated by those do not understand the concept of wiki. Belly Flop Patrol 09:51, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Trolling isn't tolerated. – Chacor 10:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Indef blocked sock -Splash - tk 16:25, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • This is a complete joke by someone who just understand the concept of wiki I and don't particularly care for the opinions of the nominator. Tecmobowl 09:57, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
    • This comment has been struck. This was an IP faking the identity of Tecmobowl, as seen from the corresponding ANI post. – Chacor 10:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh, and personally, this is just some horrible original research and is a non-notable term/neologism. Delete. – Chacor 10:30, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, WP:OR. No doubt about it. Daniel.Bryant 10:33, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Again, even though some of this may be original research...it is research that documents a widespread current event. It's something that will definitely grow with time in both content and citations. Killing the article now would be an exercise in ignorance and shortsightedness. The FEMA trailer might seem like a small thing, but to those in the region, the trailer will become a cultural icon of the life and times. Don't delete this, because it IS relevant.--MonkBirdDuke 10:56, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Adjusted: At 13:12, I converted the article to "current event" status to focus attention for rapid changes, and many did not realize it was a Federal term: FEMA Trailer. -Wikid77 14:05, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep important part in many people's lives. --CFIF ☎ ⋐ 11:55, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
    • That isn't a valid reason to keep. Especially if it's unencyclopedic, as in this case. – Chacor 11:59, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Comment"Encyclopedic" and "unencyclopedic" seem to be Wikipedia neologisms which mean nothing more than "I like this article" or "I don't like it" so they shed no light on what should be kept or deleted.Edison 23:01, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Convert to stub-tag status and request sources for facts. Allow the originator or others time to expand details. The information is very detailed and, inside the FEMA or hurricane articles, the detail would be excessive. The term "FEMA Trailer" is not a neologism but, rather, a combination of the two words. The article might seem to be original research, but it is, instead, a notable topic that simply needs source references. -Wikid77 12:45, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • 21-October-2006: At 13:12, I converted the article to "current event" status to focus attention for rapid changes + noted term given by US Gov't (not neologism, Federal policies, not OR). -Wikid77 13:51, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • That is an incorrect use of {{current}}. – Chacor 13:55, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
    • As warned above, at 19:00 I converted the article "FEMA Trailer" to "current-event" status, after rewriting and adding 6 sources for facts. It does focus on FEMA trailers, with issues such as:
- the trailers have propane stoves but microwave ovens;
- trailers will only be installed with external electric service;
- FEMA has officially re-requested trailers to be returned when no longer used; and
- FEMA has extended the usage-deadline beyond the original 18 months.

Current news reports have indicated that FEMA trailers were still being issued in recent months, not just in 2005, hence the "current-event" status and not another description of Hurricane Katrina and such. -Wikid77 19:30, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom and User:Brianyoumans. Simply as a subject, the article fails WP:N because there's really no such thing as a "FEMA trailer"; it's just a catchall term for any trailer that FEMA (or any other government or NGO entity (like the American Red Cross) happens to give you after a disaster. If there was actually a specific trailer built for FEMA to FEMA specifications (like, say, a UPS truck is), then you'd have a reason for the article to exist in the first place. But since there is no one such thing as a "FEMA trailer", there's nothing to define, and you end up with what this article actually is: a big WP:OR violation that wanders all over the place. --Aaron 20:04, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Using that logic, there's no such thing as a "Space Shuttle" either: all of the orbiters are unique variations that met certain specifications at the time, whether using RAM or old core-memory circuits for the onboard computers, just as FEMA trailers must meet certain specifications at the time. Of course, the topic of "FEMA trailers" is just common sense to millions, but you could find 20 people who would agree to delete any Wikipedia article. -Wikid77 21:20, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep if refocused. We don't have an article on FEMA camps and they're clearly notable, set up on federal land or leased private property in what, about 12 states? Some of this would fit in such an article. There were a number of features on the camps especially in the first couple of months and probably some anniversary articles as well, so they would meet WP:V. Second, the use of FEMA-issued trailers in disaster zones seems like it's a worthwhile subject, even though most of this article focuses strangely on the trailers themselves when it's more of a social phenomenon. We have a number of "effects of Katrina" articles including social effects of Hurrican Katrina and this could at least be trimmed and merged to fit into that if nothing else. Not to push countering systemic bias too far, but the people in the camps especially were cut off from the media glare and we don't know much about what happened to them. --Dhartung | Talk 21:05, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Wikid77's revisions and per Dhartung's general comments about notability. also, FEMA trailer isn't a neologism; it's just a handy description. The topic would be notable under another name, unlike a neologism article. Derex 22:52, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • KeepAdded reference from 1995 to FEMA trailers used for 2 1/2 after 1992 hurricane. What on earth is wrong with an article on the interim disaster housing currently used to house thousands of American displaced by Katrina or future disasters? Seems well referenced. If this article bites the dust, it could be part of an article on disaster housing: tents for short time, trailers for intermediate term. Edison 22:57, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not a place for the creation of original research. Merge to FEMA article. Violates WP:NEO. Morton devonshire 01:30, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Search-hits: Today (22-October-2006), the search-hits for "FEMA Trailer" (quoted) were: Google = 242,000 hits, Yahoo = 447,000 & MS Live = 34,856 hits. However, searches for "FEMA Planning" were less than 950 on any of the big 3 SEs, perhaps "FEMA planning" would be considered original research. Per Edison above, the world has been talking about "FEMA trailers" years before Antiquipedia existed. OMG, weak-ipedias are so embarrassing. -Wikid77 01:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Update: Search-hits for "FEMA plan" matched thousands more webpages than "planning" with Google-hits reported as 14,600 (non-original topic). -Wikid77 01:50, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Earrings: OK, jewelers even make "Sterling Silver FEMA Trailer charm earrings" sold on ebay: ebay-webpage for Trailer earrings. Notability clue: if an article has been made into sterling-silver jewelry, then it's probably notable. Some days WP is so embarrassing. (Could someone please load the 1911 Britannica to define all non-existent classical articles?) Let this be a lesson to all of us: next time someone near NOLA submits an article, be reticent to nominate for deletion. -Wikid77 02:25, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Your behaviour on this article has been nothing short of snappy and sarcastic, and overal uncivil. Stop it. – Chacor 02:26, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • CommentThe article has useful info, but FEMA haas been providing trailers at least since 1992, so it is odd to focus so much on Katrina response criticisms. That could better be put into Criticism of government response to Hurricane Katrina as a section. Then there could be a section in FEMA on housing they make available: tents (or motels or domed stadiums) for the short term, trailers for a year or 2. I find nothing in Wikipedia on "Disaster housing in the U.S." which could become important in the event of various natural disasters, wars or terrorism incidents. The stuff here which is not Katrina or FEMA criticism belongs in an "Intermediate term disaster housing" section. The article seems like too much info on too little a piece of the topic.Edison 02:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Comment "Too much information" seems an odd criticism here. If someone isn't interested in the trailers, they can stick with the main FEMA article. Having this much info there would be too much. But providing well-sourced information elsewhere is to be lauded. While it might not interest you, it probably does interest thousands of other people. Having it in a separate article guarantees that it will not overly intrude on those who do not care for this much information, while providing it for others. No reason information about 1992 trailers can't be included, an article shouldn't be deleted for being incomplete. A retitle (with redir) to "FEMA disaster relief housing" would be fine though. Derex 02:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per above. --InShaneee 02:51, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Non-notable neologism. --210physicq (c) 03:09, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment, at the risk of not being able to shut up. Can we please get past the title of the article, which can be easily changed, and focus on the content. It matters not if the title is a neologism (and it's not), the title can trivially be changed to FEMA disaster relief housing or something. As to notability, these have quite substantial coverage from the NYTimes, CNN, and MSNBC. What is the standard for notability? Google News usually only keeps article two weeks to a month; "FEMA trailer" yields 170 unique hits, which to me says notable non-neologism. Derex 05:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment I was focusing on the content and the title, and the content seems to be something we can do without. And 170 ghits is not enough to assert notability. --210physicq (c) 17:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
        • Reply That's google news and for a pretty old topic and for less than a month's coverage. Plain google has 238,000. Derex 00:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, I feel confident that this is a notable subject and the referencing seals the deal. Everyking 08:09, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge Will (Glaciers melting in the dead of night) 09:34, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Everyking. I just scanned the article and I really don't see the basis for deletion. Anchoress 11:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, bad faith nomination. -Lapinmies 11:20, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
On what do you base this accusation?? wikipediatrix 11:27, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I was neutral about this article in its initial form, but this rewrite needs to go. The original at least attempted to describe a FEMA Trailer as a subject, but this is attempting to describe some sort of possible recent culture connected to U.S. hurricanes in a region. All of that is terribly biased, since FEMA's distribution of trailers is not a new concept or limited to that region. The article as it now stands does a bad job of representing an NPOV and, quite frankly, appears to be an attempt to capture some sort of cultural phenomenon that may not be encyclopaedic at all, and may be more of a construct than a reality. Without strong academic sourcing (the sort which likely won't come until many years from now if it is to come at all), this sort of thing just doesn't seem to belong. If this article were actually focusing on the history, purpose, and use of the FEMA trailer, it might be more acceptable, although I would then likely be more inclined to merge it with FEMA; however, the article as it stands needs to go. GassyGuy 13:35, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. Certainly not a neologism. (243,000 google hits for "FEMA trailer".) Something directly relevant to hundreds of thousands of people, has been in national and international news. Any problems with the article are better dealt with edits to improve it than deletion. -- Infrogmation 21:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, as this is not a neologism. As the article states, this is what FEMA itself calls the manufactured housing.[18]--Rosicrucian 14:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I'm astonished that this is up for deletion. Obvious keep. Gamaliel 18:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - this is an official US Govt. designation and the topic is important in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. The article should be kept and improved. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 19:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I prefer this wording for the title (though it should probably be moved to FEMA trailer), but if people are hung up on the "neologism" issue, it could easily be at FEMA use of trailers or some such. I'd appreciate it if those advocating deletion would explain whether they would merge all this information into the FEMA article, which I think would be excessive detail there, or, if they wouldn't, then which information in the article they would instead expunge completely from Wikipedia. JamesMLane t c 10:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep It may be government terminology, but it is one that is in use by the print media as a term no longer needing explanation. There is a real phenomenon here. Parts of the article may still have sourcing issues, but I have complete confidence that there would still be an article worth having after any (if there is any) remaining original research was removed. GRBerry 14:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. The status of the article now makes the problems listed in the nomination somewhat irrelevant. Notable issue, sourced, remaining problems can be handled by editing. Mangojuicetalk 17:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep because a lot of editing could turn this into a good article, but I identify with the concerns raised above by Aaron, TewfikTalk 06:56, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. Catchpole 20:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 00:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NFL starting quarterbacks

The Page is hardly a substantial article as it is a trivial list. It makes Wikipedia seem more like a Sports News Network as opposed to an encyclopedia (See WP:Not) ShadowJester07 04:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. TJ Spyke 04:53, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. An indiscriminate collection of information. I'll grant that its content is noteable, but the article itself is just a collection of links. It reads like the love-child of a Category and a Disambiguation page -- not quite useless, not quite useful. Consequentially 05:05, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Categorize to "Current NFL starting quarterbacks" or the like. --Hemlock Martinis 05:51, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Although it's somewhat helpful, maybe it could be made into a proper list type list.
  • Categorize as per Hemlock Marinis. EVula 06:27, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Neutral but strongly oppose the idea of making it a category. A list that has to be checked and maintained constantly is a minor headache. A category that has to be checked and maintained constantly is a major headache. I do wonder what happens when the season ends, though. Does the list get smaller as teams get knocked out during the playoffs, becoming empty after the Superbowl? :) Xtifr tälk 07:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, time-specific. COuld be moved to "NFL Starting quarterbacks (2006)" or something. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 14:30, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Actually, I like the idea of List of NFL starting quarterbacks in 2006 or something similar. I'd support that a lot more readily than I would the article as it stands now. EVula 20:12, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
    • That's actually how the List of spaceflights by year got started; someone had created a List of scheduled rocket launches which I listed for AFD as being time specific, and they changed the format to list past and scheduled events in one place, which means that it'll remain a viable resource even without constant updating, by not simply saying "current." Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:01, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per various reasons above, with the suggestion that the table listing all the teams on the NFL page be expanded to include columns for head coach and starting QB. Closer (baseball) provides a good precedent showing that "depth chart" lists are easily updated. SliceNYC 20:02, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, though for reasons completely different from nominator. The information is arguably encyclopedic, but too ephemeral. I would argue it's too subject to change to keep. Haikupoet 03:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or replace as suggested by EVula, which would have the advantage of showing numerous QBs who "started" for the same team as a season progressed. Carlossuarez46 22:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 00:30, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ethnic software

Non-notable article discussing a neologism. Justin Eiler 04:23, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, per nom. eaolson 04:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


Justin, what do you not like about this article? -author

Greetings, William. "Liking" has nothing to do with my decision to nominate the article--I actually do like the articles. My only reasons for nominating the article for a deletion discussion have to do with Wikipedia guidelines regarding notability. As it stands, the article does not make clear why the topic is notable. Additionally, since you are the owner of one of the websites under discussionin the article, there is some question as to whether or not the articles fall under the guidelines for vanity articles or spam. Justin Eiler 04:56, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
It is a neologism, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Please read the relevant notability guidelines for neologisms. MER-C 04:52, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Technically, it is not a neologism. that would be ethnoware. this article is a concept, which seems to be gaining some acceptance, 1200 hits in google. oh and btw, articles are not supposed to talk about their notability, they are supposed to establish it. --Buridan 13:16, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Actually the WP:NEO page says that a neologism can be a phrase, not just a word. I get 288 Google hits [19], many of which are link farms. eaolson 13:40, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • comment. the hits that i get that aren't farms are sites like rhyzome, washington university saint louis, kanonmedia, all fairly well respected artists. to me.. it comes down to this. if the category exists as a concept and is used in an academic field like this one seems to be, is it better to cleanup the article and have it as a stub, removing the advertising from it, so that people can look up an authoritative meaning in wikipedia, or is it better to vacate the conceptual territory and let the advertisers have it?--Buridan 14:38, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Comment - the use of "vanity" is now discouraged. Instead please use "apparent Conflict of interest" per WP:COI Jpe|ob 08:10, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. MER-C 04:52, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. EVula 06:27, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep This represents a notable conflict, which needs citations. There are sufficient academic citations of this and related concepts to establish the notability and encyclopedic quality of the article. It just needs improved. I suspect that if you delete this article, it will be only a matter of weeks or months before someone comes along and makes a new one, so keep it.--Buridan 13:16, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. My biggest objection to this article (I proded before it was deproded and AfDed) is that the use of the term "ethnic software" to describe a particular subset of application software was neither sourced nor well-defined. Shribmashinke's software appears to be titled Ethnic software, but doesn't use the term to describe it. Digital Griot doesn't use the term on its own webpage, and I can't find anything linking the two in Google. No hits in Google Scholar. This is an interesting and probably useful extension of software, but the use of the phrase in this generic way appears to be fairly new. eaolson 13:40, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
wierd, i got one hit from google scholar, the electronic disturbance theater, though i didn't verify it. keep in mind that the texts that terms like this originate in, in the academic universe, might not be the texts that end up in google scholar because small publishers don't participate. a regular google search actually turns up several more academics and artists in this area. i see the problem between the advert and the concept. it would be nice to expunge the advert and keep the concept. --Buridan 14:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Software doesn't have ethnicity. I expect to see Islamic software one day. Pavel Vozenilek 15:38, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
actually, software does have an ethnicity, or at least a cultural specificity. there is plenty of evidence in chi/hci specifically in the anthropology of software that shows that.--Buridan 17:00, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
OK, that's important aspect though 'ethnicity' sounds strange here (culture or cultural context got used, e.g. [20]). The article however does't touch this, it is list of of some SW. Pavel Vozenilek 21:00, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Change vote to abstain: Though I'm the editor who opened this discussion, User:Williammurrell has taken steps to make this a discussion of the concept of "ethnic software," rather than an advertisment for his website. As such, while I am still unsure if the discussion is notable, I will note that it no longer falls under spam or Conflict of interest. Justin Eiler 19:43, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep but needs major cleanup and better sourcing of the concept, not just examples. --Dhartung | Talk 21:10, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete -- neologism for a nebulously defined subcategory of (mostly) reference software. Haikupoet 04:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. WP:NEO. utcursch | talk 09:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:NEO requires secondary sources about the term before we include articles on neologism. Until we have reliable sources that discuss "ethnic software" as a concept, we can't have an article on the concept. GRBerry 14:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NEOlogism guidelines, TewfikTalk 07:06, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. It still could have been speedied per CSD G11. --Coredesat 00:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] W.D. International

Article fails WP:SPAM and does not establish notability. Seems to fail WP:CORP as well. Article author removed speedy deletion tag twice, but it seems as though she works for the company. JaimeLesMaths 04:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


Hello, this is Janus. I do not work for the company, however was asked to write an article on their datacenter in Pheonix, AZ. I do understand that this article might meet some spam requirements, but please know that the company for whom I am writing this article is not, in any way, trying to advertise. I am simply providing information on the companies physical address and their history. Also, they qoute "We are establishing a positive online presence". If I must take out certain parts of this article to qualify it as "not spam", please let me know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JanusLairetammi (talk • contribs) 04:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete All kinds of copyvio going on here [21] [22] and created in the last 48 hours. -- IslaySolomon | talk 04:53, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - reads like a corporate profile or a press release. See WP:NPOV. No evidence of meeting the relevant notability guidelines is provided. MER-C 04:57, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delte. A Google search offers five relevant hits, four of which are advertisements/links to their home page. The only other link is an extremely short review that does little more than restate the various packages and services available. The article is loaded with POV language, and zero third-party references to support their claims. This is spam. Consequentially 05:14, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - no wonder I didn't pick this company up when I was looking for hosting. Non-notable and copyvio galore. SMC 05:17, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying that I can "Post a extremely short review that does little more than restate the various packages and services available."?

Is it exeptable if I just put the companys history?—Preceding unsigned comment added by JanusLairetammi (talk • contribs)

Even if the article is just the company's history, the company itself is still non-notable. Not much you can do about that. EVula 06:56, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete per CSD G11. EVula 06:29, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


Would a history like "This company was founded in 2003 by _______." W.D. International has been in business since November 2003." Be acceptable?

Comment No. EVula 21:40, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy per EVula. --Dhartung | Talk 21:08, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


Thanks for the detailed response. What would be acceptable to list about a companys history?


Your not anserwering my question. What would be acceptable to list about a companys history?

Comment: It's not about what you are and aren't allowed to say about the company; what you need to do is explain why this company is notable and worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. Take a look at the guidelines set forth at WP:CORP. If the company does not meet any of those criteria, an article about it will not be accepted to Wikipedia. I hope this clears things up for you. --JaimeLesMaths (talk!edits) 16:25, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


Would you like me to explain the notibility? —Preceding unsigned comment added by JanusLairetammi (talk • contribs)

Yes, actually. That's what we've been asking repeatedly for. EVula 17:31, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Im not quite sure what the nobility is. I read the link. What still not sure. What would you like me to explain about the companies nobility? —Preceding unsigned comment added by JanusLairetammi (talk • contribs)

Notability, not nobility; bit of a difference. If you can't find anything on WP:CORP that you can use as evidence of notability, then you have no argument. EVula 21:22, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


The following review meets Criteria for companies and corporations - The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company or corporation itself.

W.D. International Hosting Review:

W.D. International Hosting provides web hosting services for $90.00/mo. For their $90.00/mo. plan, you get 15,000 MB of storage and 100 GB of file transfer.

In addition, you can host multiple websites using the same $90.00/mo. hosting account from W.D. International Hosting.

For tracking site visitors, W.D. International Hosting provides Awstats. Among the three popular stats scripts - Awstats, Analog and Webalizer - our editors prefer Awstats it is user-friendly and powerful.

W.D. International Hosting's automated order system will setup your new $90.00/mo. account instantly. You're issued your new username and password immediately.

W.D. International Hosting also provides a money-back guarantee with their $90.00/mo. plan. You can try out their service and get a full refund if you're not completely satisfied.

For more information on W.D. International's hosting services, visit their website at www.wdint.net.

Taken from: http://www.hostaz.com/company/wdinternational.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by JanusLairetammi (talk • contribs) 04:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

The information on the website (reproduced here) was clearly provided by the company. I would also say that the page is not non-trivial (i.e. it's just a statement of bare facts with no analysis). I would say that this website alone is not sufficient for the notability guideline. Try finding an article in a published trade magazine - that would be certainly be more convincing. --JaimeLesMaths (talk!edits) 03:08, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • delete per nom. Unless someone can back up their claim of being "one of the leading providers of web hosting solutions and services for global business". The assertion of notability is there, so cannot be speedied. So far, little independent info available, it fails WP:V. Ohconfucius 10:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


The company provided some additional links:

http://www.webhostingstuff.com/company/WDInternational.html

http://www.hostaz.com/company/wdinternational.htm

http://www.aboutus.org/WDInt.net

http://www.getafreelancer.com/users/249249.html

http://www.wdinternational.com/pressrelease1.html

http://www.wdinternational.com/pressrelease2.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by JanusLairetammi (talk • contribs) 04:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

You're still providing poor links to prove notability. Two pre-releases by the company and a bunch of re-hashings of the same promotional material is not evidence of notability.
Also, don't sign your posts with {{unsigned}}. Do it with ~~~~, as it also date-stamps what you post. Example ---> EVula 03:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete - since the ethnic software article was deleted on the grounds it was a non-notable neologism as a child (or at least a relation) of that article this has to fall under that umbrella too. Yomanganitalk 11:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blacksoftware

Non-notable software company. Does not meet guidelines at WP:SOFTWARE. Note that the article is discussing http://www.blacksoftware.com/, owned by the article's creator, so it may meet WP:VANITY. Ethnic software, which it claims to be a form of, is also undergoing an AfD. eaolson 04:35, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Justin Eiler 04:45, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - the use of "vanity" is now discouraged. Instead please use "apparent Conflict of interest" per WP:COI Jpe|ob 08:11, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. --Brad Beattie (talk) 08:13, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Change vote to abstain: User:Williammurrell has taken steps to make this a discussion of the concept of "ethnic software," rather than an advertisment for his website. As such, while I am still unsure if the discussion is notable, I will note that it no longer falls under spam or Conflict of interest. Justin Eiler 19:44, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge with ethnic software. There isn't enough here that's notable for an article. --Dhartung | Talk 21:10, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - article now seems to be in the impossible position of trying to avoid COI charge and addressing the same issues from the deleted ethnic software article. My brief research suggests there is an emerging and notable market for ethnic/black software, but I think a new article would have to started at this point. -Kubigula (ave) 23:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Chick Bowen 22:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chronicles of Light: Tension, Juack Hallavasso, Girus Myries

Non notable book. Also nominating two articles about characters in the book: Juack Hallavasso and Girus Myries. Actually, I say not-notable book but I should say "possibly inexistent book". Not published as far as I can tell and most certainly nowhere close to the criteria of WP:BK. Pascal.Tesson 04:51, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as possible hoax or possible original research on a book series that has yet to be published. ghits: [23], amazon.com: [24]. Amazon.com for the author: [25]. All zip. --NMChico24 04:56, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment From the Contributor: I have taken the necessary edits to the page to make apparent the fact that the book is, as of yet, not published. However, as per the last link on the page (Which leads to the Freewebs site for the book and the book's author), the author has met with a publishing company in regards to publishing it. I apologize for the mix-up; when I created the three articles, I had not yet figured out how to put in the 'Future Book' template. Hopefully, this will verify that this book is real and should not be deleted. I once again apologize for not making this clear. --Locclo
  • Delete Actually Loccio, you've made it worse. Original nomination called this a non-notable book. Now it turns out is has not been published and the author has only 'met' with a publisher. Sorry, that clinches it for me - all three articles need to go. Emeraude 11:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Defeat Well...three people can't be wrong. Guess this little project has to wait for a few weeks before I finish it up. Ah, well, at least I can save it and post it later. --Locclo
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. If anyone would like the list in order to make a category, let me know and I'll copy it into userspace for you. Chick Bowen 22:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of fictional characters with one eye

I believe this to be of no encyclopedic merit. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional characters missing an appendage is of interest. —Encephalon 05:42, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Categorize. The list is unusable, but a category would be more appropriate and more convenient. --Hemlock Martinis 05:50, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Categorize per Hemlock Martinis. The article itself is borderline listcruft, but as a category, it'd be perfectly acceptable. EVula 06:30, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment if its good enough for a category its good enough for a list. Same goes for the articles below. Jcuk 14:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Categorise. Perfectly valuable and interesting information, but useless in list form. DWaterson 22:24, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Interesting topic and it might be the spark for a few good English papers. What's the dramatic value in having characters with one eye? Do these characters share any other characteristics? I'm glad we have articles like this. And although I sincerely think there's a serious value to this article, I'd be for it just because it's that interesting. I wonder if we're not just a leetle too serious around here sometimes.Noroton 00:56, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete listcruft M1ss1ontomars2k4 (T | C | @) 01:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Listcruft. Sets a ridiculous precedent, we can't have lists of fictional characters with various missing parts. We'd have to allow lists of characters with green eyes, with blue eyes, etc as well as every other possible way of classifying them. It's ridiculous, and a category would be ridiculous for the same reason. And to Noroton, the topic being 'interesting' to you does in no way signify that it should be kept; every article that gets deleted is of interest to someone which is why it was made in the first place. The wikipedia isn't here to give English majors ideas for term papers, it's an encyclopedia. --The Way 05:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per The Way. --OGoncho 21:31, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 00:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of fictional characters who are physically scarred

I believe this to be of no encyclopedic merit. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional characters missing an appendage is of interest. —Encephalon 05:44, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Listcruft. I'd suggest it be converted into a category, but I think this is a bit too broad for that. EVula 06:32, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, especially considering the precedent the nom mentioned. A scar is significantly less notable than a missing limb. SnurksTC 06:35, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Categorize, it seems exactly the right size for a good category. Andrew Levine 16:39, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Were it to be categorised, unlike the nomination above for characters with one eye, it's difficult to quantify the importance of 'physical scarring' and identify whether one character or another should go in. DWaterson 22:35, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete listcruft M1ss1ontomars2k4 (T | C | @) 01:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete -- pretty much impossible to reach even a reasonable level of inclusiveness, never mind completeness. Unmaintainable. Haikupoet 04:27, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Listcruft. Sets a ridiculous precedent, we can't have lists of fictional characters of every conceivable type... We'd have to allow lists of characters with green eyes, with blue eyes, etc as well as every other possible way of classifying them. It's ridiculous, and a category would be ridiculous for the same reason. --The Way 05:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 00:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kenny Lu

I nominated this for Speedy Deletion before, but the page creater deleted the tag. So now i nominate it for regular deletion because this is a non-significant bio page. Google doesnt help with "Kenny Lu" and only 4 images show up when searching. Nothing links to this page and there are no external links. So I say Delete Kamiawolf 05:48, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Extremely non-notable, doesn't even flirt with the prospect of meeting WP:BIO. EVula 06:33, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, speedy if possible. Hoplelessly non notable. MER-C 08:01, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Deleteas soon as possible. Emeraude 11:24, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete Obvious vanity article.UberCryxic 20:49, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete and Salt since the author has disdain for the process. Danny Lilithborne 23:09, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete A7.--Húsönd 00:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn-bio M1ss1ontomars2k4 (T | C | @) 01:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Chick Bowen 22:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of children's films

The list is very vague and only includes five films after its creation over several months ago. There are multiple more lists of films that include various children types of films such as: List of computer-animated films, List of Disney live-action films, and List of Disney Channel movies. Unless this film sees a massive increase in films, I don't see it being notable enough to remain. Nehrams2020 05:59, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Categorise - seems to be more suited to a category. MER-C 08:02, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and don't categorise. How do you define a children's film anyway? Emeraude 11:26, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep This page may be incomplete, but is it any different from any of other members of the lists of films category? Not especially, except that nobody has seen fit to care about it. There is already a category btw, Children's Films. And defining a children's film is pretty easily. Any film suitable and marketed at children, usually to the exclusion of adults. This is frequently established by the production company's own self-description of the film, though there may be the rare exception. So, as objections go, I'd say that's not a problem. At most this page is woefully underpopulated, but that just means it is orphaned, and lacking attention. FrozenPurpleCube 18:03, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per FrozenPurpleCube. --Alex (Talk) 20:08, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep children's films are a major genre, much wider than just Disney and animation, and this is the only list I see of children's films. It needs to be hugely expanded, but should not be deleted. I'll see what I can do to expand it somewhat. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 20:16, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Okay, in just 30 minutes of work, I was able to expand the article to several times its former size, with many of the entries I added being neither Disney nor animated. It still needs more expansion, of course, but that's a small sample of what can be done with the article with a bit more work.Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 20:50, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand as useful list of films. Capitalistroadster 00:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete listcruft. M1ss1ontomars2k4 (T | C | @) 01:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand as useful list of films Tony 11:12, 25 October 2006 (UTC)Tony
  • Delete and Categorize While it has a criteria for inclusion, it offers us nothing more than a category would. Categories are easier to maintain. GRBerry 14:22, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Categorize if you wish, but this shouldn't be an article. The same can be said for most, if not all, of those in lists of films. -- Ned Scott 06:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep because it's a handy place to put redlinks, which don't go in a category anyway. Synapopyse 23:19, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 00:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stacking (gaming)

Seems like a neologism - no sources cited and I can't find any through Google. Delete as it fails WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NEO. Wickethewok 03:44, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:NEO violation. EVula 06:34, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. MER-C 08:02, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. --Brad Beattie (talk) 08:14, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Spinoff from card stacking and is a similar concept. It may do well to expand the concept of card stacking and explain that the concept has gone beyond its card-game related roots. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 19:51, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. -- FaerieInGrey 01:27, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, or at the very least, rename to "Stacking (first person shooter)" and transwiki to a gaming wiki somewhere. Contradicts much more common game-related usages such as card stacking and stacking pieces (strategy/war games). Suggesting that this obscure usage is the standard meaning of the term in gaming is preposterous. Merge with card stacking per Torinir is also possible, but I don't think it's a notable enough usage for that. Xtifr tälk 02:20, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. -- moe.RON talk | done | doing 22:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Just another example of pointless, indicriminate articles that seem to be popping up more ane more frequently. The Kinslayer 10:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete per author request. --Coredesat 05:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Enion Halili

Alright, clearly this article has no support from the community and is a misuse of Wikipedia's existence. I, the author, hereby request the deletion of this article. Thank you for your guidance all who commented. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fortune500 (talk • contribs) 11:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

  • You can add {{db-author}} to the top of the article, and it should be quickly removed. And thanks for understanding. Xtifr tälk 22:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Not notable. 7 unique GHits. I'm not sure exactly what he's up to, but I get the feeling it's something along the lines of helping people use Wikipedia like it was MySpace. Conflict of interest. Speediable? Richfife 06:07, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


This article looks innocent enough. Let's see where he's going with it. It's kinda nifty actually. 02.22 21 October 2006

Comment. The above comment was left by User:Fortune500, the creator of the article in question. SnurksTC 06:43, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh, and a delete vote per nom. I looked at [26] but I can't discern if it has anything to do with Enion Halili. SnurksTC 06:44, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Note If he were involved in the creation of Wikispaces, he'd be listed here: WikiSpaces credits, so I expect he is not. - Richfife 15:47, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Reeks of vanity. EVula 06:50, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I am compelled to defend my article. Please read the updated Objectives section. Also note, I changed WikiSpace to WikiFile.
    • Well, at least thanks for clearing up that this is vanity. EVula 07:20, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment - the use of "vanity" is now discouraged. Instead please use "apparent Conflict of interest" per WP:COI Jpe|ob 08:12, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Speedy delete per nom, plus blatant violation of WP:ASR. (edit: this has wasted enough time, should qualify for speedy under A7.) now qualifies for speedy under G7, author request! Xtifr tälk 23:56, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Give it a few days for people to edit this article and then you will have no grounds to charge vanity. Why am I being vain? Are Autobiographies forbidden on Wikipedia?
Not forbidden, but strongly discouraged, see WP:AUTO. But more importantly, biographies (whether auto- or not) of non-famous people are forbidden, see WP:BIO. You have to get famous first, then you can have a Wikipedia article. You can't have a Wikipedia article in the hopes that it will help make you famous (although many people try, hence all the comments about "vanity"). Xtifr tälk 07:52, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. The editor User:Fortune500 is also making nuisance edits by redirecting Enion towards this page, removing other links to Enion, and thereby causing damage to the site navigation. Self-centred stuff. Charles Matthews 08:44, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Please, assume good faith. The history clearly indicates that he created the Enion redir page from scratch; there never was any such article before. And after creating it, he fixed some links that definitely should not have pointed to his page. They almost certainly must have been redlinks before. Creating a disambiguation page would have been better, but what he did was not entirely unreasonable, and may well have been done with Wikipedia's best interests at heart. Xtifr tälk 19:39, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Totally self-centred and self-promoting. I would have described this as vanity but that word is discouraged now. Subject/author clealry states in the las section that his intention is to subvert Wikipedia by encouaging and facilitating similar vanity (oops!) pieces. I sincerely hope he is not "an average Canadian". Emeraude 11:31, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Again, assume good faith. He's done some stuff that demonstrates a clear misunderstanding of the purpose and goals of Wikipedia, but I see no indication that he's motivated by anything other than a sense of pure scientific curiousity. Now he's being accused of vandalism (prev. comment) and egomania. Don't bite the newbies. Let's try to gently guide him to a better understanding of this project, and maybe he'll even turn into a useful contributor. Xtifr tälk 19:39, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks for supporting the harmless nature of my article. I certainly would not have gone to the trouble of fixing unrelated links to my page if I was interested in vandalism. Also, I don't know how to create a disambiguation page yet. I am however using this article as a learning tool so that I may contribute (albeit more useful information) in the future. As for the fate of this article, on balance it does more good than harm and supports the spirit of Wikipedia. Keep —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fortune500 (talk • contribs)
    • The problem is that you're still non-notable, so the article should still be deleted. I would suggest that you get your wiki-bearings by editing something a bit less controversial than an article about yourself. Might I suggest you give Special:Random a whirl? EVula 20:46, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I wasn't supporting the "harmless nature" of your article. Your article still doesn't qualify for inclusion in Wikipedia, and does harm Wikipedia by wasting space on non-notable, non-encyclopedic material. I was (and am) assuming that your obvious mistakes were well-intentioned. They were, nevertheless, mistakes. I suggest you read the official policy on What Wikipedia is not (in particular, Wikipedia is not a blog, webspace provider, or social networking site) before making blanket claims about the "spirit of Wikipedia". If you want to experiment and learn, I recommend using the Sandbox in the future. That said, I have faith that you can learn from your mistakes, and will become a useful contributor before long. Cheers, Xtifr tälk 21:40, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete until someone not named Enion Hanili thinks it's worth his/her time to write an article about Enion Hanili. Danny Lilithborne 23:11, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Looks like possble hoax/time-wasting irritation to me. My reading of the first paragraph is that this article has been created purely as a provocative attempt to see how long a biography of a non-notable person can survive without being deleted. DWaterson 23:36, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Note Article Creation -> Article AfD = 18 Minutes. I picked it up on Recent Changes Rearguard patrol. - Richfife 23:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete No cites that indicate notability. No legitimate links to this article from other articles. May constitute original research. There could be more reasons, but those qualifiers should be enough to delete. Notary137 00:51, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Duh. M1ss1ontomars2k4 (T | C | @) 01:14, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 00:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pacificm and the New Testament

Incorrectly spelled title, completely POV, New Testament discussed in other articles. Risker 06:32, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete as incoherent nonsense. ~ trialsanderrors 06:38, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete POV, unsourced, incoherent... pick one, and you're still a winner! EVula 06:40, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Article is unnecessary and totally OR and POV. --JaimeLesMaths 06:42, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • definitely OR. I think it's trying to push a POV, but it's too incoherent for me to be sure which one. Oh, Delete. :) Xtifr tälk 08:19, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Delete Agree with all the above, but wouldn't dignify it with the word 'research'. original or otherwise. Emeraude 11:57, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete unreferenced political statement Arnoutf 13:46, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a soapbox + other reasons above.--Húsönd 21:59, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete It's a letter to the editor.Noroton 01:03, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. M1ss1ontomars2k4 (T | C | @) 01:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Biblical Roots of Christian Pacifism appears to be a near-clone. On the off-chance this is speedied, that should be too. Xtifr tälk 03:39, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Chick Bowen 22:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vashist Narayan Singh

I'm not sure if this person is notable (gifted but no clear accomplishments that might meet WP:PROF), but this article, which focuses on his mental illness and personal problems, needs to be either rewritten or deleted per WP:BLP and WP:V (added per Bwithh's comment). ~ trialsanderrors 06:33, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- utcursch | talk 11:49, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep and Rewrite The article at present gives an impression of a person with mental illness who was a scientist. It should be re written to potray a scientist with a psychiatric problem  Doctor Bruno  13:37, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Tragic, but without proof and clear detail on the "amazing feats" which "startled" Berkeley profs that he's supposed to have performed, this falls well short of WP:PROF. He may well be a genius, but without actual evidence, the "amazing feats" claim sounds like journalistic inflation in the cause of improving a story. Bwithh 15:26, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
There seems to be some contradiction between the article and the external links. Article says subject came to US and completed a PhD at Berkeley in 18 months in mid 1960s. Indian external link says subject was brought over as a research scholar to the US in 1963, and doesn't mention Berkeley at all. Berkeley link says subject completed/submitted his PhD dissertation in 1969. I don't think this subject is a hoax, but the information in the article seems very unreliable at the moment in addition to the issue I emphasized above Bwithh 15:34, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Probably not a hoax, but almost certainly hyperbole. This reads like a sensationalist tabloid article. Additionally, some of the assertions are similar to statements made about Srinivasa Ramanujan. I see no evidence of meeting any notability standard. Very few unique Google hits. --N Shar 23:05, 21 October 2006 (UTC)Abstain after rewrite. I can no longer offer any useful comments. As for Google hits, I did not mean to imply that they were a measure of his notability in India. As originally written, the article was much more focused on his American career, which was largely un-notable from what I could see. Now that the article focuses on India, I can't comment. --N Shar 00:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Comment Google hits is not a criteria for India related issues.  Doctor Bruno  13:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Comment the article at present meets WP:BLP and WP:V. Hence there is no reason to delete per nom  Doctor Bruno  13:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Then delete per Utcursch. I would appreciate you not nitpicking. Danny Lilithborne 13:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - per Doctor Bruno,Bakaman Bakatalk 16:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. If Doctor Bruno thinks this would be a worthwhile subject for an article, he can re-write it before this AFD is over, and may convince people (including myself) to change their votes. Or, after the AFD (assuming it gets deleted), he's free to re-create the article with more encyclopedic content. As written, it's drivel. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Comment It has been re written and sources cited  Doctor Bruno  13:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I have re-written the article. utcursch | talk 12:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
    Delete. Changing my vote. Honestly, after I removed all unsourced "amazing feats" claims, the article fails WP:BIO. utcursch | talk 02:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
That's great, but there's still no evidence for the claims about "amazing feats" Bwithh 13:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
I've removed all the unsourced statements, including "amazing feats". The only statement needing citation is that he was the "first Indian to complete his post-graduate studies before the age of 20". The rest of the statements include references from The Times of India and proceedigs of Lok Sabha. utcursch | talk 13:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Bwithh; the re-write didn't change anything fundamental. This is still all about the guy's personal problems. That's not an encyclopedia article; it's something I would expect to see in People magazine. What did this guy do to be note worthy? Being a child prodigy and having mental health problems doesn't cut it. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
I can't understand. THe rewrite has of course provided citations and is encyclopedic. Please don't invent new criteria just for satisfying your ego of sticking to the initial vote made. The article has been modified and sources cited. It is now in compliance with WP:BLP and WP:V  Doctor Bruno  13:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
ahem, WP:NPA. Bwithh 02:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Comment This may not come under WP:PROF. But as per WP:BIO Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events the subject is definitely notable. Not every one's mental illness is discussed in Loksabha. (On a lighter vein, As per my professor in Medical College, every one is a patient in Psychiatry and Dermatology!!!) This person certainly satisfied WP:BIO and the article is in compliance with WP:V and WP:BLP after the revision by utcursch I request to closing admin to disregard the earlier votes that were made when the article was not revised  Doctor Bruno  13:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
    • News coverage, even major news coverage by major sources (which this subject does not have), does automatically equal encyclopedic notability. (and WP:BIO is a guideline, so this subject is not definitely notable anyway, even if one accepts that he has gained notoriety or renown (which I don't think he has based on the evidence). Being mentioned in Parliament is not persuasive as it is the everyday business of members of parliament to discusss specific cases related to petitions made by their constituents. Not every mental patient is discussed specifically in Parliament, but it is not extraordinary for parlimentarians to discuss the cases of specific ordinary citizens. And you can't inform previous voters that the article has been rewritten, but please don't "work the ref". My vote remains unchanged. Bwithh 15:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
      • I agree with Bwithh. After re-reading I still don't see the point of the article. "There, he conducted research on the Cycle Vector Space Theory and his research work catapulted him to great heights in the world of Science." Maybe if this part can be expanded/verified? ~ trialsanderrors 06:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep This article passes WP:BIO as he has been cited by multiple independent sources. Valoem talk 17:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I don't see anything here which makes the person notable as a mathematician. Suffering from schizophrenia doesn't make him notable either. Paul August ☎ 17:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I still don't see why this man or his work is important or what influence he has had. --C S (Talk) 11:15, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily deleted by Pgk (talk · contribs). Go Pete! ~ trialsanderrors 10:45, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pete carter

Joke article about a dog, speedy delete tag was removed by article author. I'll cite WP:BIO, but this really should be a speedy delete under A7. JaimeLesMaths 06:55, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete A7, non-notable dog. Xtifr tälk 07:23, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Pete is a very notable dog, in the San Antonio area he is a friend to hundreds of people, hundreds of people that will soon be linked to wikipedia through his facebook profile. This will bring increased traffic and increased awareness to Wikipedia. He is a local hero in the area, and with your cooperation his legacy can stretch far beyond the limited reach of his friendly handshake. Rizzodizzo 08:04, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete per above. I can't believe we're having a deletion debate about some random guy's dog. (And the author isn't allowed to remove speedy tags). So tagged. MER-C 08:05, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Our bad for removing the speedy tag, it is in place now as far as i know, and i have 5 days right? I may be some random guy but this is not a random dog, how many people will it take to save this page?Rizzodizzo 08:13, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

The deletion process is a discussion, not a vote. If there is a consensus about what should happen to the article, then that's what will happen. If no consensus emerges, the page will remain. Here's an informative quote directly from the deletion policy: "It should also be noted that packing the discussion with sockpuppets (multiple accounts) and meatpuppets (advertising or soliciting of desired views) does not reflect a genuine consensus, and usually doesn't raise much in the way of novel policy considerations. A deletion debate is not a popular vote, but a way of obtaining editors' views as to whether an article meets policy guidelines or not, so these kind of activities don't achieve much. Often, where sock-puppetry is suspected, only editors with a significant history of contributions to Wikipedia will be counted in the rough consensus." --JaimeLesMaths 08:47, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Now now, let's not start scaring the poor guy with discussions of sockpuppets and such. He obviously just wants to know why we want to delete his article about his poor dog. And the answer is that a dog known to "hundreds of people" in the San Antonio area is simply not famous/notable enough for an international encyclopedia. Even a dog that was famous throughout the entire state of Texas might have trouble qualifying. No offense to what is surely a fine dog, but Wikipedia has agreed-upon standards that this dog simply doesn't meet. Xtifr tälk
  • Speedy delete per nomination-I'm sure some dogs would be notable, e.g. Lassie, but this isn't one of 'em. Seraphimblade 09:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


GO PETE. WE LOVE YOU. AND NO MATTER WHAT THESE PEOPLE SAY YOU ARE STILL FAMOUS HERE IN SAY-TOWN. LONG LIVE PETE CARTER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 hoax. --Coredesat 00:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Geoff Schaller

This article looks like blatant misinformation from beginning to end. A quick web search immediately shows that there are no notable individuals with the name of either Geoffrey Schaller or Michael Schaller. Most likely this page is someone's make-believe biography of himself or a friend (per User:Tschel). -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 07:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Note to closing admin: A lot of SPA's have !voted "keep". Possible meat/socks in operation, trying to negate concensus.
  • Comment. One of the two main contributors to the article (who I suspect to be one in the same, truthfully) blanked the page after the AFD was posted on it. --Brad Beattie (talk) 08:10, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
I would try {{db-blanked}} but the blanking wasn't done by the page creator. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 08:11, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete under G3 and A7. Clearly a joke/hoax. I try really hard to assume good faith, but this is ridiculous. --JaimeLesMaths 08:32, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete under G3 and A7, doesn't meet them. Hello32020 10:44, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • 'Delete Clear nonsense. Emeraude 11:59, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nonsense Arnoutf 13:41, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete either nonnotable or nonsense. M1ss1ontomars2k4 (T | C | @) 01:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Very dubious and almost slanderous claims (which would be odd if the subject wrote it) without any sources. --Marriedtofilm 17:50, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I've heard of this guy before. He is on the internet, you just have to look hard. --beatdook04 1:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I've read things about this man before. I can't remember where. Perhaps a simple google search won't prove this wrong. I'll keep looking and if i find a source I'll go ahead and help the author out. --ilikethemcanadians 6:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Don't Delete REAL PERSON. he was in the Alto Adige (newspaper from Italy) when he was in a car accident a few weeks ago. --tarheelblue87 6:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't doubt that he is a real person; however, does a car accident make him notable enough to have an encyclopedia entry? I highly doubt that there is any validity in most of the information on this article. Tschel 14:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I'm from Toronto and believe me this guy is real. not sure about all of the detail but he is a real person and in that...profession. --leafsnation 6:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
He was mentioned in the Toronto Star a few months ago. I say the article stays. --leafsnation 6:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure what news story you're referring to, but Schaller appears nowhere in the archives for the Toronto Star. --Tschel 19:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - clear nonsense and a hoax - his only claim to fame is his number of socks - Peripitus (Talk) 12:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Completely real. not a hoax. I live in the Toronto area and it sounds rediculous but he is a real guy. maybe more sources would make for a better article. --espn101 8:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
If that is the case, and he truly is the leader of the well-known Gambino crime family, then why does Google News return zero news articles containing his name? Tschel 14:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I thought i read about him getting in a car accident. it's real. --tigersin06 9:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep the sources speak for themselves. --gopanthers 10:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
You might want to verify the "sources" on the article. The two Italian news sites make absolutely no mention of anything related to the Wikipedia article, and the only source that even contains the name "Schaller" is a Google Pages userpage. --Tschel 15:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I just noticed that I hadn't yet cast my official vote! See my comment at the top of the page. --Tschel 19:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. If there is any doubt about whether or not this article should be deleted, please consult the Wikipedia article on the Gambino crime family, where you can see a timeline of all the real bosses of this family up to now. (The editor of Geoff Schaller made major edits to this timeline, in order to fit "Geoff Schaller" onto the list. Fortunately, someone noticed this and reverted the page back to its original form.) Furthermore, it's worth noting that all of the users who favor keeping this article have created their accounts within the last 24 hours. I can't know for sure if this is sock-puppetry, but there are some pretty serious signs of it. --Tschel 14:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable. Daniel.Bryant 08:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:04, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DDR Freak

Fanforum, no independent sources that establish notability (Newsbank search yields 13 hits, none about the site). Brought here as a contested Prod, a prior AfD resulted in merge and redirect to Dance Dance Revolution, leaning delete. ~ trialsanderrors 08:08, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep Weak Delete Per AfD nomination, site does not have external claims to notability cited. While site may have a large userbase, this does not necessarily establish notability, and doesn't seem to meet those criteria. While there is an external list of news articles here, some of these only mention it briefly, and the most recent articles don't even seem to mention the site at all. It could be contested that some of these articles do show some notability (hence, the weak delete), but when many of the articles on that page are simply articles about DDR in general, I'm not so sure. dougk (Talk ˑ Contribs) 17:16, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Vote changed to Keep, per text below. Some references have been added, and I don't see any major problems with the article which might be a reason to delete it. -dougk (Talk ˑ Contribs) 00:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - When I tried to look at the press link just now, I learned that I've been banned, even though I've never visited the site before. Bummer! I guess I'll need to try again later... ENeville 21:58, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Apparently does not meet WP:WEB, despite popularity, and does not provide sources as references or external links, as required by that guideline. For the article to stay, it must provide aforementioned sources. We could simply merge and redirect again, as stated by WP:WEB, but I think delete is better in this case. --N Shar 23:12, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Does not meet notability criteria. My recommendation would be to Userfy the page to someone who is willing to edit it and make it notable. Phuzion 01:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep; it seems like a marginally notable and lasting website, but the absence of referencing weakens that view. Everyking 08:04, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep; I've just added references in the In the Press section. I'm not sure what else is needed since it's been featured in major newspapers and TV, both nationally and internationally. Is it okay to remove the AfD now? Jasonko888 16:50, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
No, I think the AfD has to remain for at least 5 days (unless closed early under WP:SNOW, or similar provisions). However, this does help a bit. Would you mind adding links to such articles, transcripts, or other types of sources (as a reference), if they are available? dougk (Talk ˑ Contribs) 19:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Sure, I can link to the articles. However, the only records that exist of the TV appearances are on VHS at my home, so that's not possible. Also, the actual link to ddrfreak appears on a separate sidebar article which is not included in the online version. The online article does describe the website as "fans at UC-Berkeley and UCLA created Web sites for fellow enthusiasts..." Jasonko888 22:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
For the TV appearances, and newspaper articles, it's not necessary that they be online, but you can simply cite the date of the coverage, like, "Featured on Larry King Live, July 8, 2002." See WP:CITE. --Elonka 22:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification Elonka. I wonder if the links to the mirrored copies of the articles might be a possible copyright problem now that I think about it (unless you have permission to use the articles from the publishers), so I'm not sure if that's a problem or not if they are linked to. At least the significance is explained now. -dougk (Talk ˑ Contribs) 00:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, although that's more of ddrfreak.com's issue than ours (we should remove the links though). For us it's actually more relevant that neither of the two linked articles actually mention ddrfreak at all. They're both about DDR. ~ trialsanderrors 00:50, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, that's what I wanted to know. This is true, that the articles are on DDR in general, but the fact that the articles interview Jason Ko in specific might be worth something. I'm really not sure, though, and I'll leave that up to you and other users interested in this discussion. It may not be enough of a reason to change my vote back, but it does perhaps warrant a bit more discussion and thought. -dougk (Talk ˑ Contribs) 01:01, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. It has a substantial presence on the web, with over 60K Google hits [27]. , and is a frequently-cited resource (as near as I can tell, the most commonly-cited fan resource for DDR information). Seems to pass WP:WEB. --Elonka 22:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 00:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Superman Plate

The Superman Plate article is either nonsense or hoax, which can be clearly seen. It could be speedied, but there's a number of contributors. There really are superman plates, of course, being just collectibles for cartoon fans, and that's probably why some people were tricked not to delete it outright. I'd suggest quick deletion, as it has nothing of value, encyclopedic or humorous, and only damages WP. CP/M comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 08:19, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Can find no evidence for this, but even if I could, it would surely be a candidate for deletion on the grounds of advertising. Emeraude 12:02, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Either hoax or commercial Arnoutf 13:37, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge assuming this is a true thing, merge to bulletproof vest or ceramic plate, but since I've never had cause to wear one, let alone buy one, I'm not in a position to verify it. Can someone who does know something about Bulletproof vests speak on this issue? However, I would say this is not advertising since AFAICT there is no specific product known as a Superman Plate. Well, aside from various collectibles from DC portraying Superman but those are hardly being promoted by this article. FrozenPurpleCube 13:40, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
    Comment I myself work in area of weaponry construction (though far from vests) and can say two things for sure: first, there is no point of making armor of 50/50 "steel"/titanium alloy (let alone that steel is alloy by itself and not a component), second, at least some people connected to that have hever heard of something bulletproof called superman plates. The actual reason for deletion, in the first place, is being a hoax. If one makes an internet search for superman plates, all that comes up is the mentioned collectibles and automated mirrors of Wikipedia. CP/M comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 17:15, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Per nom --FaerieInGrey 20:03, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as hoax per nom. All I find is various ceramic plates or "ballistic plates". --Dhartung | Talk 21:13, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete per nom. This google search returns ZERO hits. Another aggravating hoax. --N Shar 23:16, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nonnotable, per a GSearh. M1ss1ontomars2k4 (T | C | @) 01:10, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was not redirect, it's delete. This isn't really a plausible search term, so a redirect wouldn't make much sense. --Coredesat 00:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] It's not you, it's me.

The phrase "It's not you, it's me" does not seem to me to be a subject of encyclopedic merit. —Encephalon 08:49, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. It's a well-used phrase, but it doesn't really have anything encyclopaedic behind it, nor would I imagine can one find many references to it as a phrase as opposed to it simply being used. The example conversation made me laugh, though. GassyGuy 09:51, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. MER-C 11:03, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Would be a weak candidate for a Dictionary of Phrases. No place in an encyclopeadia. Emeraude 12:03, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to George Costanza or Seinfeld if somebody does search for it. FrozenPurpleCube 13:38, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect Not-encyclopedic, so redirect to George Costanza because Seinfeld fans may search for it. Hello32020 14:48, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete If it needs to be redirected, it should be redirected to something like Category:Unbelievably common phrases from the 1980s, not anything to do with Seinfeld. It was a massive, massive cliche long before George Constanza got ahold of it. --Charlene.fic 21:04, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree with this. As much as I like Seinfeld, this redirect wouldn't be terribly sensible. GassyGuy 22:24, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect per above. --FaerieInGrey 20:04, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - per Charlene.fic. ENeville 22:01, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete while fairly common, I'd be hard pressed to find a reason to write an encyclopedia article about it. Danny Lilithborne 23:13, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Charlene.fic. --Brad Beattie (talk) 00:20, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete no place here. M1ss1ontomars2k4 (T | C | @) 01:09, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete -- I would say it belongs on UrbanDictionary, but it's probably already there. And it is not sufficiently associated with Seinfeld that it would be a sensible redirect. Haikupoet 04:33, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Don't redirect to Seinfeld or George Costanza per Charlene.fic. I would suggest redirecting to Relationship breakup, but who's gonna type this phrase, period and all (note there is a period), in a search box? Pan Dan 04:40, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Tentatively keep until somebody comes up with a good place to merge it. Everyking 07:59, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Bobet 11:10, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oz Deathmatch

Doesn't meet WP:SOFTWARE. Contested prod. MER-C 09:09, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Doesn't meet WP:SOFTWARE. Hello32020 11:32, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - (hold that thought) per nom. ENeville 22:04, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
    • absent supporting evidence to the contrary, I'm back to delete. ENeville 02:40, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. WP:Software is neither a policy nor a guideline. The nominator is using a narrow interrpretation of it as thin excuse to launch a purge against articles on Half-Life mods. This small, informative piece has queitly existed for over a year without any problems. It is notable because it discusses one of the early, popular HL mods..one which is still played today, on servers such as this one: 69.239.100.192:27016 OZDM SLAUGHTER HOUSE.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 05:46, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Can you point to some of the other mods? ENeville 01:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Does not meet, or even offer evidence of, meeting WP:SOFTWARE. Without independent sourcing it is impossible to have an article adhering to the core policies. GRBerry 14:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Bobet 11:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] VerbumVanum

This was apparently PRODded in March citing just WP:WEB, but PROD was removed by an anon user without a reason. Basically, this is a repository of free/CreativeCommons content... that currently enshrines grand total of 11 different works; this fact alone would make me question why this article is needed at all, because, if you use common sense, this would automatically make me think the repository is worthy an external link in relevant articles at most. Article doesn't explain why the site meets web notability criteria. Most google hits are Wikipedia mirrors. Googling for "VerbumVanum" -Wikipedia gets me 86 discrete Google hits that don't really explain a whole lot on why this site is notable, either, most appear to be trivial references. I'm bringing this to AfD because this is an old article, otherwise I would have brought down the hammer on it immediately. wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:19, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Delete Not notable; (if this ever develops into a huge online library it may be the time to rewrite the article)Arnoutf 13:36, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - per nom. ENeville 22:34, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 00:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Akhtar Mehmood Advocate

Non-notable person, article looks like it was never more than one person's CV placed online. A Google search reveals him to be a lawyer from Rawalpindi with nothing notable enough to put him on Wikipedia. Hydraton31 09:29, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Is this cut and paste from an online phone book? Emeraude 12:05, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and this could probably be speedied under G1, G11, A1, A3, and A7. Dylan 20:30, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per Dylan. Most reasons for speedy I have ever seen for a single article. --N Shar 23:21, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletions. Bakaman Bakatalk 05:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy - should be deleted under db-bio CSD. --Ragib 09:19, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 00:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ron Caruso

No evidence provided that the subject meets WP:BIO. Contested prod. MER-C 09:46, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Doesn't appear to meet WP:BIO. Hello32020 10:43, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. "Ron Caruso"+comedian=24 ghits, many of which don't even appear to involve the subject. Does not appear to meet WP:BIO. Robertissimo 17:52, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above.--Húsönd 21:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - looks like self-promotion: the only contribution of creator Mts33. ENeville 22:37, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Delete as G11. Yanksox 15:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] H liqueur

Contested speedy and prod. Non notable product, only recently launched and only available in a very limited area. Nuttah68 09:48, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete: seems to assert lack of notability. David Mestel(Talk) 11:12, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as spam - guess who created the article? Lantrixone (talk · contribs). So tagged. MER-C 11:15, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete as spam and not notable. Hello32020 11:32, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete' Spam. Emeraude 12:07, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete Commercial Arnoutf 13:32, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete, a concept referenced by a person isn't automatically worth inclusion (I'm sure mr. Knuth has referenced other things during his life). There's no context here to establish notability by (which means I don't know where it could be merged in the Knuth article). - Bobet 11:16, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Utopia 84

This page has existed since August 2004, so I am hesitant to nominate it; however, I am unable to find encyclopaedic value in the one sentence which is here. As far as I can tell, Utopia 84 is the name of a programming language which did not actually exist, but was referenced as an ideal by Donald Knuth. A Google search for "Utopia 84" -Hawkwind (the band Hawkwind recorded an unrelated song by this name) produces 506 results, many of which mirror the text of this article, the rest of which offer no further insight as to why this concept/language is/was important or otherwise. Anyway, I currently recommend deleting this as it fails to demonstrate notability, with perhaps the option of mentioning the concept in the Knuth article if it is even that important. GassyGuy 10:31, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Doesn't exist. Has probably lasted since August 2004 because practically no one has seen it. Only link is from Utopia (disambiguation) which will need modifying if this page is deleted. Emeraude 12:13, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I think it not impossible that I would change my mind if someone expands this article, but right now there's nothing and no evidence that it could be anything.--Prosfilaes 15:00, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge with Donald Knuth pending verification -- Notability pales in comparison to TeX, CWEB, and MIX. Haikupoet 04:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:33, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TV Guide and TV Land's List of the 100 Most Unexpected TV Moments

This list is in its current form (full list, "official TV Land and TV Guide descriptions that were given in the press release") quite blatant coyright infringement. Unless it is pared down to acceptable fair use excerpts and rewritten in our own words it needs to be deleted. There seems to be some common but erroneous belief among list makers that lists are not copyrighted. ~ trialsanderrors 10:41, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete as copyvio. David Mestel(Talk) 11:14, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete Copyright violation. Hello32020 11:31, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Copyvio is a no-no. Speedy Delete. --JaimeLesMaths (talk|edits) 12:07, 21 October 2006 (UTC) Changing vote to just plain old delete, in that case. The information is interesting, but the list is just one (granted, very notable) group's opinion. Also, WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information seems to cover this case. Since all the shows listed have their own articles (and, for some, the listed episode has its own article), the information can be put into each of those articles individually. That would seem to be a more relevant way to present the information, anyway. --JaimeLesMaths (talk!edits) 05:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Actually we can't speedy since it has an edit history, i.e. not just copied-and-pasted from another website. Also since it's undergone significant editing I wanted to give the editors a chance to create an encyclopedic, non-copyvio article on the subject (if the subject itself is deemed encyclopedic). ~ trialsanderrors 17:15, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. The list itself is copyrighted and should not be reposted here, and the subject is not itself encyclopedic. The proper place for this information is on TV Guide or TV Land's own web sites, not Wikipedia or any related project. --Metropolitan90 23:36, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Hundreds of spammy websites link to this article. The purpose is unclear, but the article itself might be a vehicle for spam.--Húsönd 00:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment There is also 50 Greatest Game Shows of All Time (TV Guide), TV Guide's 50 Greatest TV Shows of All Time, and TV Guide's List of the 50 Worst TV Shows of All Time. I am not nominating these for deletion at this point. Tinlinkin 19:32, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • How can you have a list of most unexpected TV moments that doesn't include the Challenger disaster or the Budd Dwyer suicide? Nothing against the creators of this article; I'm just saying that this list wouldn't be especially useful if someone actually were looking for a such a list. It adds nothing of value to the encyclopedia, is a copyvio, and apparantly is acting as a spam/SEO magnet of some sort. I guess that makes it a delete. ergot 00:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
    • TV Guide seems to have chosen events from regular series and expected televised events. It is in these programs that something was unexpected. Challenger and Budd Dwyer's suicide are more likely classified as news events in the TV realm, so those were unexpected, but not part of a regular TV event. Tinlinkin 05:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 00:49, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unrepentant jerk

Pointless article about a phrase that I have never come across as a serious topic in literature. May make a dicdef (though I doubt it). No pages link here, has not developed significantly since first made apart from vandalism Emeraude 11:07, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete: provides no references showing that that term is actually used by anyone as a particular phrase. David Mestel(Talk) 11:10, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete more a description than phrase worhty of article Arnoutf 13:30, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I know a few but Wikipedia is not a dictionary, or an Urban Dictionary at that. --Charlene.fic 21:11, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. P.B. Pilhet / Talk 03:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nomination. Xdenizen 02:13, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 08:07, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CCL (programming language)

Non-notable; advertisement SJK 12:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per it's an advertisement. Hello32020 14:46, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete; makes no claims of notability, and is clearly an advertisment with no editors besides maintaince work after the original posting.--Prosfilaes 14:58, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Yet another SQL extension. Pavel Vozenilek 15:40, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • DELETE ARTICLE FROM WIKIPEDIA WHERE TITLE = 'CCL (programming language)' AND REASON = 'spam'; -- RoySmith (talk) 03:12, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Spam. Xdenizen 01:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 00:33, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Clyde Campbell

This page was prod'd back in April and the prod removed by the article creator. The subject seems non-notable according to normal understanding, but the article does not help by saying that durint the "controversial years of school integration " he managed "to provide central heating for the town grammar school and indoor plumbing for the janitor's home." Hardly a great contribution to the contorversial years..... Original prod by User:Wickethewok stated "Only online reference to this individual is from the article's creators webpage." This is still the case. Emeraude 13:37, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Weak Delete. Exir KamalabadiJoin Esperanza! 14:04, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete Somewhat non-notable. Hello32020 14:46, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Local public servant. Admirable? Quite probably. Notable per WP:BIO? Doesn't seem so. Robertissimo 17:45, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete No claim to encyclopedic notability. Fails WP:BIO and lacks sources Bwithh 00:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as pioneer of the indoor plumbing movement. J/k, Delete, local dignitary. ~ trialsanderrors 06:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Closed; vandal nomination. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryulong (talk • contribs) 01:38, 2 August 2006

Note: I have left User:DumbBOT listing this nomination as of today (13:51, 21 October 2006 (UTC)) so that this nom is not left orphaned around. Tizio, Caio, Sempronio 13:51, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 53651 (number)

Non-notable internet meme. Wikipedia is not urban dictionary. Iownapool 01:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was speedily deleted as promotional material (CSD G11). -- Merope 14:49, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] INFOMAN

not notable software distributor, no particular claim to notability. Prod removed. Brianyoumans 19:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:50, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete besides being not notable, clearly press release by company (either commercial or copyvio) (as read from phrase containing 'we' and 'our')Arnoutf 13:55, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Yep, you're right. It is a press release by the company in question, because Infomaninc (talk · contribs) is the creator and has consistently being reverted by new users to the spammy form despite {{copyvio}} and {{advert}}. Speedy delete. So tagged. MER-C 14:20, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:08, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Dreadmire Fantasy Animals

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:50, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • delete. Quode 17:26, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - per nom. ENeville 22:42, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete since it's a companion article to a deleted one. Pascal.Tesson 23:13, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
    <Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. - User:Zoe|(talk) 17:27, 22 October 2006 (UTC)>--Cryogenesis 13:48, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete for painfully obvious reasons. Danny Lilithborne 23:16, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I think this is my article that I tried to delete last week by blanking it, but a "bot" automatically restored it.--Cryogenesis 13:48, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. That's not what the edit history[28] says. Perhaps you're thinking of something else.--Robbstrd 18:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, parent article was NN, companion article even less so. Beyond that, it's a duplicate of List of Fictional Animals in Dreadmire--Rosicrucian 00:12, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Fairsing 02:20, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom --Pak21 09:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom Percy Snoodle 10:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom shadzar|Talk|contribs 17:18, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. 66.230.200.136 08:08, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Fictional Animals in Dreadmire

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:50, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - per nom. ENeville 22:42, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete since it's a companion article to a deleted one. Pascal.Tesson 23:13, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, parent article was NN, companion article even less so.--Rosicrucian 22:39, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Fairsing 02:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom --Pak21 09:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 05:49, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Constitutional legitimacy

I cannot understand what this page is meant to achieve. The first sentence is completely self-referential; the rest of the article gets nowhere. Ths question is good one, but is adequately covered in a myriad of better articles. This almost reads as the opening paragraph in a politics/philosophy essay that never got finished. Emeraude 14:02, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep. This is a substantial topc in constitutional law and legal philosophy, as is evident from a glance at the Google results. The stub is poor, but not so much so that deletion is warranted. A redirect might also work, if a suitable target is found. Sandstein 16:55, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep - the current article reads like a possible promo for Barnett's book, but the topic is worthy. I would say that since the topic goes to the legitimacy of the foundation of a national law, it is very important and should be given plenty of time to grow. ENeville 22:51, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • MergeWith the article about the book. This adds nothing to what is there.Edison 23:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable. Everyking 07:55, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and completely rewrite (leaving no byte unchanged) — the subject is very notable, the article as it stands is useless ➥the Epopt 02:00, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 08:09, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Giuseppe Alessi

Serie B player, who never appeared in a Serie A game. [29] Angelo 14:05, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Non-notable athlete. Hello32020 14:45, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - Serie B is a fully professional league, even Juventus are in it this season. Players at that level easily pass my bar of notability. - fchd 21:10, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - If the bar of notability for players in the English league system incorporates level four players, it clearly extends to Serie B and probably Serie C1 as well. It would be rather Anglo-centric to delete Serie B player articles and keep hundreds of articles about players playing at a lower standard in England. --Balerion 02:25, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. No reason whatsoever for deletion. Professional footballer in a major professional league. -- Necrothesp 02:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Serie B has to count if lower divisions of other nations count. And this guy has played nine years at that level, so I am sure he is notable enough. Montco 03:25, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I don't see anything wrong with this if players from lower divisions in England are allowed as Balerion mentioned. CanbekEsen 06:03, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep, Serie B is a professional league, and hence WP:BIO states that this article is notable:

    Sportspeople/athletes/competitors who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, or at the highest level in mainly amateur sports or other competitive activites that are themselves considered notable [are considered notable for Wikipedia]. -WP:BIO

    No doubt in my mind this player meets that criteria. Daniel.Bryant 09:36, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Punkmorten 10:21, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - he's a professional who's played 100+ first-team games. Notable enough for me. Qwghlm 13:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep - Professional footballer in a professional league in Europe. --90.192.92.188 04:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Never played for Serie A, and much of hios career spent on C1. Too many of these player. Matt86hk talk 09:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
    • There's "many" of these types of articles because they're allowable per WP:BIO. Daniel.Bryant 06:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy close. Basically, wrong venue; this is not an article, even when this is in article namespace (blame MediaWiki developers, not us). Unless there's a great big reason to keep the {{deletedpage}}s around, they can get deleted anyway after a few months; If there's hastier need to delete this temporary page, Deletion Review is the correct venue for that, as it specifically says in Protected deleted pages. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 22:12, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Angry Video Game Nerd

This article is false and useless. It has been protected on the grounds that it was deleted; but it was not, in fact, previously deleted. There has never been an article there. It should be deleted; if in fact someone wants to put an article there, they should have their chance to bring it to AfD and let the community decide on it. NOTE: There's no link on the page, since it was protected. Prosfilaes 14:10, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment This isn't Deletion Review, where this arguement belongs. Also this page was protected to prevent a vandal from recreating the page Angry Nintendo Nerd. Wildthing61476 14:32, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment; this page was never deleted; why would it go to deletion review?--Prosfilaes 14:50, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment It's being treated as such however with the page protection. If you want to look into this more read this link here
      • Speedy Close AFD is not the correct place to contest page protection also this was cleray protected due to it being an attempt to bypass the protection of the original Angry Nintendo Nerd article.--69.156.205.233 17:57, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus, leaning towards keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:33, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recovery from Cults (book)

Recovery from Cults (book) is not a notable book. On 31 Mar 2005, this article had already been nominated for deletion by me but it survived. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Recovery from Cults for a record of the discussion. I am re-nominating this article because I would like to do more work on this article only after I am sure that the article survives deletion. Andries 14:38, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment another related concern expressed on the talk page of the article is that there may not be enough on-topic reputable sources for a balanced article on the book. Critiques and reviews of the book may not be available. With on-topic sources I mean sources that mention or review the book. Andries 21:33, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I do not make a vote myself. I only want to find out whether this article should exist or deleted before I put a lot of work in improving it. Andries 21:51, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, the book is an incredible resource for professional and laypeople alike. The fact that it has 22 contributors, some of them pretty notable in their own right, lends credence towards keeping/expanding/cleaning up some more. Perhaps, in time, some of the other more notable contributors to the book who have written numerous books/publications themselves might also merit having articles at some point. Yours, Smeelgova 14:42, 21 October 2006 (UTC).
From a similar comment I made at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crazy Therapies (book), Per Pascal.Tesson and User:Jossi's recommendation, I went ahead and looked at WP:BK#Criteria. The criteria clearly states that if one of the criteria is met, the book is "generally notable." One of these criteria is, "The book's author meets Wikipedia's notability criteria for people, based on his/her work as a writer.", which Michael Langone most certainly does. Smeelgova 05:21, 22 October 2006 (UTC).NOTE:, this is NOT meant for you to go and look at the other AFD and vote there. Please do NOT do so because of this above comment. I simply wanted to point out the similarities between the debates and satisfying WP:BK#Criteria as per the guidelines. Smeelgova 06:24, 22 October 2006 (UTC).
  • Please keep Recovery from Cults (book) this article as it is by far the most comprehensive one out there and it has by far more authentic contributors in the academic world than any other to date. Many of the contributors have wikipages here for the value of their own work, yet chose to contribute to this book because as an academic group it is harder to refute than just one academic voice. Please see the areas covered in the book in the infogami site [30] (site devoted to recovery for post NRM/CULT/SECT experience) http://xbkinfo.infogami.com/Recovery_From_Cults . Please click on any of the hot links and see how they will connect back to the wikipedia site for the pages of the contributors in the book. If you delete this this article, it would be a terrible loss to those seeking information on the RECOVERY process. Thank you for your consideration with regards to this matter. PEACE TalkAbout 18:55, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. From the limited description in the article so far, this book seems to represent only one POV in the mind control and post-cult trauma controversies. Perhaps it would be better to use this book as a reference to those articles to illuminate that POV. Giving it its own article would result in merely echoing the POV of the authors and essentially acting as a free advertisement for a book which some Wikipedia editors happen to have read and liked. If no sources can be found which positively or more importantly negatively review the book, then this is an indication that it does not appear to be of any notable scientific, historic, or cultural significance, and that the Wikipedia coverage of it would necessarily be original research. -- Beland 21:46, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable. It can be referred to in the author's article Michael_Langone. Any useful material should be merged there. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • CommentThe book may have notable contributors and may be very useful, but neither of thos make it notable. Please add reviews and newspaper articles to show notability.Edison 23:09, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment on comment I will only try to the work after it has survived Afd. Andries 23:12, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep This Google search tends to indicate some notability [31] in the sense that some cult-victim support organizations seem to use it as a valuable reference [32] [33] [34] [35]. Of course we can't expect this book to have tremendous sales nor can we ask for frontpage news articles but notability shouldn't be popularity. If it is a respected source in psychiatry then it should be notable. Now that doesn't mean that the concern about the tone of the article is unwarranted. It is, but not to the point of deletion. Pascal.Tesson 23:10, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per jossi •Jim62sch• 14:48, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep, book by non-vanity publisher. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:14, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Jeff --Gwern (contribs) 21:48, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: Non-notable. A majority of google results are simply either references to the book or places that sell the book. I cannot find notable or reliable sources that cite the book. The links provided by Pascal.Tesson are not from notable sources. From what I can tell, the links provided by Pascal.Tesson are cult sites that either solicit or sell the book (with the exception of one site that provided a book review). Someone provide the reliable or reputable sources that cite this book or use it as a reference. I'm surprised no one has done so thus far. SSS108 talk-email 04:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Pascal.Tesson and badlydrawnjeff. JamesMLane t c 10:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep even though this book presents my church in a bad light. This book is crucially important to the debate over mind control and "cults". It presents a theory of "cult recruitment" which was initially very popular but later was scientifically repudiated, namely, the "mind control" theory. It's hard to understand anti-cult advocacy (such as the anxiety and urgency which led to the Waco raids) without reference to the premise of this book. --Uncle Ed 19:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment where is the indication that this book was important for the mind control theories? This 1995 book was published after the Waco raid in 1993. Andries 21:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
      • LOL, not as proof of mind control. That theory has been discredited by scientific bodies. Important for the history of advocacy of the mind control theory. Mangone makes the typical anti-cult arguments, and we need an article on the anti-cult POV about mind control, so readers can understand why they advised parents to seek deprogrammers (e.g., fighting fire with fire?). Keeping the article on the book is by no means an endorsement of the book's premise. --Uncle Ed 02:18, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
        • 'Comment What is the indication or proof that this particular book is important or notable for the advocacy of mind control? If they are looking for a notable example then snapping is already there. Andries 20:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I wanted to point out that Arthur A. Dole's book-review is the only review to which full text is shown. Arthur A. Dole happens to be on the Board Of Directors of the ICSA (formerly known as AFF - American Family Foundation) [36], whose executive director is Michael Langone (the author of this book) [37]. Therefore, the only public book-review was written by a board member belonging to a foundation to which Langone is the executive director. This is indicative of bias. Of course the review is going to be favorable. Since there are no other public book-reviews, this points directly to the non-notability of this book. SSS108 talk-email 23:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I think rather it shows that there is a lot of bias in the anti-cult industry. Many groups conspired to refer worried parents to deprogrammers, and it was all justified with mind control theories. The first thing a deprogrammer tells his victim is that the real victimizers were the "cult" and the deprogrammer is going to free his mind from cult mind control. Once they get their victim to blame everything on the cult, they can easily persuade them to leave it (and they collect their $10,000 to $20,000 fee).
    • This book, like dozens of others, supports the mind control premise. It is therefore significant as being part of the controversy over whether (A) that there is such a thing a "mind control" and cults mastered the technique or (B) recruits converted of their own free will. --Uncle Ed 19:25, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete - Yomanganitalk 15:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pro Tour Season 2005 (Magic: The Gathering)

This article is poorly written, formatted and unencyclopedic. The topic itself is less than notable, as evidenced by the lack of articles for other Magic Pro Tour seasons. Only two pages link to this article (once of the two is a user's talk page), and no edits have been made to it since July, which suggests that few people are reading it. Croctotheface 14:45, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, individual seasons of the MTG Pro Tour are not notable. Andrew Levine 16:32, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge or outright delete as it is redudant to List of Magic: The Gathering Pro Tour events. I say Merge if only because that article could use a little more life in it. FrozenPurpleCube 19:39, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per my nomination (assuming I get a vote). Croctotheface 04:22, 22 October 2006 (UTC) OK then. Croctotheface 08:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
First, AFD is not an outright vote. Second, usually a nominator's reasoning is taken into account in an AfD anyway, so it is redundant of you. See WP:AfD FrozenPurpleCube 14:20, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. kingboyk 16:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alix Rosenthal

This person is a candidate for the San Francisco board of supervisors in the upcoming November election (not an incumbent.) A previous AfD was closed as no consensus. A DRV consensus overturned, given concerns about "advertising" and the closer's expressed doubt. This is resubmitted for new consideration. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 15:01, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

  • (The entry by "Steve -- San Francisco" was placed at the bottom of this discussion page to conform with the chronological order of the entries.--Waterthedog 04:56, 26 October 2006 (UTC))
  • Delete. City council candidates are not notable, period. They're not notable even if they win. --Aaron 20:31, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
    I'd rather phrase that as "they're not notable by default even if they win". Certainly Harvey Milk became notable as a city councilman, and Alvin Brooks probably qualifies as well. -- nae'blis 16:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete for the same reason I gave in the first AfD. Fails established guideline WP:BIO. Pan Dan 21:41, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I find it quite interesting to see who the historical candidates for office in my area were. The SF Bay Area is huge, and surely I'm not alone in that. Seems of sufficient note to me, because the position for which she is running and the political dynamics of that are interesting. I wouldn't object to this being merged into a general article on the 2006 SF Board of Supervisors elections though. But, there's no reason to delete this until that exists. Derex 22:46, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I have been editing the article. I think I agree that the Ms. Rosenthal is non-notable. My intent in editing the article is not necessarily to make the article suitable to keep, but to decide if, in my opinion, whether it should be deleted or kept. --Iamunknown 01:35, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Doesn't quite have the notability needed for an article.Edison 03:34, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I added some references to establish notability. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 04:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Two local newspaper articles and a local blog's posting do NOT come close to establishing notability. The phrase "grasping at straws" comes to mind. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Calton (talk • contribs) 22:09, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Obvious campaign ad disguised as an article (Look! It even has a list of endorsements!) for a local non-notable candidate for a not-inherently notable post, someone who doesn't appear to be well-known even locally. If and when she gets elected and does something notorious (and being on the SF Board of Supervisors gives plenty of scope for that), she can get an article, but she's not even close to rating one now. --Calton | Talk 05:09, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Please point out the words that appear biased. Simply because the article is about a candidate running for public office does not mean that it is biased. Endorsements are verifiable facts and should not be deemed promotional content. Endorsements are typically found in voter guides and their inclusion also conforms with the WP:C&E proposition. --Waterthedog 02:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • It's not my responsibility to back up anything I never actually said. --Calton |
  • It's fair to say that an "[o]bvious campaign ad disguised as an article" implies that it's biased, and "[l]ook! It even has a list of endorsements!" implies that endorsements are a part of that bias.--Waterthedog 10:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Talk 07:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

  • It's not my responsibility to back up what you imagine I said, only what I actually said. --Calton | Talk 05:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable. Everyking 07:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Based on what, exactly? --Calton | Talk 07:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom Moneyballing 14:49, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep multiple verifiable sources. Catchpole 15:09, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Anyone who claims that this article is an ad in disguise or is in any way biased, please point out the words or phrases that give that appearance. Endorsements are verifiable facts and should not be deemed promotional content. Endorsements typically appear in nonpartisan voter guides, and they can further or hinder a candidate's success. An endorsement from an organization with which a voter disagrees, for example, is a reason for that voter not to vote for a candidate. Inclusion of endorsements conforms with the WP:C&E proposition. Although running for local public office does not confer notability by itself, when combined with a growing body of independent, verifiable information -- and yes, endorsements are a part of that -- notability emerges. And that's consistent with the WP:C&E proposition. Further, a Google search of this candidate yields about 15,800 results, and given that this particular name combination is not all that common, it's likely that most of these results refer to her. To say that a local political candidate can only attain notability after winning the election is just as inaccurate as saying that simply running for local public office confers notability.--Waterthedog 01:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Waterthedog (talk • contribs) is the creator of the article that is the subject of this AfD.
  • I noticed that none of the generalized handwaving about notability made the slightest attempt to ACTUALLY establish any here, except the raw misleading Google count -- which turns out to be 199 unique hits. --Calton | Talk 07:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I use WP:C&E proposition to support my position because, although it is still a proposal, it is much more specific and on point than WP:BIO, and I think far superior to the vague notion of notability. But on that point, Rosenthal is a candidate for public office of a major city. True, any resident of the city can sign up to be a candidate, but those who run a serious campaign, win endorsements and gain the attention of the local news media become noteworthy candidates. There are all sorts of articles on Wikipedia on people who are only known to a particular locality. Candidates for important local public offices -- and city councils are important -- deserve attention. These politicians are poised to be the candidates of provincial/state and national offices of the future. Calton is right to point out the number of unique hits, which I neglected to check -- it was not an attempt to mislead.--Waterthedog 10:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete nn candidate, period. We have clear guidelines and established precedent for election candidates; keeping this would be a subversion of process and it is important to maintain consistency. Many of those voting keep seem to ignore the basic principles of WP:C&E, despite the grandstanding above. This should be deleted by WP:IAR, if consensus is not achieved since, in matters electoral, the stakes for consistency are somewhat higher than they are for tertiary Pokemon characters or risibly unimportant primary schools. Eusebeus 11:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Which "basic principles" of WP:C&E are you referring to? As I see it, the essence of that proposal is summed up in this quote: "As a compromise between those who would keep all candidate articles and those who would delete all articles on yet-unelected candidates, it would be preferable if articles on elections were written before articles on individual candidates. Only if and when there is enough independent, verifiable information to write a non-stub article on a candidate should one be written." Accordingly, an article was written on the election and the article itself contains "enough independent, verifiable information" to write a non-stub article on the candidate.--Waterthedog 16:14, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • C&E is not policy & not guideline. It's a proposal exactly because people don't agree with it. Derex 07:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. No consensus has already been reached, and I object to deletionists repeatly bringing up articles until they get their way. I suggest you spend your time getting consensus on WP:C&E instead. This is not the proper place to decide notability for candidates. Royalbroil Talk  Contrib 13:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
    • This AfD is not by "deletionists repeatedly bringing up articles until they get their way." This is a procedural nomination because of the simple fact that a deletion review for the first AfD resulted in putting this article back up for deletion. The admins at deletion review seemed to be okay with it. Also, I agree that this is not the proper place to decide notability for candidates, but it is the proper place to decide notability for this candidate. You've ignored the topic in question. --Iamunknown 14:50, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I apologize. I just realized that I made a hasty and ignorant assumption. I don't know if you "ignored the topic in question;" it seemed that way to me, but I doubt you are. Sorry for the ignorant and hasty assumption. :\ --Iamunknown 14:53, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Delete. Thanks for pointing that out, for I didn't properly understand exactly what is happening with this nomination. I do not think that a candidate for a local board (even in a large world-class city) is notable. Winning the election is maybe only 3/4 of what is needed to be notable in my humble opinion (except if there is something else to add to notability). As an someone more on the inclusionist side, I get frustrated when I see what appears to me to be renominations until an article gets deleted. That is not the case in this nomination. Sorry! Royalbroil Talk  Contrib 12:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I have serious doubts that Ms Rosenthal would be notable even if she were to win, but that would depend on what people wrote about her then; what they're writing now is not the sort of reporting that's needed to justify an article. Allowing any deviation from established precedent is a Bad Thing as Eusebeus notes. Waterthedog's lengthy comment misses that Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:26, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete As the nominator for the deletion review, I felt that the original AfD resulted in a decision of Delete although it appeared that the consensus was subverted by copious commentary about the C&E proposition (and the same is starting over again). This candidate is not notable, does not meet WP:BIO and the election has its own page to cover which candidates are running for office. ju66l3r 20:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Let's not lose sight of what is ostensibly one of our common goals: to maintain a repository of verifiable, objective information. I'm not seeing the harm in creating articles for local political candidates so long as they are not libelous and are written in an unbiased way with independent, verifiable information. Not having articles of mayoral candidates and candidates of the legislative bodies of major cities is a loss for Wikipedia. The notability of Rosenthal is borderline, I admit. But if that's the only flaw, I fail to see need for deletion. The integrity if information is what is really important. And, yes, if a candidate is so obscure that relevant facts about the candidacy cannot be verified then that's a problem; that's not the case with Rosenthal. The fuzzy concept of notability and broad construct of WP:BIO should not be used to suppress articles about local political candidates.--Waterthedog 22:26, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. WP:NOT an electioneering platform. Ohconfucius 10:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I did not see anything under WP:NOT that mentions "electioneering platforms" per se. It does say that Wikipedia is "not a soapbox," and clarifies that its articles are not "propaganda/advocacy, self-promotional or advertising." The Rosenthal article is not an electioneering platform and it complies with the soapbox guideline because it is written in an unbiased manner. Articles about candidates for public office are not inherently biased. Again, if anyone finds wording that is biased, the remedy is to change wording, not delete the article.--Waterthedog 17:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Derex. I admit to Eusebeus that I do disagree with WP:C&E, which is only a proposed guideline. Application of that proposal, however, would call for merging this information into the San Francisco, California, election, 2006 article, which does not currently include such detail on any of the candidates. Giving Rosenthal such preferential treatment in the general election article would be biased, but having this separate article isn't. It's not a campaign ad -- yes, of course it lists endorsements, but it mentions her failed attempts to get other endorsements, and also notes criticisms of her. If there's more negative material that should be added, feel free to add it. JamesMLane t c 10:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: That's entirely illogical. We don't make exceptions to guidelines because another article would be only partially complete as a result. If this info were to go into the elections article, then it would only improve that article and perhaps even inspire someone to more fully define this particular election article beyond a simple listing of candidates and their campaign websites. Think it unbalances the article to do so? Put the NPOV tag at the top and say on the talk page that the other candidates need info added to better meet a neutral PoV. This article isn't submitted for deletion because of uncorrectable NPoV anyways; it fails WP:BIO and therefore more negative info isn't mandated (nor does that somehow neutralize an unbalanced sycophantic article). ju66l3r 17:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm not arguing for an exception to a guideline -- as I pointed out, WP:C&E isn't a guideline. The simple issue is how we treat the verifiable information about Alix Rosenthal. Which approach best serves the readers:
(1) A general article about the election, with links to individual articles about the candidates (meaning that we keep the Rosenthal article);
(2) A general article about the election that includes information about each candidate in the level of detail of the article now proposed for deletion (meaning that we merge everything in this article into the general article, and provide comparable information about other candidates); or
(3) A general article about the election with little or no information about the candidates, so that most or all of the information in this article is expunged from Wikipedia (the consequence of deleting this article without merging).
I believe that alternative #1 is best. The general article will give people a quick idea of the parameters of the election. Those who want more detail about the race in a particular district can click through to the candidates' bios. Alternative #2 would drown the general article in an ocean of detail. Alternative #3 would excise from Wikipedia some verifiable information that many readers, in San Francisco and elsewhere, would like to have. JamesMLane t c 18:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • You argue under the false pretense that verifiable info about Alix Rosenthal belongs on Wikipedia. This discussion is foremost whether Alix Rosenthal meets the WP:BIO criteria for inclusion. That is the guideline you are ignoring (i.e., trying to find the exception to) in order to determine its appropriate context. Cart before the horse. ju66l3r 18:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • If by "false pretense" you mean that I'm making the assumption that the information belongs on Wikipedia, no, I'm expressly not making that as an assumption. I included my alternative #3 to accommodate the people who want the information expunged. I just think that people who want the information expunged should be clear about it. (Some people support deletion and merger of the article. If this article is deleted, the next step will be wrangling about whether to merge it into the general article about the election.) I reject alternative #3 because I believe that the public attention attendant upon a candidacy such as this one makes a person notable. JamesMLane t c 20:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment It should be noted that in this particular election Rosenthal's opponent and all the other incumbents (with one exception) have their own articles.--Waterthedog 18:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Incorrect. Starchild does not have a page and is an opponent of Rosenthal. Also note that left unsaid by you is that none of the other candidates (who are not also incumbents) have articles. Putting this article in a very tiny minority of 1, in that regard. Your comment only serves to highlight the fact that the Rosenthal article is an exception, not the rule. ju66l3r 19:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I didn't say that all of Rosenthal's opponents had articles, but I should have clarified that I meant her more prominent opponent, Bevan Dufty (the incumbent). Bevan, along with all the other incumbents in the race (with one exception), have their own articles. The fact that the office itself including most of its members have articles lends support to the notability of the candidates running for those seats. I'm not saying that all candidates running for local public offices should have their own articles, but I am saying that these candidates should not be categorically barred from having articles either. Candidates who run serious campaigns, gain the attention of the local media and win endorsements of prominent local political organizations do meet the notability threshold of WP:BIO.--Waterthedog 20:18, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete.If she wins an elected office, she can reapply at that time. This is an obvious campaign advertisement. Steve - San Francisco 18:39, 25 October 2006
  • Rosenthal did not apply for or create the article, nor did anyone from her campaign. It's not an advertisement. Advertisements are promotional and contain biased language. The content of this article is neutral. If you disagree, point out the words you feel give the appearance of bias and suggest alternative verbiage.--Waterthedog 04:56, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and fails WP:C&E. Morton devonshire 17:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Sufficient media coverage to warrant inclusion. Gamaliel 18:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - "Advertising" or not is irrelevant - there are endless numbers of candidates running in local elections worldwide, which does not make them candidates for WP articles, and there seems to be no other sufficient notability offered. - David Oberst 05:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, no assertion of notability that rises to the level I'd like to see in the encyclopedia. If she wins AND does something important/controversial, no prejudice against an article later, but right now this looks like campaign copy/apologetics. -- nae'blis 16:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Subject has received sufficient media coverage to warrant inclusion. Yamaguchi先生 20:26, 1 November 2006
  • Delete. Very few sources, in my opinion not enough to be able to satisfy the stringent verifiability demands for an article on a living person. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 12:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Bobet 11:50, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mervyn Colley

NN. I don't think the claim that he has been on TV cuts it per WP:BIO. Leibniz 15:11, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


  • Delete? it does not state anywhere in the article that he has been in the newspapers and the TV program in question was "Weird Wales" which that is mentioned already in this article, he does not boast a world wide religion it mentions a mixed religious group. BTW he relays this message "please feel free to delete any topics mentioning him" Frater enoc 23:30, 26 October 2006 (GMT)

Delete as non-notable. I'be been on TV too, but that doesn't qualify me for an article. I would like to add to this nomination Ordo Lux, Mr Colley's world wide religion with 100 members. Emeraude 18:47, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete unless reliable sources can be added to ferify notability. Has he been the subject of numerous articles in newspapers? What TV shows has he appeared on and in what contrext?Edison 23:11, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, notability4.18GB 12:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Delete. Either a hoax. Or a non-notable bio. Either way, it's a speedy. Robdurbar 15:56, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scheiss Missgeburt

Prod contested by creator of the page. I has also tagged it as a potential hoax. My original prod rationale was

Seems doubtful. The creator claims that his sources are from Google searches. Yet searching "Scheiss Missgeburt" with "Tangerine dream" or with "Kluster" or with "Acon" or with "Michael Thomas Roe" or with "Rodelius" all come up empty.

I'd like to add that (as far as my German allows me to go) "Scheiss Missgeburt" means "shit miscarriage". Not an improbable name for a provocative artist but still sounds hoaxalicious. Even more funny is the new picture added: Recall that this artist is supposed to be born in 1937. This picture is most clearly taken with a digital camera... Pascal.Tesson 15:20, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Article is ok --Juookdf 15:35, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Says the sockpuppett. Pascal.Tesson 15:37, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
(Personal attack removed)--Juookdf 15:38, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Even if not hoax, appears to be of little note with nothing meeting WP:BAND and not even an assertion in the article of something that would meet that guideline. No listing at allmusic; nothing selling at Amazon no Google hits for artist and alleged titles; unsourced; and the editor's flailing about vandalizing the nominator's talk page and removing the afd tags, plus his well reasoned response here has all the hallmarks of the childish hoaxer.--Fuhghettaboutit 16:01, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No consensus has been reached, so the article is kept. The renaming issue can be proposed separately on the article talk page.--Konst.ableTalk 12:09, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of television episodes with coming-out themes

A Unmanageable list that will grow to no end. The list doesn't fit into Wikipedia as it gives truly or useful, encyclopedic information.--M8v2 16:21, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

  • weak delete - A list that actually limited itself to episodes where characters came out of the closet would be a useful and interesting index, however, the article includes a lot of speculation and inferences about the meaning of allegories and other stories that aren't explicitly about a character coming out of the closet. The MASH episode isn't even about coming out, it's just a mention of "gender confusion" in one little scene. If someone will clean this article up, I'd say keep, but it's worthless as it is. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 16:56, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Alex (Talk) 20:07, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom.--Húsönd 21:51, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep this theme is no so open-ended like "Love Songs" and we have no end of articles about nearly episode from long-forgotten (by most) tv shows; it provides a useful search and research vehicle for people using our encyclopedia to see how the theme is treated among various tv shows. Carlossuarez46 22:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Homosexuality in popular culture is encyclopaedic. Xdenizen 02:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Ergh. Weak keep, but under a different name like List of television episodes dealing with LGBT issues, and give it some criteria for inclusion to avoid scope creep. Otherwise, bring it back here if that doesn't happen and we can excise it as unworkable. -- nae'blis 16:14, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete userfy on request if someone wants to set clear inclusion guidelines so that doesn't run afould of WP:NOT a collection of indiscriminate information. ~ trialsanderrors 07:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete, mwaa-haa-haa. ^..^ Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Destroying and avoiding vampires

This is an unsourced original research essay-style duplicate of the relevant sections of Vampire and Vampire fiction (not that the latter section is much better). Contested {{prod}} and {{prod2}}. Sandstein 16:48, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Stake it through the heart, etc., etc. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 17:13, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete — don't forget the garlic :) American Patriot 1776 17:23, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete A fun little read, but also unnecessary duplication of existing information in OR form. Let's pour boiling water into a hole next to this article to see what happens! EVula 17:31, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. Not sure this is entirely original research: sources for many of its assertions are mentioned in text. But if it is in fact entirely redundant, and not threatening to diminish the readability of the chief Vampire article, it is a fork. Isn't it important to determine the vampire's ethnicity first? - Smerdis of Tlön 18:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, you can't do a blood test, as it'd be a plethora of blood types... EVula 18:35, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete it's about time this article was exposed to sunlight.-- danntm T C 22:03, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • DeleteDon't invite it in.Edison 23:12, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete with Ultraviolet Bullets Danny Lilithborne 23:15, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as is, though a referenced, "out-of-universe" (for lack of a better term) version of this article could certainly be useful. Stilgar135 00:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:33, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Diversity Fleet

Non-notable gaming website. Doesn't pass WP:WEB, and only gets 3k hits (once you subtract "Wikipedia" from the results[38]). Unsourced and POV, as well. EVula 16:59, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom--Jusjih 18:11, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom.--Húsönd 21:48, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delele per A7. T REXspeak 00:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - the merge proposal can be discussed separately on the article talk pages.--Konst.ableTalk 12:12, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Durham Association for Downtown Arts

Non-notable local organization. Little or no media coverage. Fails WP:ORG. Mereda 17:14, 21 October 2006 (UTC) I nominated this while looking at the claims to notability of another arts org, Jansanskrity above. --Mereda 17:23, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom 126 Ghits--Jusjih 18:10, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I added references to demonstrate notability. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 04:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment I'm always open-minded, but is that music event notable either? Every village has a festival and most of them of them get mentioned in the local paper too. This doesn't look strong enough. --Mereda 14:19, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. WP:ORG is a proposal and does not have consensus. JamesMLane t c 11:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Apologies if my shorthand misled. The point about media coverage is already in WP:CORP ("the subject of multiple non-trivial published works") as an agreed guideline. --Mereda 13:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Smerge and redirect to Durham article. They can decide if the information needs to be kept there or removed entirely. This should not be counted as a Keep separately. -- nae'blis 17:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Catchpole 20:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] First Maroon War and Second Maroon War

This and the related article do not give any context and need substantial work to be able to stand alone as Wiki articles. At the moment, neither manges to explain itself and I get the impression that they have been copied from some other source verbatim, but have no evidence for this. A solution could be to merge the two articles, but a better idea could be to delete both and merge them into History of Jamaica Emeraude 18:13, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Merge to History of Jamaice and copyedit Arnoutf 21:16, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Being badly written is not a criterion for deletion and these wars were real and notable (although usually called the Maroon Rebellions, I believe). Significant events in a country's history usually get their own articles and are not merely footnotes in the general article on a country's history, so why not these? -- Necrothesp 02:40, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, easily notable events. Everyking 07:50, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep both Notable events in Jamaica and in the history of British slavery. They need cleaning up of course. (And at least one local site says "war" [39]) --Mereda 10:26, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep both Historic notable events. If this much detail was given to every period of Jamaican history in the History of Jamaica article, that article would be way too long. --Marriedtofilm 17:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, not even the worst articles I have seen... Merging, and possibly purging the text if necessary, can be taken after this discussion is closed. Tizio, Caio, Sempronio 17:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:33, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arizona Wilder

NN-person claiming to be involved with conspiracy theory, possible hoax; de-PRODed by anon. IP so I bring it here for deletion DesertSky85451 18:41, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Several hundred google hits[40], and the article reads like a severe POV push. This is the best AfD ever, though, since it led me to "the President and Vice-President of the U.S. are child-molesting, shape-shifting reptilians".[41] Good times. EVula 19:00, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh my god, how did I miss that?? Thank you EVula for pointing that out!!! DesertSky85451 19:38, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • DeleteNo evidence of notability.Edison 23:14, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete David Icke is encyclopedically notable. This person is not Bwithh 00:40, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I'd really really love to keep this article if it were just tightly sourced, i.e. with transcripts of her appearances at Maury and suchlike. Bad sadly, no sources → Delete (for now). ~ trialsanderrors 06:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Do not delete this, they are attempting to control and sensor the internet and remove peoples freedoms. If this woman was lying then they should sue her, her claims remain claims until proven otherwise. Nevertheless it is part of history and should not be removed. Its bad enough that google video has deleted the video. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.60.109.151 (talk • contribs)
  • PLEASE KEEP —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Portillo (talk • contribs) 09:12, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete- no signs of notability. Dr.khan 16:16, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn, possible speedy. Leibniz 20:32, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 08:01, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alice Smith International School

NN-school, de-PRODed by the usual school saving crowd. delete DesertSky85451 18:44, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Strong, speedy who gives a **** DesertSky, I respect your efforts. Normally, since this school's article doesn't assert any notability, I'd !vote for deletion. But what's the point? Why even try? There are so many people who have nothing to do on WP besides check out the schoolwatch and then !vote keep, because somehow, all schools are inherently notable when no other corporation, public institution, or group of people gets that same classification. Every inclusionist will point to the keep arguments from the last- failed- WP:SCHOOLS proposal, or point to how this school meets the idiotic criteria of the current WP:SCHOOLS proposal. At least some editors (TruthbringerToronto comes to mind) actually attempt to improve articles and establish notability than just vote blindly. (Notice how there was no exclamation point before "vote" there? That's because a lot of their !votes are pure votes.) So, you know what? At this point, I'll admit defeat. I have incredible respect for the school system, but all of them are not notable; with that said, if this group of people are so adamant about their schools, let 'em have their schools. -- Kicking222 19:23, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Secondary school, ergo notable. Case particularly strengthened for me by the above remark. For your information, I have many better things to do on WP than continually vote "Keep" on AfDs on secondary schools (and I do not "check out the schoolwatch"), but as long as people continue to propose them for deletion I shall continue voting. Why is it that people who oppose the inclusion of a particular class of articles so often feel the need to make snide remarks aimed at people who disagree with them (also epitomised by the "usual school saving crowd" remark of the proposer)? If you had so much support in your view then presumably you would be able to muster a little more support in AfDs; since you don't, you obviously feel the need to vent your frustrations on those of us who disagree with you. Sad really. -- Necrothesp 21:47, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep but only because I have nothing better to do.... Actually, I do believe schools are inherently notable and the articles can be useful to readers. This is the second time I've voted to keep a school, but I'll probably make a habit of it.Noroton 01:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Yet another AfD from the usual school deleting crowd. The age, location, scope and curriculum of this secondary school establish its notability for retention. Alansohn 05:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep since it appears to meet several criteria within the proposed WP:SCHOOLS guideline. Yamaguchi先生 05:26, 22 October 2006
  • Keep. I tried to improve the article from its condition when it was first nominated, and then Alansohn made some further improvements. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 07:24, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep High school are notable and this meets that test so I will have to support this one. TheRanger 13:09, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep — Sufficiently notable. Nominator doesn't help the case by deliberately insulting wikipedians, but that is not the reason for my preference. — RJH (talk) 18:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete As no assertion of notability. It isn't particularly large, it isn't that old and nothing else about it is notable or distinguishes it from any other school. I do however agree that it would be helpful if everyone tried to stay civil. JoshuaZ 18:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Alansohn and Yamaguchi. --Myles Long 07:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: Non-notable school. DCEdwards1966 19:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Delete per nom: I like fighting uphill battles. Nothing notable about this school. No notability asserted either. Ohconfucius 10:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, nn school, and yes I know it'll be kept, but tilting at windmills is in my blood. Carlossuarez46 22:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Yamaguchi and Alansohn, and spare me the incivility please, kids. Silensor 06:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Necrothesp and most of the other keep voters above. bbx 07:49, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 02:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Web Cadet Corps

advert for NN-online community. delete DesertSky85451 18:47, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Non-notable, only a few hundred ghits.[42] It doesn't read like an advert, though, otherwise I'd say it should be speedily deleted. Oh well. EVula 18:56, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Arbusto 00:20, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Peagloss

Hoax; does not turn up any Google results. I originally tagged it with {{dictdef}} without looking into the situation further, but the page author removed the dictdef template, causing me to look further and find out that this doesn't exist in the first place. Delete --Spring Rubber 19:08, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. If it was the name of medieval armor, there'd be some evidence of it on Google. EVula 19:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete referring to a comedy game show seems not really reliable source does it Arnoutf 21:13, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - even if it was a word, definitions don't belong on Wikipedia. Trebor 23:36, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete Someone was watching QI on BBC TV this week. Contestants used this as a made up work and did a spoof on Call My Bluff. Though funny in the context of the show, it is completely made up. Emeraude 23:38, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. It was an extremely amusing joke on the TV show (HIGNFY, not QI) on Friday night, but that's all it was, a joke... DWaterson 00:56, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete It was a joke the timing of which has now passed. - Selector99

If it is defined as a word invented by Paul Merton to prove a point, then the definition is accurate! Why not spread the fake word..?


Peagloss 2

The yellow stain that appears under a Labradors belly caused by a vitamin D deficiency.

             ---Tomass---
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 02:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Afton Apple Orchard

Non-notable orchard. WP:NOT a place for school projects. cholmes75 (chit chat) 19:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Non-notable location, only 544 Google hits.[43] EVula 19:23, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Discussion acknowledges it is only out there for a schoolproject Arnoutf 21:14, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Trebor 23:31, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete. not notable, none asserted. Ohconfucius 10:38, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete - it could be mentioned in VNC if considered appropriate and there were sources cited, but this article isn't required for that. (By coincidence, redirecting it would currently create a "VNC Article Loop" if you clicked on the see also link every time.)Yomanganitalk 15:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] VNC Loop

  • Delete. Non-notable. Trivial. Neologism. AlistairMcMillan 19:21, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
It's interesting to note that the person who created the article is the one putting it up for AFD. --Amit 02:47, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Not exactly true. You created "VNC Loop" as a redirect to "Virtual Network Connection"[44], then added a section about "VNC Loop" to "Virtual Network Connection"[45] and I moved it to "VNC Loop"[46]. AlistairMcMillan 03:35, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
I created a redirect, but you created the article. Until you put it up for AFD, I never intended it to be its own article. --Amit 03:55, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Fascinating. You do realise that even if this was just a section in a larger article, you do still have to back up the information with sources. So if you are done trying to build up some argument that I'm wrong for nominating this, or this nomination is invalid because I "created" the article, could you perhaps, just maybe, provide a "reliable source" to back this up. Given WP:VERIFY, WP:NEO, WP:NOTE, etc... AlistairMcMillan 04:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
If I could refer you to these wise words... It is the responsibility of those who want the article to stay — to establish notability of the term, failing which the article may be deleted. AlistairMcMillan 04:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom/WP:NEO. Only 99 Google hits.[47] EVula 19:29, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Note also that for some reason Google is still returning some Wikipedia mirrors in the above search. Also at least one article is referring to something else when it is talking about a "VNC loop", something to do with nuclear power stations. AlistairMcMillan 19:36, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Time and again, it has been known that Google is not a proper measure of notability. --Amit 20:21, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • ? I apparently made a mistake by making this into an article because I think the subject is interesting. At least at first glance. I understand what you mean by trivial, but it does illustrate something about networks, and isn't it the just a matter of two words put together to describe a loop that can occur in a VNC, rather than a neologism. I don't know enough about the definitions so maybe I'm just ignorant, of course. --Profero 20:00, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments, but please a Keep or Delete vote would be useful. --Amit 20:21, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. It is notable. Practically every person I know who has used VNC has contemplated upon the article's concept. --Amit 20:21, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
"Contemplated"? More likely, a small percentage of VNC users have accidentally discovered that this is a possible side effect. And after possibly five minutes of playing around with it, have moved on and forgotten all about it.
Just out of interest, can you point to a single article anywhere on this subject. And by article I don't mean an image on Flickr titled "Huh, look what I did, cool" or a forum posting saying "hey, look I made a VNC loop, cool" AlistairMcMillan 20:35, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, contemplation isn't the same as notability. Bill Gates taking over the world has no doubt had more people think of it, but isn't an article (or come to fruition, thankfully). EVula 20:42, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Perhaps it is not a mistake after all. --Profero 20:31, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Trivial, no apparent scholarly sources to document the information. GassyGuy 22:17, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless sourced. Trebor 23:34, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Neologism describing trivial effect that could be acomplished using a screen zoom tool, no need for VNC or other such SW. Good joke for Uncyclopedia, though. Pavel Vozenilek 23:34, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
I guess the small percentage of computer-illiterate "nonerds" like me, that even have to look up what a "Flickr", a "screen tool" and an "SW" is, must be a good joke too. But still I would like too be able to find information even if it is considered unnecessary trivial for the "knowitalls". --Profero 00:27, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
That's Wikipedia, every second one deals with software and they forget existence of the rest of humankind. My point, without the obscure terminology, is that the effect could be accomplished rather easily with at least one common tool. (Flickr, SW means software and a zoom tool allows to magnify portion of the screen so people with weak or damaged sight could still use computer). Pavel Vozenilek 01:47, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, but I don't understand how simulating a VNC Loop effect means you shouldn't mention the real cause of it. Even if we link VNC Loop (since there are such links to the undesirable term on the web) to VNC – and mention it there – we loose the appropriateness of the associative links under ==See also== in VNC Loop as it is now. It's not only the effect that's more or less interesting to different people, it's also the cause. --Profero 02:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
The effect presented is covered here (not very well) in "Droste effect". It is sometimes called "recursive pictures". Mathematical approach behind it is described in [48]. Pavel Vozenilek 13:14, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
VNC Loop seems to be a specialization of the Droste effect, as more than one computer is generally used, and there are secondary effects that are absent in a general recursive picture. --Amit 15:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
This is not a joke, and I fail to see how a basic screen magnifier could achieve this. This shows a lack of credibility. --Amit 02:25, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
You need to set zoom to make the shown image smaller. Pavel Vozenilek 13:14, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
It seems like wer'e not speaking of the same thing. --Profero 15:23, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Zooming!=Recursion --Amit 15:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
You need a tool that zooms automatically and repeatedly the area around the mouse. This adds the feedback loop and allows to create (ugly) recursive effects. Similar (and much uglier) effect could be made when the mangnifier does magnify, one can make repeated pattern of larger and larger pixels from the small portion of the screen. Pavel Vozenilek 17:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
You're zooming my leg! --Profero 12:10, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
You're no longer talking about a basic screen magnifier, but of a specialized tool. I recommend you should reconsider your original false statement, perhaps strike it out. --Amit 18:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete but maybe mention in VNC article.AtomSmith 00:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, and add a brief (couple of sentences at most) mention in VNC. I have to say my heart is heavy. I mean, this is probably a valid topic. It's cool. It's interesting. Downright fas-ci-na-ting. I'm completely honest when I say that, not one bit of sarcasm intended. But regrettably, I have to say that this topic doesn't really fit in Wikipedia. It's just neat, not a critical bit of knowledge. We don't really catalogue neat amusing tricks you can do with your computer. We probably need a "funny-computer-stuff-o-pedia". I think that mentioning this in VNC briefly is best we can do. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:54, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Not the most earth-shaking of encyclopedia topics, but it didn't take much googling to find usage on both flickr and slashdot that pre-date this article, so it doesn't seem to be a neologism. The article is well-written, accurate, and verifiable. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • There seems to be sufficient consensus (by multiple users) to allow a brief portion of the article in the Virtual Network Computing article. Opposition by a single AlistairMcMillan user does not hold any weight. I will go ahead with this. --Amit 14:05, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Seven deletes and two keeps so far. AlistairMcMillan 17:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
The following eight users have recommended to either keep the article itself or have allowed a mention of a brief portion of the VNC Loop article in the Virtual Network Computing article: Abelani, Profero, wwwwolf, RoySmith, William Graham, Bill.matthews, arielCo, Qwertyca. This is consensus enough to make a reasonable mention in Virtual Network Computing. --Amit 18:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Ok then, let's go with wat Amit says and mention in VNC. Qwertyca 19:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah okay. I mean we could spend our time adding useful information to the article, but no, our time is much better spent adding trivial shit like this. AlistairMcMillan 19:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

The same can be said about your time in trying to delete this. The info may seem trivial, but to me and to some others it is an interesting example of an exploratory attitude and of how using tools in unconventional ways can sometimes result in unpredictable consequences. --Amit 20:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh and lets overlook the fact that Amit still hasn't come up with a single "reliable source" that can be used to WP:VERIFY the information he insists must be on Wikipedia. It's not like we have rules about that or anything. AlistairMcMillan 19:26, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

VNC Loop is not a controversial topic by itself, but if you must still be so hardheaded about rules in this case, fine, I give in. You can probably put a sizable fraction of Wikipedia up for AFD using that rule. --Amit 20:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: Unsourced and trivial. DCEdwards1966 19:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


I wonder if this controversy fundamentally has anything to do at all with "notability", "trivial" or "unsourced". I have a feeling it is actually a collision of opinions between they who argue for deletion because their knowledge (of computing) is - or they consider it – more advanced than they who argue for keeping in value of (or just recognize) those who need finding interesting information easily (i.e. the 'uninformed' of a subject who perhaps need WP more than others, or even those who's perspective we know little about). To put it simply: what criteria can we fundamentally refer to when judging what fact should be defined trivial and withheld from 'a few' others. I really hope it's not arrogance. --Profero 21:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to respond to this. So I'm going for sarcasm.
Damn, you are right. You caught me. Nominating this page for deletion is all part of my masterplan for global domination. By hiding information about this trivial, amusing for all of two minutes, with no useful purpose at all, side-effect of some VNC software from the general public, I hope to profit personally and one day rebuild the world as I see fit.
Step 1) Remove VNC Loop information from Wikipedia.
Step 2) ...
Step 3) Achieve world domination
If only you pesky kids hadn't caught me at it. AlistairMcMillan 18:32, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


  • Merge to VNC Ewlyahoocom 06:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to VNC. Amusing for two minutes is good enough for me. -Kubigula (ave) 23:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily deleted under CSD A1/A3 (no context). --Mr. Lefty (talk) 20:16, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Coca-Cola Fright

author deleted prod, non-notable future movie. 'Nuff said... SkerHawx 19:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment additionally, I believe that this user is a sock puppet of User:Hanna Films (see also User:Hannafilm, but I've never completed a request before. Can someone assist? SkerHawx 19:38, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


What is wrong? --Drivecrazy 19:26, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with this article.--Drivecrazy 19:26, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


  • Delete per nom. Absolutely no Google hits, once you factor out Wikipedia entries[49] (with Wikipedia results, you get a staggering one entry). Given the author's contributions, this is a clear violation of WP:COI. EVula 19:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
    Speedy Delete and Protect From User:Lucky 6.9's logs: "9:32, October 20, 2006 Lucky 6.9 (Talk | contribs) deleted "Coca-Cola Fright" (NOnsense, empty taxobox)". Good find, Alan. EVula 20:01, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Wikipedia's not a crystal ball Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 19:29, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - fails WP:Notability, and the "small company" that is making this movie was speedily deleted from wikipedia.
Speedy Delete - Is a recreation of a deleted article which Lucky 6.9 just deleted today, and it fails WP:Notability.
AlanTalk - Contributions 19:50, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I was the prodder, but it's all been said above. Sandstein 19:47, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above, but speedy deletion does not apply because this page has never been taken through AfD before. --Mr. Lefty (talk) 20:03, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually, this could probably be speedied under A1 or A3, so that's what I'll be doing. --Mr. Lefty (talk) 20:15, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Pretty sure I'm reading this correctly:
      CSD G4: "This clause does not apply if the only prior deletions were speedy or proposed deletions, although in this case, the previous speedy criterion, or other speedy deletion criteria, may apply".
      As it was speedily deleted once, wouldn't it still be up for speedy deletion? EVula 20:09, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Only if it meets the same speedy deletion criterion, which in this case, it actually might. I think you could get away with speedying this under CSD A1 or A3. --Mr. Lefty (talk) 20:15, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Two arguments for the sake of keeping, one is that it might become notable in the future, and wikipedia isn't a crystal ball. The other is that it would get more google hits if google crawled their website. That still won't add a single relevant mention about it in third party sources. - Bobet 11:46, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Young scientists online journal

Non-noteworthy online journal. Only one issue published to date. Does not meet WP:WEB, and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Prod was removed by anon without comment. Shimeru 19:25, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. It's a shame, it looks pretty well-written, but two Google hits pretty much tells the story. Dylan 20:27, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Looks nice disguised under Wikipedia format, but it's simply not notable as proven by Google.--Húsönd 21:44, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Looks like a well-meaning publication, but there simply is insufficient independent evidence to establish notablility.-- danntm T C 22:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I suggest that this article is so well written it deserves to be kept for a few months at least to see if it gains more notability. I suspect it will. At least move it to a user area so it is not completely lost. --Bduke 23:40, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
I have to agree that it's very nicely written, even if it is by those associated with the project. I hope it does become more noteworthy -- I just don't think it's there yet. Userfying would be a fine way to retain it against that future possibility. Shimeru 08:20, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I disagree with Bduke's standard for retention. If it will be notable later, then write the article, or submit it, WHEN it is notable. There is lots of work on notable articles that needs doing now. We are not here to forecast the future. I like well-written material, but that in and of itself is not a retention reason, notability is. Bejnar 16:10, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. As one of the people associated with the website I am a bit bias but I would like to explain. Several people have been commenting on that fact that the journal is not significant because of its hit count on Google. This is due to a technical problem on our website, which means Google was unable to crawl our site beyond the homepage. This problem has now been fixed and when Google next crawled the website, it will be updated. Interims of its reputability, it is growing quickly and I would ask if it could at least stay for a couple of months until the next issue is published and a decision could be made then.
  • Delete per nom. Come back again next year if the situation changes, wiki is WP:NOT for something made up in school ;-). Right now, I would not consider even a merger to The King's School, Canterbury. Ohconfucius 10:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - This is a well written article, and although it is not prevelent on Google right now, who knows what the future might entail. I think that this article should be kept for at least several more months before we can be sure that it will never be notable because maybe it might take off soon. N4nojohn 23:04, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 02:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mike Philbin

NN author. Appears to have gotten one nn novel published about twenty years ago, but all his ventures today are self-published. No assertation of notability beyond that, and no evidence provided at all to back up the claims that he is also an artist and editor. The redirect Hertzan Chimera is also part of this AfD. Aaron 20:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom; however, there is no AfD tag on the article itself and I admit incompetence in figuring out how to get one on without messing something up. Risker 18:00, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Ugh. My computer crashed when I was setting this up, and I forgot to go back and finish it. I'll relist the whole thing. --Aaron 19:25, 21 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, Aaron 19:36, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Apparently a conflict of interest for the author as well. EVula 19:32, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - nn and conflict of interest as mentioned. Trebor 23:31, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Don't see references to establish notability via articles in news madia, thrid party reviews, evidence of large sales of works.Edison 03:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete no notability 4.18GB
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Bobet 11:44, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bunshin

This article as current, is depicting a specific ability in Naruto. However, many other fictional ninjas have this ability, and I don't think the current content can be rewritten into an encyclopedic article. Either delete this, or wipe it and start over again. ColourBurst 19:36, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. - Bobet 11:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Bear Necessities of Brown University

Delete as not notable and not verifiable. Their own website is the only source the article links to, and even that doesn't confirm most of the article. Using Google, Lexis-Nexis, and Newsbank I can find no non-trivial, non-local, reliable sources featuring them. I don't think there's even a claim of notability in the article, including the assertion that Recorded A Cappella Review Board (RARB) "hailed" them, because, while evidently true, there's no indication that rarb.org is a respected reviewing agency. {{Primarysources}} and {{notability}} tags have not been addressed in the 3 days since my speedy tag was removed with the message "seems comparable to The Whiffenpoofs, take to AFD if you disagree." I disagree per the above. Pan Dan 19:41, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete -- this looks more like the group's website than like a Wikipedia article. Dylan 20:21, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete NN. 20 hits on Yahoo, 16 on Google.--Húsönd 21:41, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - fails WP:MUSIC. Trebor 23:30, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I want to argue that using your guideline for music, that one of the members has since become a member of the National tour of RENT - Jed Resnick -- which you can check at http://www.broadwayworld.com/showinfo.cfm?showid=932 and another member has a role on the ABC show HEROES -- which you can check at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiro_Nakamura. Althogh Hiro is not a part of a musical band he still is part of a well-known show. Also this website is along the same lines as The Whiffenpoofs so what makes this article less reputable than that one? Do you need for the article to be formatted so that there are more links with our information or what exactly? Your attention to this would be greatly appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.16.22.179 (talk • contribs)

For me, what makes this article unsalvageable is not its content, but its subject. You have to show that The BN's are notable, and to show that they're notable, you have to show that they've been the primary subject of multiple reliable sources. The article on The Whiffenpoofs needs references, but I looked, and refs are at least out there, so that article is salvageable. I looked for good refs on The BN's, and found none.
As for WP:MUSIC: (1) It's a guideline, not a policy. (2) The criterion you refer to was conceived thinking of a band with a (more or less) fixed number of members, not a college group with rotating membership that compiles dozens or hundreds of ex-members. (3) The sentence in WP:MUSIC you are referring to concludes as follows: "note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such." In this case, a mention of Masi Oka's involvement with The BN's, in his article, may be appropriate (if such involvement has been noted in a third-party publication). (As for Jed Resnick, I see he doesn't have his own article, and does not appear notable enough to get one.)
Having visited your website (I assume you're a member, anon) and been involuntarily graced with your singing, I have no doubt that every one of you is destined for great things--even without your group having a Wikipedia article, believe me. Pan Dan 18:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of television episodes with intersex themes

A Unmanageable list that will grow to no end. The list doesn't fit into Wikipedia as it gives truly or useful, encyclopedic information. M8v2 19:52, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete an unmanageable list, which will never be complete, and as nom, isn't useful or encyclpedic. --Alex (Talk) 20:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - fundamentally requires a POV judgment of what constitutes an "intersex theme." Dylan 20:23, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Unmaintainable. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.--Húsönd 21:38, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, unmaintainable and not easy to define. Andrew Levine 22:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as above. Trebor 23:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete wil be listcruft M1ss1ontomars2k4 (T | C | @) 01:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep for the same reasons as I put on the coming-out vote. Carlossuarez46 22:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. - Bobet 11:39, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thomas Reh

This appears to be a professor who does research, who gets grants from various foundations, and who publishes articles, putting him on the same level as virtually every professor in the country. See Wikipedia:Notability (academics) (which is a guideline, not policy) for a general consensus on what constitutes a notable academic. Dylan 20:19, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep Meets Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Large body of papers (over 100) published in refereed journals, meeting criterion 3. Co-author of a textbook. On scientific review panels, meeting criterion 1. Received awards in his field, meeting criterion 7. Full professor at prestigious university, meets criterion 9. Has accomplished far more than "virtually every other professor."Edison 02:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Insufficient evidence of meeting levels of significance and being well-known as outlined by WP:PROF. Awards, textbook authorship etc. seem to fall short of WP:PROF criteria Bwithh 02:39, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep Subject has multiple articles with 100+ cites (incl Science and Nature). Weak keep because the article reads like a Who's Who entry, so someone should point out what the guy is known for. Profs aren't notable ex officio. ~ trialsanderrors 06:30, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Edison. The nom errs in this statement: "See Wikipedia:Notability (academics) (which is a guideline, not policy) for a general consensus on what constitutes a notable academic." The cited page is neither a policy nor a guideline, but a proposal that has not achieved consensus. I for one consider it too restrictive. JamesMLane t c 11:03, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Octapong

  • A game that I think was created by the Wikipedian who created this article. Do you use Wikipedia to create new games?? No. Please delete. Georgia guy 20:33, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was clear keep; article title etc needs extra discussion, best done elsewhere. ➨ ЯEDVERS 11:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mahound

  • I embarked upon this request before the creator of the article supplied a useful rationale for the article existing here. From that, I appear to have stumbled into an edit war on another article that this was thought to be a solution to. Now, I don't agree for several reasons - forking an article is rarely a good idea when trying to create NPOV texts; I know a (non-devout, quite the reverse, but still) muslim-origin person named Mahound; the article as it stands lacks context so readers would be as lost as I was; but nevertheless, it was a good faith solution to an awful problem. Prior to my fellow editor intervening, I had speedy deleted this. Now I'm left thinking that, whilst this is still a speedy delete for several reasons, the article may have a requirement to continue to exist. So I'd like advice here. Yes folks, this is an admin who would like others to advise him. Explain to me what you think and why. Give reasons. Don't just "vote" (this isn't a vote, don't let people tell you it is) but give me reasoning. No one here is going to just count heads. If you do give reasoning, it will help me in future when I'm on CSD patrol. Thanks.➨ ЯEDVERS 20:37, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • ➨ ЯEDVERS has described well the origin of the article. I understand the point of avoiding POV forks. I am also not committed to this article, but it seemed the right thing. The information in the article is more or less the contents of an ongoing edit war at Muhammad. My thought was that a pejorative term, if it is a notable pejorative term of a notable subject, might be more appropriate in an article under the cat of pejorative terms, rather than in the biographical article of the person involved, just as we have an article on the word Fuck as well as one on Sexual Intercourse. One is about the act, the other about the word. However, from ➨ ЯEDVERS's comments regarding a Muslim acquaintance named Mahound, the situation is perhaps more complex. If the name/term Mahound is not a pejorative term, then the claims that it is, should be removed from the Muhammad article. For individuals who are knowledgable on this subject, I would appreciate not only comments here, but also comments at talk:Muhammad. Thanks. Sincerely, --BostonMA talk 21:25, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • KeepComment I do not think its use has been exclusively pejorative, but either way we could have a short but useful article on the name and its use in English literature and history. Tom Harrison Talk 16:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I don't believe this is a POV fork, and I'll use the whole of this comment block to explain why, then give my advise in the next column. It was basically one man who wanted to remove the whole section, as it appeared, because he didn't like any mention of Mohammed in a negative context. This section has stood for months, with parts of it there for years. I might like to point out that he was immediately banned for violating 3RR and being uncivil (e.g, you are an animal; this was his fourth such block). However, when I saw the section, which others seemed to be reverting in full, it seemed like a bit of an aside to me, so I removed a good portion of it (which BostonMA has restored it nearly in full on this page). We didn't need a long discussion on this specific term, because the article is about Mohammed, not variations of his name (what does some modern cleric declaring Jihad on all who use the term have anything to do with Mohammed?).
For now, Keep the article or Rename it to Variations of the name Mohammed (with a redirect), as per the citations, but make sure this is reliable information first. This is not POV fork, as I explained above. It is also relevant: it is quite possible that people will want to find information on this name (or other variations of the name) for a research subject. It certainly doesn't fail WP:NN. I will try to remove some of the blatantly POV language, and I will put a disputed tag at the top of the article until someone can give a better description, because you're right, the information is suspicious. So I say keep the article, but only if we can come up with reliable info.-Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 22:58, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Question, Patstuart, could you clarify which assertions you feel are disputed? Thanks. --BostonMA talk 01:22, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Keep - Well sourced.Bakaman Bakatalk 05:36, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep (or possibly merge to Muhammad). -- RHaworth 06:47, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

*Delete A single variation of Muhammad name, which is also not well-known by most, does not deserve to have a separate article. --- ابراهيم 13:50, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

  • rename A more general article that contain all of these kind of names. It will have more material in it and will help to avoid making many small articles each with only few sentences in it. Mahound could be name of a section in such an article. --- ابراهيم 14:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: More than 30,000 Ghits. --Nehwyn 16:30, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Question: Anonymous, could you please clarify what you mean by this comment? Thanks. --BostonMA talk 19:55, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Move to Medieval western conception of Muhammad: I was the one who gathered the information about Mahound and add a summary of it as a footnote to the Muhammad article. I think Mahound could be a section in "Medieval western conception of Muhammad" --Aminz 02:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Aminz' suggestion is a good one. —Aiden 04:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Comment:Aminz, your ideas are always very helpful. :) TruthSpreaderTalk 03:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Changing my Vote - I support Aminz's Idea! Altough, Christian or Catholic conception is more accurate. --Irishpunktom\talk 10:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The name Mahound does appear to be a given name, although I am unsure of the frequency. See for example Mahound Manzaloui, an author. --BostonMA talk 12:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I had heard of this term, as a derogatory reference to Muhammad, before encountering this AfD. The article adds properly encyclopedic information about its origin and use in this context. JamesMLane t c 11:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect: Redirect to Criticism of Muhammad or Non-Muslim view of Muhammad and then add a section of such names. TruthSpreaderTalk 11:54, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
That is a good idea. --- ابراهيم 11:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Move: I think Aminz idea is good, and I would strongly recommend creation of Medieval western conception of Muhammad. TruthSpreaderTalk 03:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 00:32, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anthony John

Not notable. Leibniz 20:40, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Virtually all results provided by a Google search for Anthony John + polo/magician are unrelated. The remaining ones fail to assert notability.--Húsönd 21:32, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete , searched google Anthony John + Magician. Nowhere to be found, either Non-existant or Non-Notable.--†ĥε þяíћɔЄ öf ɒĥɑямäTalk to Me 22:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete and redirect to Lullaby. The concept isn't relevant beyond the novel in which it is mentioned and this article won't add anything to the target article (it's just a confusing mix of fiction and reality). - Bobet 11:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Culling song

Despite what the article says, there's no such thing as a culling song. The concept was created by Chuck Palahniuk for his novel Lullaby. —dm (talk) 21:09, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete and redirect to Lullaby A case could be made for merge to Lullaby, but I think that article probably has enough info already - Richfife 23:15, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:32, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Atrioventricular (Band)

Does not meet WP:MUSIC Maybe vanity. -Nv8200p talk 21:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of schools in Kenya

This list was deleted on June 21, 2006 in an 8-2 vote that showed a strong consensus that this list did not contribute anything that could not be accomplished by categories. I have just discoverd that almost exactly one month later, Kappa, with apparent full knowledge of the original consensus (as evidenced by a comment he made on the article's talk page), decided to disregard the will of the community and recreate the page, a move I personally consider to be irresponsible if he realized the prior debate result before creating the page. All the reasons for deletetion from the first arguement (found here) still apply, plus the additional negative of a recreation undertaken in violation of clear consensus (though this is not a speedy candidate because it is sufficiently different from the original version). Indrian 22:07, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

  • What is significantly different from the previous version? If it was a lst of schools in Kenya then, and a list of schools in Kenya now, it seems like nothing has really changed. Erring on the side of caution, I'll say Strong Delete instead of a speedy one. --Daniel Olsen 22:36, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I personally agree with your point, but the makeup of the list has changed, so I think it would be too controversial to speedy it, which is why I brought it here. If an admin disgrees, then I certainly have no problem with it being speedied. Indrian 23:25, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Personally I prefer categories over lists, but I don't see any necessity to delete it either. But to be fair, if this list is deleted, then the same should apply to List of schools in Germany and most other similar lists. Julius Sahara 22:41, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete (and the Germany list too even while it contains only gymnasiums and didn't yet expand elsewhere). Such lists tend to grow w/o regard to notability, just to cover everything and result in one line stubs "xyz is a school in abc". If Wikipedia implements some database mechanims schools may be good candidate to be covered completely but current structure does not fit. Pavel Vozenilek 23:30, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
    • FYI, gymnasium is the German for a type of school. Delete anyway, and replace with category. Emeraude 23:44, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Usual reason. Lists and categories serve different purposes. Can't understand why people think categories supersede lists when they blatantly don't. -- Necrothesp 02:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep The initial AfD is a classic example of a terribly argued justification for deletion, followed by a series of unreasoned votes for deletion that use such inspired arguments as "schoolcruft" and "red-link farm". Without any valid justification referring to Wikipedia policy, this article was deleted. The article was recreated, addressing the limited number of minor legitimate issues raised in the initial AfD. Despite the meaningless rhetoric in the initial AfD, lists and categories are not equivalent and do not -- and never can -- serve the same purposes. The fact that the nominator (and those voting delete, for that matter) doesn't even bother to refer to any Wikipedia policy that bans lists, or articles with many red links, speaks strongly for the retention of this and other, similar articles. While there are a few red links, these are NOT a justification to delete an article, but can serve as placeholders for future articles and will magically turn blue once the corresponding articles were created. The fact that lists CAN have red links is a point in their favor. This article groups the various schools into categories, yet another function that categories cannot fulfill. Any AfD (see the initial attempt) that uses any form of the word "cruft" is a strong argument for a Keep. Alansohn 05:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment: In violation of policy, the above comment was deleted, and has been restored as strokethrough, which I assume was intended. My comments aim specifically at the issue of whether or not this article should be retained. I would suggest that any discussion regarding the deletion of this or any other list make specific reference to Wikipedia:List guideline that would justify deletion of this particular article. We need to see a far more meaningful explanation of what is not being fulfilled in this particular article under this or any other policy, and none has been provided. This list fulfills all three of the primary purposes of a list as specified in Wikipedia:List guideline: Information, Navigation and Development; none of which are fully satisfied by a category. Alansohn 06:20, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
        • There is nothing I can find in the AfD policy that says I cannot delete my own comment if I so desire. I realized after reading your comments a second time that they were not as harsh as I thought and removed my message asking you to be more civil, having concluded that you were perfectly civil and I was in error. If my reading is incorrect, then cite me the rule saying that comments cannot be deleted and then restore the comment again. Otherwise, just let it be.
Hmmm, I see you feel rather strongly on this issue, but in your haste to bash the original AfD, you appear to have gotten a little carried away. You are correct that policy does not dictate that there be no redundant lists and categories, but that does not mean that being redundant is not bad form. When a list is not doing anything that a category cannot do, it is generally not that useful to have the list as well. One reason for this is just plain old efficiancy. Doing the same thing two ways can lead to confusion and contradictory organization. Second, categories would have absolutely no point if we just used lists, so the fact that the category system was created after people started making lists implies that these were intended to replace lists in some areas. Finally, despite what you have said above, redlinks can be a very bad thing. Allowing for redlinks may enocurage the creation of things that do not belong on wikipedia, which is why categories are a much nicer way of corraling this information. Also, redlinks are just plain ugly, and while some may be filled, they will not all necessarily be so. If redlinks are so good, why do we not create disambiguation pages for every possible topic that can have more than one entry even when only one entry exists with an article?
Furthermore, the original nomination was never about schoolcruft as was made very clear in the nomination itself. There were votes that were cast solely on the issue of the school debate, but I never went there and still do not intend to here. Also, to say that categories and lists cannot ever serve the same purpose as you say above is a most ridiculous statement. If a category contains all the articles on wikipedia that pertain to, say, Cincinanti Reds players and a list exists that does the same thing with no redlinks or annotations and with the same organization, then the list and category are exactly the same. I would avoid absoultes if I were you. I am not claiming that this list is exactly the same as the category of the same name, but your claim that lists and categories can never be the same is just not true. As for your other point that a categories cannot group these schools into categories (that just sounds silly on its face now, doesn't it), this is also not true since it is possible to have subcategories. I do not harbor any illusions of convincing you to change your vote, as anyone who makes blanket statements like "Any AfD (see the initial attempt) that uses any form of the word "cruft" is a strong argument for a Keep" is not interested in looking beyond shallow surface considerations, but I am hoping to illustrate that there is room for debate on this issue as there are with many others. If there was really no other way to vote on this article, then people would not do so. Try to assume a little more good faith and tone down your own rhetoric a little too please. Indrian 06:35, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
          • If you are picking up any issues regarding rhetoric, they are solely based on the tone of your nomination. While I appreciate your narrowly-worded baseball scenario where a list and a category would be equivalent, there are many situations that simply cannot be handled by categories, red links being among them. I appreciate your aesthetic issues with red links, and your assumption that "the category system was created after people started making lists implies that these were intended to replace lists in some areas", as well as your worries about potential confusion. However none of these are valid justifications to delete this or any other list. Lists and categories serve different purposes that work in synch with each other. Again, we need to seem a well-argued case that makes reference to a Wikipedia policy that would justify deleting this list. You have failed to do so in your initial nomication, in the current nomination, or in any of the replies included here. Aesthetic issues or fears of red links run amok are not valid justifications. Alansohn 06:47, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
            • Fair enough. I agree that I was a bit sloppy in looking to official policy the first time around, perhaps relying too much in the language of my nomination and arguements on "gut instinct" to pave my way, and I applaud your efforts to dig deeper than these gut impressions. Now I hasten to point out that this is actually the way AfD works in 9 out of 10 cases, as admins do not usually get to the substance of debates and just look at the votes. Not a justification per se, but an observation on life. As for an official policy arguement, I am prepared to make one. I understand you will probably disagree with me and not change your mind, but I do not see this as a problem since many interpretations are valid and yours is not at all out of line.
According to WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not a directory or a yellowpages that merely exists to list what institutions exist and where they are located. Now obviously, the organization of articles is excepted from this rule, but when it comes to listing insitutions this line is easily blurred. A list of this kind with a lot of redlinks is serving as a directory; a list with no redlinks is redundant with a category and therefore not needed for organization. While this list is annotated, the annotations do not enhance the organizational structure in a meaningful way in my opinion. It is actually conceivable to have lists of nearly anything that are vaguely connected and make a few annotations, but this does not seem a sound way to build an encyclopedia. Perhaps this would be indescriminate collecting of information, also in violation of policy, but I am not sure. I remain unconvinced that this list is doing anything that a category system cannot. Indrian 07:03, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
              • An appeal to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a directory is a step in the right direction. However, this article does not meet any of the negatively listed categories: 1) Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as quotations, aphorisms, or persons, 2) Genealogical entries or phonebook entries, or 3) Directories, directory entries, TV/Radio Guides, or a resource for conducting business. Given the equivalence of lists and categories for many purposes, an argument to delete a list on this basis would be an equally valid reason to delete a corresponding category. We have been given a clear set of rules on this exact subject at Wikipedia:List guideline, none of which provides a justification to delete this article. More specifically, Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes details that "Wikipedia offers three ways to create groupings of articles: categories, lists, and article series boxes. Each has its own advantages and disadvantages, and each is appropriate in different circumstances. These methods should not be considered to be in competition with each other. Rather, they are most effective when used in synergy, each one complementing the other." It seems that we have no choice but to keep this article based on these explicit guidelines. Alansohn 07:23, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
                • I disagree with you on two counts. I do feel this is a directory and that this term is loose enoguh to encompass a list like this. I figured you would disagree and as stated before agree it is open to interpretation, but there you have it. As to your other points, I completely disagree. The list and category policies are just guidelines. While they do have persuasive authority and are valid to cite to in an arguement to keep, they do not have controlling authority and do not leave us "no choice but to keep this article." Indrian 16:40, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
                  • While I thoroughly disagree with your interpretation, I think it is clear that the argument for deletion is nowhere near as clear cut as you had made it appear in the nomination for this article. As the Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes guideline provides clearcut support for retention, I hope you will recognize that the deletion of this and other lists boils down to personal aesthetic preferences, not policy violations. As this article has an eminently supported justification for retention, I sincerely hope that you can see that there are many users who would prefer to see this (and other similar articles) retained for their benefit. You can feel free to refrain from using this and other lists, while allowing others to enjoy the policy. Alansohn 16:53, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep — Sufficiently notable and contains information that is not readily included in a category (such as schools without an article). — RJH (talk) 17:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. As I already said in my comment above, it is absurd that this particular article is nominated for deletion while other similar lists are not. In the end this one is compact, well structured and not a "red link farm" (although, as already mentioned by someone, red links in lists are not that bad). Yet, I believe these lists are somewhat problematic, since they are just list of random schools. It would be easier, if this list contained only most notable schools, but defining notability in this case may be difficult. Julius Sahara 20:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Not sure what the nom was trying to do, but this isn't going to get it done. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:34, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ninjutsu (Naruto)

wikipedia is not directory. all moved to wiktionary Oooeq 22:51, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep - Ignoring the fact that this user's first act is to nominate a disambiguation page for deletion, this page exists for the sole purpose of providing a reference page for an article that needed to be split. There's no possible reason to delete it. Also, how do you move something that isn't a definition of a word to Wiktionary? – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 22:57, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep as bad-faith nomination, author appears to not have even read the article. NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 00:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep Why would you move a disambig page to Wiktionary? Possible bad faith nom. Resolute 00:07, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Looks like a bad faith nomination. Clamster5 00:09, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Zierq 00:31, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. MCB 05:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Refuge (race)

Prod contested for non-notable game-mod. My prod rationale was

Not notable and not in line with the WP:FICT guideline. Creator's sole edits are related to the Drow Town Team and copyright note at the end of the article is a very very bad sign that this is vanispamcruftisement. Grand total of 6 non-wiki Ghits for Drow Town Team. In fact those 6 hits are message board advertisements for Drow Town Team made with the same user name as the creator of this page.

Actually my reference to WP:FICT is irrelevant In any case, I have tried on Talk:Refuge (race) to explain (at length) to the creator why I felt the article was inappropriate and should be deleted. But he's still not convinced so let's go the AfD way. Pascal.Tesson 22:53, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. -- moe.RON talk | done | doing 22:03, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete as per Pascal. Also, looking at the talk page, I get the impression there is a strong chance that the article might get re-created. The Kinslayer 10:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. The board messages that are referred to above are not advertisments but information approved and sometimes even requested (on heroesportal.net) by the board owners. There is no copyright note at the end of the article. Why do you think non-wiki Google hits are bad? The only real reason that could be taken in account out of everything listed here is 'non-notable', but is that really the best reason for get rid of one kilobyte of data? Wikipedia is the Free Encyclopedia, and this means everybody can and should add information to it as much as possible. BTW, I won't re-create the article if you delete it, but I will still think that you did something wrong. Chortos-2 11:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - Have you read ANY of the Wikis policies (which HAVE to be followed), and guidelines (which SHOULD be followed?). There is WP:NOT, WP:ILIKEIT#It doesn't do any harm, WP:N, WP:V and many more. I suggest reading and UNDERSTANDING them before making statements like 'Is it worth deleting 1k of data?' and 'Everyone can and 'should' add information to it'. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and neither is it a place to drum up support for personal projects. The Kinslayer 11:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Addendum Please read the following essays as well, they adequetly describe how this article comes across: Wikipedia:Vanispamcruftisement, Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not Google™. The Kinslayer 18:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Fails WP:V, WP:RS, WP:OR. Wickethewok 16:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, game minutiae and non-notable mod. -- nae'blis 17:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Bobet 11:30, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ronald Weinland

NN-local pastor delete DesertSky85451 23:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


This individual is not a local pastor. His books have been distributed in dozens of countries and his weekly sabbath sermons listened to by individuals around the world.

  • Listened to by HUNDREDS! Definitely non-notable. Delete (but maybe reinsate him in a few years if his prophecies come true). Emeraude 23:47, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rydens School

Delete non-notable school. AlistairMcMillan 23:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete No assertion of notability.--Húsönd 23:52, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Secondary school, ergo notable. -- Necrothesp 02:55, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I added the Ofsted report as a reference. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 03:36, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I was wrong to nominate this. After all the school does contain "top notch geezers to have a gass with". AlistairMcMillan 03:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep The nature, scope and size of this secondary school justify retention, particularly with TruthbringerToronto's additions and others on the way. Offending text re "top notch geezers to have a gass with" was removed, which seems to clear up all of the nominator's issues. Alansohn 07:34, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Alansohn. bbx 07:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete no assertion of notability for this specialist school. Possible speedy under CSDA7 Catchpole 11:04, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. There is no way that any school should be speedied (or meets the criteria). Even AfDs always provoke controversy. -- Necrothesp 15:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep — Secondary school, and article is not a stub. — RJH (talk) 17:55, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete No assertion of notability and the OFSTED report is not a non-trivial reference. I am unable to find any non-trivial sources on google. JoshuaZ 18:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Alansohn.--Vsion 19:03, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Alansohn.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 22:03, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Alansohn. --Myles Long 06:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Alansohn. --ForbiddenWord 13:26, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. No comment needed, the article speaks for itself. Vegaswikian 06:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep rydens is a specialist school and is very famous for its drama, and enterprise work, it should be expanded not deleted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.3.92.27 (talk • contribs) 18:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Doesnt assert notability, and probably borderline in regarding to meeting the proposed WP:SCHOOLS guidelines. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 07:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Alansohn, notable as a specialist school and meets proposed WP:SCHOOLS guidelines. PS can someone please fix the comment by VegasWikian, I'm pretty sure he would never !vote keep.  ;-) Silensor 05:58, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yanichel Castillo

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 09:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mega Man vehicles

Per a related AFD, Nothing here is verifiable; it's all just interpretation and supposition and speculation and sometimes fanon based on direct observation of the games themselves. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Combination 23:34, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Zierq 00:31, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 05:57, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Paul Cromie

I nominate this page for deletion on the grounds that the person is not notable except for the fact that he is a BNP councillor. I suspect a bit of BNP self-promotion.--Ketlan 23:37, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep In the article's discussion page I wrote "He's prominent all right. Elected as a Bradford councillor (beating Conservative sitting member). Features regularly in BNP publications." (And my apologies for the oversight in not signing that.) I don't know why this article was started, but I have added some detail to it. It is not my intention to promote the BNP and self-promotion is out of the question here. Here's why he is notable. (I am now going to stray into POV areas, but this is a discusssion where views are allowed and expected, not an article, so OK.) He is notable not because he was ELECTED, not because he is a COUNCILLOR, not because he BEAT A SITTING CANDIDATE from a mainstream party, but because he is all of that AND represents a neo-Nazi party. That makes him stand out from the run-of-the-mill. The BNP uses him as a mask of respectability ("look, we have a councillor who beat the Tories"). In addition, there are background issues (not yet resolved, but you will find them if you do a Google search) that suggest bribery of voters, police raids etc etc. How to cover these in the article without accusations of bias I don't know, but I'm working on it. Emeraude 00:09, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete The fact that he's a current councillor, having beaten an assortment of other parties, is irrelevant - other BNP councillors (indeed, many councillors from any party) are in precisely the same position of having beaten a sitting councillor to get where they are. I used to be a councillor and I beat a sitting councillor but I'm not in here.

I know of the background issues involved (and I'd leave off mentioning that in the article at all until verdicts are in if I were you, to avoid any chance of litigation) but I don't consider that this marks him out - so many BNP councillors have criminal records that he would still be no great exception even if he should be tried and found guilty. I'm inclined to let it go just because you used the phrase 'neo-nazi' but I don't think these people should be legitimised in any way unless they've done something exceptional (like Derek Beacon, for example).

  • Regarding the lack of signature - no problem, I'm always forgetting to do it, too.--Ketlan 05:34, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I found a newspaper story about accusations of vote-buying and added it as a reference. I don't know whether that makes the person notable or not. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 16:56, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I share Ketlan's distate for legitimizing neo-Nazis but factual reporting of their electoral successes is proper encyclopedic material. JamesMLane t c 11:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Emeraude. Catchpole 21:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 02:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 53651 (number)

This was previously nominated for deletion, but the discussion was closed immediately as a bad-faith nomination. Nevertheless, I don't see why this number is especially notable. Although 53652 gets fewer Google hits, 53650 actually gets more. Essentially an internet meme that hasn't made much of a splash. --N Shar 23:43, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete This is not a notable number. Insufficient coverage shown in article. GassyGuy 00:43, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete It's just a moderately big number. No evidence of notability. 01:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. TJ Spyke 03:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:48, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. It's not enough to be an encyclopaedic item. — Indon (reply) — 15:25, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 22:33, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete dumb †he Bread 00:35, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete This isnt a forum about obscure internet memes...this is an ecyclopedia... If you want memes, goto www.encyclopediadramatica.com . Otherwise, lets stick to substantial knowledge...--Vox Causa 22:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Veinor 19:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 00:31, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jayson Couture

Of the five unique Googles outside of Wikipedia for "Jayson Couture", four are on MySpace. There is no evidence here of the subject being the primary focus of multiple (or indeed any) non-trivial coverage in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. Guy 23:49, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete A7.--Húsönd 23:50, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete (A7) - "is in the process of working on his debut full length album due early 2007". In other words, he's not there just yet. Delete for now, and if he makes it into the big time, recreate. --Targetter (Lock On) 00:10, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete No assertion of notability. Likely one-off vanity acct (author is Pixie6, subject performed as "Pixie Couture"). Caknuck 19:31, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. MCB 05:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Weapon X & Ken Hell

Band article, no assertion of notability but not by a member of the band so I'm not inclined to simply delete it. No evidence of meeting WP:MUSIC though. Guy 23:51, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete NN, AMG has nothing on these guys. Caknuck 19:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Masque of the Red Death. - Bobet 11:20, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dark Magic in New Orleans

(completing incomplete nomination) --Pak21 16:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. If Richard's book is not notable, then neither is one adventure he wrote. Dreadmire was just recently deleted--wait--one of Randy's sockpuppets created a new one (Dreadmire).--Robbstrd 00:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I would agree with the delete, except Dungeon magazine are being listed on Wikipedia, one by one, and so issue #71 will be detailed in the near future. The detail of this one adventure can eventually be rolled into the Issue #71 magazine Wiki-article itself. However, if its deleted I won't lose any sleep over it.
    • Comment: Where? I see no link to such content from Dungeon (magazine) and would be most surprised to find such non-encyclopedic content remaining on Wikipedia for any length of time. --Pak21 16:14, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: this nomination was incomplete. I have now completed it --Pak21 16:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to Masque of the Red Death or at least add the information there, as publication in Dungeon Magazine makes the information official enough. FrozenPurpleCube 16:32, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to Masque of the Red Death per Mister Manticore. Not even the more notable Ravenloft breaks down into subarticles regarding individual campaigns. -Markeer 16:50, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per above. Percy Snoodle 15:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to Masque of the Red Death per Mister Manticore. Fairsing 04:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 02:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Enabledsuccess

Advertising by non-notable company. Page is self-promotion written by User:Pdoucetca. The company president is Paul Doucet (See company website http://shopping.netsuite.com/s.nl/c.618436/sc.8/category.2/.f ) Emeraude 00:36, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete A7 (also possibly G11). Does not assert notability (unless you think that "a leading value-added resellers. and implementer of NetSuite products in Canada" is such a claim). --N Shar 04:21, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete vanispamcruftisement. Danny Lilithborne 21:47, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Doesn't assert notability. Caknuck 19:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 02:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mark O. Lambert

Nomination for deletion Fails WP:BIO. No doubt a worthy Iowan, but not encyclopedically notable in his roles as Iowa lobbyist/utilities comissioner/civil servant, publisher/editor or film producer. Article apparently created by subject's single purpose account[54] - contravenes WP:AUTO. Article says subject was once a ACLU lobbyist in Iowa. Then he was also served as a Iowa Utilities Board Comissioner for 4 years. Now he's an Administrative Law Judge. He also runs a very small publishing operation on the side[55] and has been the producer on a rather obscure documentary. He also edited some kind of pulp fiction/adventure story collection once. 16,400+ google hits but only 46 unique[56], as a large majority of hits come from his name in standard official legal documents relating to Utilities Board matters or case documentation relating to his work as an administrative judge or in his capacity as a lawyer. Bwithh 01:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

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