Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 September 12

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< September 11 September 13 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was speedy delete CSD G3 - "Storey attained a 1st(With Double Distinction)degree BSc AstroPhysics part time by telepathy" Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 00:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Matthew Storey

Obvious vanity piece or worse. Brings up no Google hits Pally01 22:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Seems to be a spoof; and Matthew Storey has been (briefly) added to the Faculty list of the University of Sheffield too. roundhouse 23:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sango123 00:37, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Muertitos

This webcomic, found here is hosted on the Comic Genesis free web host. I tagged it a week ago noting its lack of external sources, and to assertion of notability. It's ranked around 73rd on that free host as can be seen here and even if it were ranked 1st, it wouldn't mean much. - Hahnchen 00:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep. It's a bit messy now, but the article is reasonably active, so there will likely be cleanup in the future. #73 on Comic Genesis puts it in the top 1% of webcomics hosted there (8088 total); Comic Genesis is the largest single webcomics host I am aware of. --AlexWCovington (talk) 00:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Comment - Yet again we see the absolute gulf between discussions between general websites and webcomics. For a non webcomic website without any sort of notability or sources, like say Pokemon-Safari.com, is rightfully deleted. Pokemon-Safari has a better Alexa rank than the entire of Comic Genesis put together. - Hahnchen 01:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I don't see where this meets WP:WEB. Only 64 unique Google hits for +Muertitos +comics in English. Alexa rank 6,000 for entire host site. :) Dlohcierekim 01:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, per nom. Wikipedia is not an internet guide, and this article contains no suggestion of any importance for this topic (it is simply another webcomic with characters and plots). Also, no third-party, reputable reliable sources makes completely unverifiable. -- Dragonfiend 03:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Wait: Let's give this a chance to get fixed up and not cut something that might be good off at the bud. ~ Porphyric Hemophiliac § 04:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom.--Peta 05:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - I'm afraid this doesn't cut it, all of comicgenesis put together still has only a fraction the audience of (say) penny-arcade. And being #73rd most popular on comicgenesis is profoundly NN. My Alt Account 09:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Comic Genesis isn't the best source. Still non notable ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 10:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Agree with Hahnchen. Non-notable even among webcomics, among websites in general, which should probably be the real comparison being made, it's even less so. -Elmer Clark 00:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 WP:SNOW. Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 07:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Keane's worldwide popularity

Although this is well written and formatted, I'm not convinced that wikipedia is the place for it. Dave 00:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete or Merge with Keane. Unnecessary bandcruft. Geoffrey Spear 00:09, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete --Peta 01:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above.UberCryxic 01:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per above -- Whpq 01:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 01:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or Merge with Keane. :) Dlohcierekim 01:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 04:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Merge per comments above.--Saintlink 05:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 10:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Fancruft. Thε Halo Θ 10:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, Merge if you're feeling merciful. Lankiveil 12:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC).
  • Delete - the place for this is in Keane. Also the title has a POV ring to it. BTLizard 12:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - ALL the information WAS on the Keane article. Due to a revert war, the information was moved--Fluence 14:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: User changed vote below. -Elmer Clark 00:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per BTLizard. How can it not be POV? Danny Lilithborne 17:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, I can't see how this can be useful. JIP | Talk 17:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • delete altough well wirtten this dosent belong in wikipedia Benon 21:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Clamster5 23:00, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • OK, Delete. I'll merge the information but not with Keane Fluence 23:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, there might be a couple important pieces of info in there worth merging, but the majority really just isn't encyclopedic. -Elmer Clark 00:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, per nom. --Anthony5429 04:13, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and don't Merge with Keane. Richyard 07:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or Merge - an article of its own isn't needed. Ergative rlt 21:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Simple awful. When will Fluence be stopped? - 195.194.136.252 11:13, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 01:07, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Keane trivia

It's a list of trivia. Delete or Merge with Keane. Geoffrey Spear 00:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:NOT --Peta 01:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as trivia, and unsourced to boot. -- Whpq 01:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or Merge with Keane. :) Dlohcierekim 01:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOT --T-rex 03:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. —Khoikhoi 04:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge: per nom. ~ Porphyric Hemophiliac § 04:45, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete trivia. Don't bother merging. My Alt Account 09:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 10:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as unsourced trivia. Thε Halo Θ 10:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. Lankiveil 12:20, 12 September 2006 (UTC).
  • Delete - what may be of value in this should be in Keane, the rest nowhere. BTLizard 12:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge with Keane or delete. --Alex (talk here) 13:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. The information is stored there since it was REMOVED from the Keane article--Fluence 14:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
    • And it should have been removed, IMVHO. A lot of articles have way too much trivia. My Alt Account 14:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - are we really expected to vote to keep irrelevant useless garbage like They love food, specially cheese.? Good grief....Ac@osr 17:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge (only relevant/sourced trivia) with Keane.--Húsönd 17:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, no Merge it's called "Trivia" for a reason. Danny Lilithborne 17:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or merge heavily trimmed into Keane. Definitely do not keep a separate article only consisting of trivia. JIP | Talk 18:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or Merge relevant info into Keane. Clamster5 23:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Protected - Unless you delete The Beatles trivia and Madonna trivia as well, I'll make this article to exist again and again. I'm tired of dealing diplomatically with people--Fluence 23:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - Then most likely it will be protected and you will be banned. Most people wouldn't think that was worth it to make a WP:POINT. Geoffrey Spear 02:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Comment No one likes to see an article they wrote deleted. However, we are all here under the same terms. We are all expected to abide by consensus and policies and guidelines. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a web hosting service or personal webpage. Might I suggest getting one of those where you may recreate this article without having to be "diplomatic"? Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 22:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, instead of just putting bullet points of stuff you read on a fansite somewhere, try to work it into the article somehow. If it sounds dumb everywhere you put it, then don't put it anywhere. Recury 23:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and/or merge The information can stay on the main article. And about the other two trivia articles: sure, why not delete them too? --physicq210 05:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as unsourced trivia, and not merge into the keane article. Richyard 07:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - trivial even for trivia. Ergative rlt 21:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Comment Is not about effort to make the article (I wrote it in two minutes) but a loss of information. If the other two are deleted, I won't fight a revert and will find the way to merge it into Keane. (see Richyard's comment; that's why the trivia was separated. Also, is not unsourced. I read that on Q Magazine, Sonika. That are not fansites). And make sure I wouldn't be banned--Fluence 23:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Comment - Looking at the history of the Keane article, it's fairly clear that you moved the trivia and other sections to their own articles in an attempt to get first Featured Article and more recently Good Article status, and it became clear that violating WP:TRIVIA probably wasn't the best way to achieve either goal. Removing the trivia from the main article certainly made the main article much better, but taking the bad, unencyclopedic information and segregating it into another article with no aspirations of Good Article status isn't the best solution. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and we shouldn't be concered about "loss of information" as a motivation for keeping something in an article. Geoffrey Spear 13:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
No If you look at the history, the trivia was first merged into the article before losing the CFA status. It was already failed when I created those articles. They were created to protect the information from being lost since this was deleted from the Keane page by Painbearer--Fluence 15:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete; and don't merge either, this article is absolute crap. "None of the four initial members studied for a degree on music."!? The same could be said about the vast majority of bands. You might as well add "None of the four initial members has been raped by a bear." to the list while you're at it. - 195.194.136.252 10:08, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - Article Members of Keane who've been Raped by a Bear has already been merged to the appropriate individuals. ;-) Ac@osr 16:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as is the work of a Fanatic. Single issue fanatics have no place in a evenly-balanced open resource such as this. User Fluence should in all reasonableness be disciplined; though perhaps his love of the music is Keane is punishment enough. He is a bad influence.23:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete because Fluence is clearly insane, and this article is a monument to his insanity that he wants to keep in order to intimidate non-Keane fans.23:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Merge, but shrink amount of content. Markovich292 07:44, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Delete A7 by User:CambridgeBayWeather. ColourBurst 01:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] OAFE.net

Comes nowhere near meeting WP:WEB. de-prodded. IceCreamAntisocial 00:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was deleted per WP:SNOW

[edit] Aedan anti virus

Debate blanked for courtesy reasons.--Docg 20:30, 6 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. Sango123 00:38, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] South horizons

Non-notable residential complex. There's hundreds of these complexes in Hong Kong (I've lived in one), and I don't see any reason why this one is so special as to deserve its own article. It's not the tallest / most expensive to build / most reported-on development, or at least the article doesn't say so. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 00:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Allon FambrizziAllon Fambrizzi
  • Delete per nom.--Peta 05:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - this is the first and only time I've ever felt bad voting to delete this kind of article, so I think it deserves some really good reasons to delete. First of all, the nom is very well explained. It is quite accurate to say that it'd take at least a couple hundred articles on such developments just to cover the residences of a majority of the population of Hong Kong. And it's also true that few of the developments - and very few of the structures - are especially notable in and of themselves. Appealing to precedent, New York City is slightly bigger than Hong Kong, yet we don't go into such detail to document all of the residential developments in NYC. Still, I'll sort of regret seeing this article go. My Alt Account 08:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, without regrets. Notability neither stated nor implied. I get roughly 27,500 general Google hits, which boil down to 526 distinct hits. Analysis of the distinct hits shows a lot of geographic references, no articles showing notability for size, height, weight, expense, cost, etc. Fails WP:NOT as WP is not an indiscriminate collection of information, nor is it a travel guide. Lack of sources and documentation makes it Original Research, failing WP:NOR. Tychocat 10:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete, actually a pretty well-written article on what I consider to be an nn topic. Lankiveil 12:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC).
  • Weak Delete, Hello everyone, this is my first article on Wikipedia, and so forgive my lack of experience. I even had to look up on how to properly format my part of this discussion, which just goes to show how much of a newbie I am. Those of you with additional input are right in that South Horizons is not a particularly special development, even though it is quite well-known around Hong Kong, and there have been quite a number of suicides there too. Anyway, I did use sources of information from the internet, but I don't know how to do the citations yet, haha. So anyway like I was saying, this is my first article and I felt that something I knew well and is not yet in Wikipedia is the place where I live. However, I am not familiar with all the rules and policies here, so judging from what has been discussed (particularly Tychocat's nomination), I think I would go with whatever decision that will be made, and I am leaning towards deletion myself, although personally I'll regret to see it go too. Nice to see how the Wikipedia community works, though!Gggu 17:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • A gold star and a chocolate bar for user Gggu for taking this so well. Please don't take this process personally. I strongly encourage you to keep contributing; your diligence and good attitude will make you a very successful editor in time. If you have any questions as you learn how Wikipedia works, feel free to ask them on my talk page. William Pietri 01:17, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Gggu, the nomination is not about the writer and contributors of the article. A good way for newcomers to learn about properly editing articles is to contribute to others first rather than create their own. Also please see WP:NOT Clamster5 23:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 03:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] M.M.S.

Unsourced, Unverifiable rumor. No Google or Google News hits. Deprodded by original contributor, only improvement was replacing "A rumor has been heard that a first legal mafia operates in mercerville ohio..." with "Just this hour it has been verified that a first legal mafia operates in mercerville ohio..." Accurizer 00:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 11:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brand Republic

Does not meet WP:WEB. The Google searchs announces an impressive 300K+ hits but in fact only 92 unique hits![1] I suppose that's to expect from a website designed for the advertising community. Top hits are not third party coverage. Pascal.Tesson 16:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Per nom. Aristoi 17:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, [ælfəks] 00:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sango123 00:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Glenn Melancon

Non-notable Texas Democratic Party Congressional candidate. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 00:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete 167 unique google hits, Mostly campaign stuff. :) Dlohcierekim 02:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable candidate.--Peta 05:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 10:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. Lankiveil 12:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC).
  • Comment What we've done in Canada is merge all info on candidates like this into one catch-all article (for instance, Liberal Party candidates, 2006 Canadian federal election.) I know the candidate name recognition is a lot stronger in US elections than it is in Canada, but could a similar setup work? If not, I vote delete. Kirjtc2 15:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above reasons.UberCryxic 16:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Retain As stated in the disucssion with the article, deleting articles about non-incumbent candidates while leaving articles about incumbents is a violation of the neutral point of view policy. Deletion for notability is not a policy and should not be done when it violates the neutral point of view policy. F3meyer 16:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. The incumbent is notable because he/she has held a notable office. The other candidates have not, and simply being a candidate for office doesn't make one notable. If he wins, then he will be notable enough for an article. -Elmer Clark 00:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete without regret. As stated many times over in AfD's...WP:NPOV does not extend to list every canidate in a political race. NPOV is about how articles are worded, not to have articles for all canidates. Back to my delete, IMH(onest)O, this canidate does show any notability and does not pass the rules for inclusion WP:BIO. --Brian (How am I doing?) 17:00, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per my reasoning in my comment above. -Elmer Clark 00:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Major party candidate. His opponent has an article, so by deleting this we are just reinforcing the pro-incumbent bias in US politics. Catchpole 10:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment which is not relevant to WP:BIO and not meeting it. One could counter argue that non-incumbents are seeking to overcome their name recognition disadvantage by using Wikipedia as free advertising. Once again, irrelevant to WP:BIO. :) Dlohcierekim 22:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment: The free advertising argument leads to logical absurdity: Any living person about whom there is an article in Wikipedia benefits from free advertising, be the article is positive neutral, or negative. This is true whether the person is in power because of election or coup d'etat, whether a politician, athlete, or scientist. To avoid such free advertising, Wikipedia could set a policy that no living person can be the subject of an article. Such a policy would of course reduce the utility of Wikipedia to its readers. Hence it is absurd. There is utility to Wikipedia's readers in having information about incumbent and challenger candidates in Wikipedia as long as these articles really have a neutral point of view. F3meyer 05:23, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 11:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The MADtv Fans Network

Non-notable fan site -Nv8200p talk 22:27, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - NN, per nom InvictaHOG 22:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, BaseballBaby 08:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sango123 00:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Real Synthetic Audio

Internet radio, no verifiable evidence of notability provided, delete. --Peta 00:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Ridiculous.UberCryxic 00:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Not notable per Alexa. :) Dlohcierekim 02:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn. —Khoikhoi 04:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep, probably not too popular, but notable enough if "First broadcast on January 31st 1998, Real Synthetic Audio (RSA) is the longest running shorter length radio program on the web." is true. If not, then Delete. Lankiveil 12:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete with a nuke. There is no way to verify that claim, Lankiveil, and what qualifies for a 'shorter length radio program on the web'? How can they verify they were the longest running? Sorry it's not verifiable. --Brian (How am I doing?) 17:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nomination. Orsini 16:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 07:44, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deeper Into Music

Internet radion station, no verifiable evience of notability provided, delete--Peta 00:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 01:08, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Battle Dawn

Non-notable game, prod removed without reason. Wildthing61476 00:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom.--Peta 01:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Don't Delete The game being non-notable is much like the "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" saying. You may find it non-notable, but others may not. There's also other games out there I would consider "non-notable" and has a smaller player base than Battle Dawn like Well of Souls. Also, I don't know what you mean by a "prod" (I'm new...). If it was that box up at the top, it said I could remove it whenever I wanted to so I did --Osafune
  • Delete Products that are still under pre-release development (ie, Beta) are generally not notable unless exceptional reasons exist. In this case, they do not apear to. No means to verify outside of forums and online game listing websites. Whilst it's place on the MMORPG150 list may seem good, with only 300 odd votes and the list having such volitility, it cannot be used currently as an authoritative source. I attempted to clean up the article, but this proved very hard. LinaMishima 01:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
      • forgot to add that this is impossible to easily google test, thanks to the common wordform as a name. But that's how I got the MMO listing website details LinaMishima 02:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Don't Delete Nuff said 8) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.113.131.22 (talk • contribs) — 71.113.131.22 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    • No, please say more AfD is not a vote, it is an informed consensus. This means we need to know your reasoning to be able to take your suggestion into proper consideration. LinaMishima 03:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh,well.. I just think it should stay beacause even though it is in Alpha stage at the moment,I think it is susposed to come out of Alpha somewhere in October. So,why not keep it for another month,let it improve and such by edits among the players,and save the time of having to redo it once it comes out of Alpha. I'm somewhat asking you guys to "give it a chance" in building up to your expectations and what-not. The original creator can try to make it more less of a guide,and more into a descriptive article about it. Sure it's a small game,but all games take time to grow.. P.S. not sure if you'll be able to tell or not,but this is the guy who said "nuff said" :-P Sorry for not really explaining my self at first,didn't really think that you guys would respond so fast!Jib Jibo 03:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)Jake
  • Delete. The does not appear to meet criteria set out in either WP:WEB or WP:SOFTWARE. The material within it is not verifiable and is basically crystal balling, meaning that it is asserting future notability- it must be notable now in order to merit an article. --Wafulz 04:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Dlohcierekim. —Khoikhoi 04:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • O,:x Well,I guess I have no more to say v_v Also,sorry about not reading the rules about crystal balling and what-not,somewhat tired at the moment. G'night all of you,I need to get some shut eye! Jib Jibo 04:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC) a.k.a Jake
  • Do not Delete We're running into a number of odd technicalities that can ultimately be ignored. The state of Battledawn has been labeled "Beta Testing." The reasoning behind this label is that the game is updated on a regular basis as bugs and imbalances are discovered, but it has always been the same game. Perhaps saying the game is in Beta Testing because of its regular updates is incorrect by most standards because this would also mean Windows Operating systems never left the Beta stage and most of the biggest PC games released in the past 5 years were still in their beta stages. Regardless of its "Beta" titling, it is being advertised, played and updated as a full game. I believe Micheal, Battledawn's developer, has dubbed it Beta because he feels it gives him the right to make changes as he pleases without feeling totally unprofessional until the game has gotten to a point that he feels is perfectly tuned and he is allowed to move on to a new project. Frankly, I agree with this outlook because the only true testing a game can get is in the hands of the public and at least Micheal is humble enough to realize his game was not totally perfect upon release. I'm insulted when I'm forced to fork out $50 for a game only to find out I'm just another Beta tester until the clean version is around after a number of months or even years. As for WP:WEB and WP:SOFTWARE, Battledawn is only required to meet 1 of their criteria to satisfy Wikepedia's standards. In WP:WEB, #3 states "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." Any of the game listing sites on which Battledawn has been highly rated qualify as distributors of this type. They are not merely distributing content so trivially as Newgrounds or Geocities are, but instead are listing Battledawn above other notable games in a ranking of quality and popularity. Furthermore, WP:SOFTWARE #1 states that "user guides" qualify as the sort of independent publications that may define content as nontrivial. Well, these game listing websites are, above all else, user guides. Their sole purpose is to help game players find other games they may be interested in. The fact of the matter is that Battledawn is a phenemenon on the internet that, though relatively small, has already made its mark. It has sucked up a vast number of players from older games of similar genres and quickly earned their loyalty, not as testers, but players. Yes, Micheal has reserved the right to make drastic changes in the name of improvement whenever he pleases, but if calling a game Beta is the cost of that right, I wish more games did so. I say you leave the article up. Perhaps it could use some work, but no argument here justifies its deletion so if no more information can be brought to the table, this process must be halted. -Rockytastic 08:45, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
    • comment all the listing websites you talk about are lists open for anyone to add their game to, and the majority have a very low number of voters, causing significant swings in ratings for only a few votes. The clause you refer to is intended for major websites with editoral control, both of which these listings are not. LinaMishima 12:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable. Web based game, yet with only 14 unique ghits for 'link:www.battledawn.com', 2 of which are the site itself, and the rest are mostly game directories. --Aim Here 08:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 05:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, very very clear it's not notable right now. Predictions that it will become notable soon are not good enough. If that happens, you can always re-create the article, preferably including some links to major independent coverage, to demonstrate notability. My Alt Account 08:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 10:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Daveydweeb (chat/patch) 12:00, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, the article can be recreated when it gets out of beta and has some third-party notability. Lankiveil 12:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC).
  • Delete, non-notable game, and not even finished yet. JIP | Talk 18:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Explain Notability From the comments above, it appears notability is granted rather arbitrarily. Could some Wikipedia policy define notability in any way that would exclude the aforementioned 3rd party websites from satisfying the necessary criteria? It has been stated that games can be submitted by their creators and be swung to high rank with only a surge of votes, but how is that any different than a few editors being alerted to a game by its developer and some articles being written on it? In fact, I am connected to much of the game design arena and pay special attention to the indie world of flash development so I can tell you that this is not the first discussion questioning the value of these game list websites. The general rule is that online gamers, especially in flash, are alerted to more games by "Top 100" websites than any other source. How many articles on a specific flash game have you ever read? How many were in "notable" publications? -Rocky 06:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
    • With respect to Wikipedia:Notability (web), you do not pass 3 for being on those listings. The sheer number of them, and their individual non-notability results in a failure to pass. 3 refers to a major distributor, and quite clearly any listing with extreme swings and their #1 listing only having 400 votes is not major. This is confirmed by footnote 7, which finishes with "Although GeoCities and Newgrounds are exceedingly well known, hosting content on them is trivial." This applies quite clearly in this case. Get yourself a Stratics news mention, and you might have more chance. LinaMishima 19:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment When looking through the policy, I saw nothing excluding those third party mmo sites. Osafune
  • Delete. Other than being the "first" Flash implementation (note the lack of references for proof), this makes no claims of notability and does nothing to differentiate itself from the glut of browser-based strategy MMOs in the world. It being in beta is beside the point (would a World of Warcraft II beta be nonnotable?) but the lack of demonstrated notability IS the point. GarrettTalk 10:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Argument Unfounded. To believe that Battledawn is not the first of its kind or indeed no different from the "glut of browser-based MMOs in the world" evidences your inexperience with the game itself and/or the so-called "glut of browser based MMOs." Furthermore, it is actually impossible to "prove" that something is the first of its kind. You run into the old "proving a negative" problem by attempting to show that no others of its kind exist. It is then up to those that believe Battledawn is not the first of its kind to prove themselves by finding another game like it. There is no lack of demonstrated notability, the argument here is whether or not the demonstrated notability above satisfies the requirements of Wikipedia. Because no Wikipedia policy has yet been referenced to show that the 3rd party sites mentioned previously are excluded from the notability criteria, the article must remain. -Rocky 18:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
    • See my above comment on notability. You are deliberately misinterpreting the notability guidelines. And remember, having an article on wikipedia is not the most amazing thing in the world. You'd do better to pester real news sites. LinaMishima 19:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • comment just found a thread on this on their forums, so posted a message. I'm normally more supportive, but there's no indication of any missed references in this case :( LinaMishima 19:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's a crystal ball and it fails WP:WEB, as others have noted. It can always be re-created if the game catches on. Michael Kinyon 10:17, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sango123 00:43, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Noor Media

Independent record label, no evidence of notability, delete --Peta 00:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep - it's linked to on several related pages and seems to have a specific niche in the UK Islamic music scene. Keep per WP:MUSIC Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style... --AlexWCovington (talk) 01:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Where is that said in an independent source?--Peta 01:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete 115 Not notable Google hits. :) Dlohcierekim 02:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete for failing WP:MUSIC and WP:CORP. Lacks third-party non-trivial articles, shows no major awards, not ranked in any indices as a major company, trademarks show no genericization. No evidence of any tracks being charted, no major tours by groups. I verify the number of distinct Ghits per :) Dlohcierekim, but note that Google in itself is NOT the final arbiter of notability, and is not given this power in any WP policy or guideline. I am also willing to change my nom, if someone more familiar with the music scene in the U.K. can develop verified, reliable sources per WP:MUSIC to show notability in this specialized area. Tychocat 10:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn. Mukadderat 23:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sango123 00:44, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wild Mountain Radio

Internet radion station, no verifiable evience of notability provided, delete--Peta 00:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Strong delete Non-notable; just started.UberCryxic 01:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Not notable Google. :) Dlohcierekim 03:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn. —Khoikhoi 04:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn; hardly looks like a radio station either, more like a "web stream" thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 21:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sango123 00:44, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WoR-Radio

Internet radion station, no verifiable evience of notability provided, delete--Peta 00:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. :) Dlohcierekim 03:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn; hardly looks like a radio station either, more like a "web stream" thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 21:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nkayesmith 22:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sango123 00:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PulseRadio

Internet radion station, no verifiable evience of notability provided, delete--Peta 00:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. :) Dlohcierekim 03:09, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn; hardly looks like a radio station either, more like a "web stream" thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 21:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. nn. Mukadderat 23:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sango123 00:46, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arraz Radio

Internet radion station, no verifiable evience of notability provided, delete--Peta 01:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per above.UberCryxic 01:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. :) Dlohcierekim 03:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 10:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn; hardly looks like a radio station either, more like a "web stream" thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 21:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sango123 00:47, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Freematrix

Internet radion station, no verifiable evience of notability provided, delete--Peta 01:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. :) Dlohcierekim 03:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn; hardly looks like a radio station either, more like a "web stream" thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 21:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. nn. Mukadderat 23:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sango123 00:47, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Windwood Coves

WP:NN, user also created a vanity page about himself (userfied to his user page) but this one he created was missed. -- ßottesiηi (talk) 01:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep. Could this be kept as a pseudo-village? I disapprove of gated communities, but as long as they exist, perhaps they should be written about. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 02:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:NOT a place to list every not-notable development. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. :) Dlohcierekim 03:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Allon FambrizziAllon Fambrizzi
  • Delete WP:NOT. —Khoikhoi 04:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete It doesn't seem to be the name of anything other than this gated bunch of houses (ie it's not a designated area which appears on a map). Ohconfucius 10:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as singularly unremarkable. Marcus22 11:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable, irrelevant, and nothing that will keep me awake at night.UberCryxic 16:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete sounds a little like an advertisement to me Clamster5 23:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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/default keep. While I'm sympathetic that this has an "essay"-like feel, it is sourced, and part of series found useful by many established editors, voiced below. Xoloz 16:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Genetic Misconceptions

Short essay on how people don't understand genetics, not encyclopedic, delete--Peta 01:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep the article has a list references, several of which concern the teaching of genetics, allowing this article to pass WP:VERIFY. AfD is not intended as clean-up and rewrite request. Ideally this, along with the other scientific subject misconceptions, should be merged into a single list (however I've other rewrite/merge work underway right now, so cannot get to work on this) LinaMishima 01:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete this whole family of "misconceptions" articles should be (or have been) deleted. Also, do people really think these things? Opabinia regalis 02:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
    • comment yes, that's why the references specifically list them as things to make sure learners understand, and that's how the article came to be. LinaMishima 02:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
      • But they are not written in an encyclopedic tone, they are at best candidates to be moved to wikibooks.--Peta 03:45, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
        • AfD is not rewrite request land. If an article is hopelessly lacking in encyclopedic tone, then there may be grounds for AfD, but in this case it shouldn't be too hard to fix. LinaMishima 12:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
          • Well, something like that. Here the tone is only slightly encyclopaedic, but it's not like it's applying for featured article status. WilyD 16:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep This is something someone might actually look up. Not paper. :) Dlohcierekim 03:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - okay, I see where the corrections to the misconceptions are coming from, they're undoubtedly in the references listed. But where do the misconceptions the author is correcting come from? Tychocat 10:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki or Merge - decent information, but not encyclopædic. Lankiveil 12:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC).
  • Reluctant keep and revisit in four weeks. I'm tempted to delete together with the other articles, including but probably not limited to Moon Illusion Misconception, Centrifugal Force Misconceptions, Photosynthesis misconceptions, Science misconceptions, and Earth Science Misconceptions: Greenhouse Effect, Global Warming and Ozone Depletion.
  1. They're obviously copied from somewhere. Hopefully, it's one of the authoring editor's own works, but his/her apparent habit of registering and abandoning usernames makes it difficult to check. I'll post a note and see if I can find out whether these are copyright violations.
  2. As written, they appear to be unsourced original research. If there are sources for the statement that people have those misconceptions, the sourcing is poor enough that I can't tell which source establishes the existence of the misconception.
  3. Still, it's possible that tighter citation and an explanation of their source can remedy these concerns. Can we mark them all as subject to deletion in a few weeks if these problems aren't solved? TheronJ 13:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment After looking at the various misconception pages, it looks an awful lot like they are the product of some class project and have now been abandoned by their creators. (See User:TheronJ/misconceptions). I recognize that RFD isn't the place to request cleanup, but given their current state and their apparent abandonment by the only people who have read the sources, is there any procedure to get them cleaned up or removed? TheronJ 16:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Transfer to wikibooks: On reflection, I think the misconception articles belong in Wikibooks. The initial premise of each article is that the identified misconceptions are common in science education, but the cite form doesn't let us identify the source, if any, and the editors with familiarity with the sources are gone. To the extent that the editors were trying to write instructions for science education, that material belongs on Wikibooks. TheronJ 13:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Articles aren't owned, so who their "creator" is isn't important. Deleting articles because no one is currently working on them isn't done, nor do I believe motivation exists to do so. Cleanup and AfD are seperate entities that don't really interact - nor should they really.
  • The point I'm concerned with is, if the author is answering someone else's misconceptions of a documented and verifiable source, great, that needs to be added. However, I'm looking at the possibility the author is making up the misconceptions as he/she goes along, making all the articles POV. Tychocat 14:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep sourced, encyclopaedic. Could use some cleaning but that's not AfD's business - could stand to be expanded to reflect a more global view, but again, not AfD's business. WilyD 14:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Transfer to wikibooks with the others. This is inherently original research. Just about anything can be a "misconception," what makes some encyclopedic? Gazpacho 18:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
    • It's sourced, not original research. Almost nothing is inherently original research as someone else can do the research, publish it and then we can regurgitate it here. WilyD 21:45, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

delete all "misconception" articles not encyclopedia material. It is ratrher a tutorial. Wikibooks OK. If there is particular important misconception like Flat Earth, then a separate article OK. But a bunch examples of ignorance is not OK. Knowledge is finite, ignorance is infinite. How about a "misconception" that Abraham Lincoln was the first president or that United States is the first democracy in the world, or ... `'mikka (t) 22:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Can you source that from a verifiable third party as a common misconception? Then you probly can write the article. Until then, the point is moot (or doesn't exist) WilyD 11:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per WilyD. We need not document all ignorance, but Folk_physics is an example of a kind of ignorance that is known and studied. I don't yet see a reason to believe that this article isn't about a similar kind of ignorance of importance to educators and educational researchers. William Pietri 01:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as OR and POV. As far as I can tell from discussion, while the answers to the misconceptions are fine and dandy, the misconceptions being answered are apparently pulled out of the air. There's no documentation that anyone believed any of these misconceptions prior to the article, no quoted surveys, no reports from high school teachers, no complaints from college professors. There appears to be no scholarly basis for the article at all. Per WilyD, cite the source. Tychocat 11:51, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Per me, citations are already given (though poorly formatted) WilyD 18:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. This appears to be a tutorial, and as such isn't suitable. As various editors have pointed out, there's no documentation that the misconceptions exist. Espresso Addict 16:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Or possibly write on Wikibooks. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 20:13, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Misconceptions are often more dangerous than simple ignorance, as they usually have more consequences. It is generally hard to prove how many people have specific misconceptions without doing original research, but such is actually irrrelevant: Even if only few people would be helped - that is better than nothing. It sure beats not having the article, since having it cannot possibly do harm. The nice part about this particular article is, that misconceptions are shortly though clearly stated and the sourced thruths are given just as briefly but understandably. It's an exemple for other 'misconception' articles, which can easily and usefully be linked from other articles without cluttering the latter with data that is not needed by every reader.
    To my experience (and according to the popularity of books on 'misconception' matters), quite a lot of people are interested in finding out how much they have figured out correctly, or not. — SomeHuman 20 Sep 2006 16:58 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. SPAs and newbies were discounted. Xoloz 16:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chiara Ohoven

Fails WP:Bio she hasn't any importance in Germany or any other country, nobody would know that she exists if her mother wouldn't be UNESCO Goodwill Ambassador Yoda1893 01:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment I'm not German, and have no idea who this person is, but what sort of publicity does she get over there? If it's a fair amount, even if only in the tabloids/gossip mags, that would make her notable in my eyes.Dave 03:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, bitte. Nur 300 Google hits auf Deutsch und in English. There is not even an assertion of notability in the article. :) Dlohcierekim 03:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom.--Peta 05:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete no assertion of notability ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 10:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. Lankiveil 12:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC).
  • Delete Regarding the comment: No the amount of coverage she gets in Germany does not warrant her inclusion in Wikipedia. --Madcynic 13:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - comment by the author: As you know, the de: is as exclusionist as it gets, and after this lenghty discussion once and for all decided to keep the entry on Chiara Ohoven - since the incredible media attention she gets does, nilly-willy, make her a celebrity. I don't know what's wrong with Dlohcierekims google settings, but I get more than 40.000 hits. Millions of Germans know her name, like it or not. And this American guide to the "Pars Hiltons of the world" ranks her on par with Ksenia Sobchak, Negar Khan, Katie Price, Belinda Stronach, and Ann Coulter - all of whom have an entry here. --Janneman 16:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Nothing broken.. Results 321 - 330 of about 43,300 for "Chiara Ohoven". (0.89 seconds) -- 84.57.178.214 16:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Comment 300 unique google hits. The other 40,000 are just repeats. If you follow the link I provided, you find the unique hits stop there. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 21:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

In the German discussion there were much people who voted for the deletion of this unimportant person, She's not half popular like Katie Price for example (She's also in Germany well known for her affairs in F1) But also in Germany today there aren't much people who can remember Chiara Ohoven, she was only a temporal Feature in German medias. She even DOESN't pass the German Relevance criterias de:WP:RK, she is a NOBODY who gets not more than 326 unsimilar G-Hits. – Yoda1893 18:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Quite obviously there were more people who wanted her kept, and with good reasons, too. Had she not met the de:WP:RK, she would have been deleted - sounds logical, hm? Please wage your culture wars elsewhere. And again: she does get more than 40.000 googlehits. And, eh, don't you think it sufficient to vote just once? --Janneman 19:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • delete, I'm german, and I agree with the AFD. Even in Germany, she is not really famous. She is not funny, not good looking, not really famous, only rich and stupid and has ugly lips. That is her fame. And no, she is not a "german Paris Hilton". And she is not relevant internationally. --Tilman 19:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
I notice that the category "german socialites" has only one member: her. This is ridiculous. --Tilman 19:07, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
keep de: doesn't even have Bulbasaur, so she has to be more famous than this featured pokemon. -- southgeist 19:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Tilman seems to know quite a lot about her, considering the fact tht she is oh so unknown. --Janneman 14:07, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
All I know is that she is rich and stupid and has ugly lips. This isn't much. I know more about my co-workers, and they're not in wikipedia. --Tilman 21:32, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

There are only 326 REALLY Hits on google the other links are SIMILAR, like you can see here and NODOBY could prove that she pass de:WP:RK. − Yoda1893 21:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

since her article is in de: after it was exhaustive discussed, isn't a proof? and why de:Rk which doesn't even allow Bulbasaur? -- southgeist 21:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, Google is not always accurate or even pertinent (nor is the German Wikipedia known for sensible decisions). There are 37 articles that mention her in Germany's premier gossip weekly Bunte, a magazine akin to Hello! (source: Lexis-Nexis). I think that demonstrates her relevance for popular culture. Thus, certainly not the caliber of Ann Coulter or even Katie Price, but still: Keep. Fossa 22:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete this gal. She ain't even close to be considered as a German Paris Hilton. Absolutely ridiculous. She got some attention because her mother Ute Ohoven – a blonde mature lady and an eager socialite posing as a UNESCO-charity-matron – pushed her. I mean, I can understand ageing Ute: She ist getting older, and she wanted to establish Chiara as her substitute. I understand that because I know my Sigmund Freud. And I happen to know überblonde mature women and their desperate strategies... So there were some press reports about the chick, telling ... well, nothing. Chiara is not a famous party girl, natch. She is not promoting anything, she hasn't recorded bad songs (she hasn't recorded anything at all), she isn't even a fake blonde with blue contact lenses. She is not best friends with any actors, or singers, or famous socialites. There is no 'One Night in Chiara'. There is just a big nothing. Nada. Niente. Zero. To call her 'The German Paris Hilton' is an insult to Paris. And even in Germany you don't attract fame anymore just because you had bad cosmetic surgery and talk trash. Oh, yes, "Socialite of the Year": try to resarch the jury and its members – and fail. It's a cheap PR-joke. Get her out. --Catgut 03:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
    • She's got some attention. I rest my case. It's not up to our judgement to define, who's relevant or not. Fossa 04:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
  • delete . Just ridiculous. --83.64.115.243 07:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
  • keep I see no sound reason for this article to be deleted. She's a celebrity, she even won some award that indicates there are a good number of people out there who consider her notable. What more do you want? sebmol 17:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
  • keep I cannot see any reasons why this fair article should be wiped out--Ekkenekepen 09:17, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • A clear keep in the German Wikipedia. Her mother ist not the reason for Chiara's prominence, her mother doesn't even have an article in the German Wikipedia ;) I guess, the native en-Users should decide, whether Chiara's German prominence is sufficent for the en-Wikipedia as well. Berlin-Attorney 18:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

This price interests nobody (or do you think that we should list all people who have something little in commom with prominents like Thomas Gottschalk, like people who were born in the same city?) and even this price she has only won "half" and her mother IS the reason that anybody knows her (not for her prominence, becaues her prominence doesn't exist). That a German fan of her translated the article into German surely isn't an arguement for having more prominence than her mother! And you can see, that all English Users voted for delete – Yoda1893 18:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

This is your fourth statement on this page, I think we all know by now that you want this article to be deleted.
First of all, when Chiara was still a teenager, I knew of Mario Ohoven, her father, because he's a well known German businessman, then I heard of Chiara in TV and only later of her mother.Berlin-Attorney 18:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete not prominent, not notorious enough. Mukadderat 23:57, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
  • keep no she is not prominent enough but the article shows quite good that she is living on the bank account of her father
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Mailer Diablo 05:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] B. H. Carroll Theological Institute

Unaccredited, unnotable "institute" started in 2003[2] Article asserts no notablity. A search of "Carroll Theological Institute" at yahoo brings 337 yahoo hits with 2 wikipedia articles in the first ten hits. Fails WP:CORP. Arbusto 01:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep Over 1100 google hits excluding wikipedia/mirrors. Ironically, the article you link to provides strong support for claims of notability, as it places the founding of the school within the historical context of struggles within the Baptist leadership of Texas. The information that the school is not accredited would be extremely useful to people considering enrolling. Allon FambrizziAllon Fambrizzi
I get 1,020 for "Carroll Theological Institute" at google including the wiki article and mirrors as the second thur fifth hits. How is it notable? Because the "Associated Baptist Press" (not to be confused with Associated Press) wrote an article? What's the ABP circulation? Arbusto 04:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - I get 1,260 general hits with the WP mirrors, and those boil down to only 216 distinct Ghits. The article makes no attempt to show notability, and without sources appears to be original research. The article makes no statements about any struggles for Baptist leadership, nor historical context. I do note the "Associated Baptist Press" claims in their ad rates they have 80,000 paid subscribers with an estimated readership of 200,000. Fine, but WP:CORP (the closest guidelines I can find) requires multiple non-trivial third-party articles to establish notability, and I'm only finding church newsletters and blogs for the rest of it. In any case, per the ad sheet the ABP is a church organ (sorry, couldn't resist the pun) and not a third-party. Tychocat 11:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand this article into something useful and correct. As it stands, it stinks and it's a link farm for degree mill links. - JD —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack Delay (talk • contribs)
  • Comment: New user/possible role account for an unaccredited religious "school". Arbusto 01:24, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. But Arbusto, what does that comment mean??? Ogdred 03:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete The institute is not yet notable enough to have its own article. A news article by a major news organization might have been convincing enough to give this article a chance, but the not-so-well-known Biblical Recorder doesn't do it for me. -- tariqabjotu 01:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete not notable, not interesting. Half the article is an ad and the other half is about its lack of accreditation. I swear I've seen this on AfD before (or has there been a rash of unaccredited theology schools up lately?) Opabinia regalis 04:13, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes! You saw it in yesterday's AfD. I think rbusto really wants rid of it... --Ogdred 04:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I've listed a few unaccredited institutions in the last few days. Including the current two at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Clements University. Arbusto 05:08, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per lack of neutral independent sources. There are notable unaccredited schools, this does not appear to beone of them. Guy 12:07, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and Expand The article appeared to be fine until, if you'll note the history, a few ofthe voting editors here came in and deleted most of it. Shazbot85Talk 20:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Comment: As Dlohcierekim alluded to, how does this meet notablity standards at WP:CORP? Arbusto 21:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Not notable. Only 216 unique Google hits. Nothing at Google News. The question here is not the quality or quantity of the article but the notability of the subject. :) Dlohcierekim 21:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete More like an unaccredited religious academy operating out of a suite. Firstly, website lacks a .edu, signaling a non-government authorized educational entity. Secondly, I question this Theological Institute's .org status.Hellwing 23:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete little outside information indicates verifiability issues. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete promo of nonaccredited institute, i.e., "institute". Mukadderat 23:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep if we can spare 3KB for every pokemon card known to mankind... we can spare 2KB for a real verifiable place.  ALKIVAR™ 00:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
But the issues is WP:V, and WP:CORP notability. Without WP:V to verifiy what it is the article will be bastion of POV, and what it isn't (accredited). If this institute becomes notable and has valuable sources then the article should be recreated, but until then the article lacks WP:V which does no favors to the instiute. Arbusto 20:24, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I don't have a problem with us documenting known diploma mills so long as we specify that these institutions are not accredited. Silensor 00:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as failing WP:CORP (if any more detailed evidence of the institute being important in the intra-Baptist struggles that made it into non-Baptist press then I may consider changing my attitude). JoshuaZ 01:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep As a Jew, I cannot possibly understand all the nuances that went into creating this school. But a thorough read through the articles regarding the school shows that it is quite genuine and was created to meet a perceived need for a new type of school. That a new school is not accredited by a well-known accrediting agency does not make it a diploma mill. Nor do I find it at all unusual that the mainstream press hasn't latched on to this school as a subject for articles that would confer the notability so many feel it would be given. Despite the lack of traditional news coverage, the articles provided and available online provide clear satisfaction of WP:V . I find the use of "scare quotes" and other derogatory suppositions regarding its nonaccreditation making it a suspected diploma mill to be a staggering violation of WP:AGF. I have few doubts regarding the notability of this institution, but many regarding those who are so quick to delete it based on entirely unsupported suppositions and original research. Alansohn 03:28, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • A new kind of school? Unaccredited bible colleges offering worthless degrees are a dime a dozen. Guy 00:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the reply to prove my point about good faith violations. These folks seem to have a genuine interest in teaching folks their version of Baptist theology as they understand it. I've seen ads for diploma mills, all of which read "send in a check we'll send you a sheepskin." If you take a look at the school's admission requirements, they're doing a very poor job of attracting only those who just want a phony credential. I see no evidence (nor has anyone offered any) implying that they're pushing paper, and not their brand of gospel. I find the school notable and verifiable, and I can at least respect challenges to the issue, even if I disagree. But, other than that, all I see are rampant violations of WP:AGF. Alansohn 03:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment AGF applies to users and their actions. AGF has absolutely nothing to do with assuming the school is acting in good faith. JoshuaZ 03:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment I agree 100%. I see people deciding to delete this article because they have presumed that the article was created to push a diploma mill. The bad faith demonstrated regarding the institution itself is just gravy (bordering on bigotry). Alansohn 03:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • keep please per alahnsohn notability is not doubted here by me either Yuckfoo 05:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: If notability isn't doubted by you then explain how it passes WP:CORP? Around 200 google hits and article asserts nothing.Arbusto 07:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Yuckfoo is an inclusionist. I think this is being Gastroturfed. Guy 00:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, and this several in the last few weeks to get attacked. I am compiling evidence to end this though. Arbusto 00:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Alansohn; the article is informative, neutrally presented, and verifiable as it stands. Yamaguchi先生 22:35, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sango123 00:49, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Xok clothing

Looks like an ad and is not written in Encyclopedic fashion PrimroseGuy 01:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Remove: from the face of the earth. ~ Porphyric Hemophiliac § 04:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove: per nom.--Saintlink 05:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as spam. MER-C 08:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete spam ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 10:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete ad. Lankiveil 12:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC).
  • Strong delete as an advert and spam. --Alex (talk here) 13:20, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as advertising. JIP | Talk 18:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete this is probably the most obvious advertisement/vanity page I've ever seen Clamster5 23:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Then you haven't seen as obvious advertisements as I have... I have seen articles shamelessly written in first-person voice, and providing contact information including address, e-mail, and telephone number. JIP | Talk 05:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete Markovich292 07:48, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Listcruft, fails WP:NOT loosely related topics .

[edit] List of musicians who have worked with Dave Grohl

This seems to be a rather clear example of listcruft, and also fails WP:NOT. Danny Lilithborne 02:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment This information would probably be useful in articles about the songs/albums/artists, but I can't see it being too useful standalone- artists collaborate all the time, and it would just be a mess. --Wafulz 04:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge into his article.--Peta 05:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge into his existing article per peta's suggestion.--Saintlink 05:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep but rename to Dave Grohl discography and structure accordingly. Grohl does more of these than many other musicians and it deserves encyclopedic handling. --Dhartung | Talk 08:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 10:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete listcruft. Lankiveil 12:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC).
  • Delete - listcruft. BTLizard 12:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep or Merge WP:LIST is not a policy or even a guideline. I see no failure of WP:NOT --Pinkkeith 16:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and Merge per comments of Dhartung. TheQuandry 20:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge or delete indiscriminate info, fancruft, listicruft. Else I don't know where will it end otherwise Ohconfucius 05:16, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge into Grohl or appropriate artist/album articles. Cheers, Ian Rose 12:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 title will be hard redirected to Loose Change (video) for GFDL purposes. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jason Bermas

Yet another bit player in the 9/11 conspiracy movement. This guy is a graphics designer and one of three producers of the film Loose Change, granted, the film itself may be notable, but surely being the producer of a small film does not make you notable, otherwise we'd have articles for thousands of self-promoting Hollywood hacks. GabrielF 02:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

  • I have already proposed a merge and redirect to Louder than Words. Half the reason these articles get recreated is because the namespace is open and people search for the names. Redirects would help that.--Rosicrucian 02:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I've mirrored all content to Louder than Words. Now while I have my doubts that Louder than Words is noteworthy enough to merit its own article, it's at least more noteworthy than this article. I'd still prefer a redirect to an outright deletion.--Rosicrucian 00:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Morton devonshire 02:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Jason can be mentioned in the article for Loose Change (video), but we do not need articles for each producer. --Aude (talk contribs as tagcloud) 02:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. —Khoikhoi 04:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Crockspot 05:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom.--Peephole 11:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. Lankiveil 12:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC).
  • Delete per nom --Geneb1955Talk/CVU 16:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. NickBall 02:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom Tbeatty 08:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Louder than Words to preserve history per GFDL. JoshuaZ 23:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:21, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Aaron 19:06, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

NOTE TO THE CLOSING ADMIN Louder than Words is currently also undergoing an AfD. If that article does not end up being deleted policy and the GFDL require that this become a redirect. (Otherwise I presume it will be deleted). JoshuaZ 20:02, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 title will be hard redirected to Loose Change (video) for GFDL purposes. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Korey Rowe

Another bit player in the 9/11 conspiracy movement. This guy is one of three producers of the film Loose Change (video), the film itself may or may not be notable, but surely we're not going to have articles for everyone who produced a video! Otherwise we'd have articles for thousands of self-promoting Hollywood hacks. This guy specifically looks like he's about 20 years old and has had no career outside of making this video and serving in Iraq. GabrielF 02:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Who goes around hunting for articles to delete like this? If you call 30 million downloads of Loose Change (video) to be not-notable then you shouldn't be editing wikipedia. I even heard a random person talking about the movie on the bus the other day. Whether or not Korey Rowe has a wikipedia entry about him seems unimportant to me, but I see a pattern of aggressive deleting that is disturbing. Kaimiddleton 20:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I have already proposed a merge and redirect to Louder than Words. Half the reason these articles get recreated is because the namespace is open and people search for the names. Redirects would help that.--Rosicrucian 02:20, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I've mirrored all content to Louder than Words. Now while I have my doubts that Louder than Words is noteworthy enough to merit its own article, it's at least more noteworthy than this article. I'd still prefer a redirect to an outright deletion.--Rosicrucian 00:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Morton devonshire 02:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Korey can be mentioned in the article for Loose Change (video), but we do not need articles for each producer. --Aude (talk contribs as tagcloud) 02:45, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Crockspot 05:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom.--Peephole 11:09, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. Lankiveil 12:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC).
  • Delete per nom --Geneb1955Talk/CVU 16:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. NickBall 02:16, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom Tbeatty 08:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect Since content was moved to Louder than Words GFDL makes it problematic to delete this but the person is otherwise non-notable. JoshuaZ 23:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect per above. Deletion would be problematic under the GFDL. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:22, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect as per Rosicrucian's points Mujinga 00:04, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect, preferably to Loose Change (video). I suggest merging/redirecting Louder than Words there as well. CWC(talk) 09:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Aaron 19:02, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

NOTE TO THE CLOSING ADMIN Louder than Words is currently also undergoing an AfD. If that article does not end up being deleted policy and the GFDL require that this become a redirect. (Otherwise I presume it will be deleted). JoshuaZ 20:02, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Merge to Loose Change. Pascal.Tesson 18:25, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Raydd 16:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: All the relevant information has been merged into the Loose Change (video) article.--Peephole 19:11, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NawlinWiki 03:57, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Martin Sjardijn

Originally proded but Tyrenius (talk · contribs) correctly pointed out that the main rationale I gave (vanity) was not sufficient for deletion and removed the prod. As for Martin Sjardijn, the article was created by Geirfalki (talk · contribs) whose sole contributions concern Martin Sjardijn and his projects. Google finds 84 unique non-wikipedia hits, not a lot for someone who claims to be active as an artist since '85. I did not find third-party coverage. The article basically establishes notability by showing a letter of support that Christo sent him in 85 but I think all will agree at reading it that it is pretty flimsy evidence of notability. Pascal.Tesson 02:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

This has been listed on WikiProject Deletion sorting/Visual arts

  • Comment

Martin Sjardijn is not a commercial bias but artist since 1973, researching weightlessness since 1985.

See his dutch cv's and works if necessary use babel for translation):

1. Visit Martin Sjardijn at Rhizome the new museum of contemporary art (Rhizome is an online platform for the global new media art community. Learn more.

2. one of his online galleries

3. His cv (dutch) biography(english)

4. Interview about the Groninger Museum Project with Martin Sjardijn by Philip Peters(dutch) use babel to translate

Please do research otherwise wikipedia donot can be taken seriously. <any [people doubt already about the quality and value of wikipedia. I wish you do good research. Call art-historian Hans Locher The Hague or e-mail hlocher@xs4all.nl (former director of the Municipality Museum of The Hague) to know facts.

  • Comment Just for the record, the prod was removed by 62.216.11.44 (talk · contribs) with the comment, "2 dutch art historians are working on the article some patience please". I have just done some tidying on the article. Tyrenius 02:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
As this is a BLP suitable sensitivity should be used in commenting. Advice to the author (a new user) in what the article needs to fulfil the required standard would also be welcome. Tyrenius 05:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, let me be a bit more careful: I am not judging the quality of this man's work but rather the extent to which he is know outside of a very restricted circle. Because of a lack of reliable third-party sources, content is very likely to remain unverifiable. I would also point out that there is a strong suspicion that both the Geirfalki (talk · contribs) and 62.216.11.44 (talk · contribs) are in some way related to the subject, which breaches the sound advice of WP:VAIN. Pascal.Tesson 16:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Let me clarify. My caution wasn't aimed at you, but for the benefit of any subsequent contributors, nor am I contesting your suspicion, but that is not relevant to notability. Furthermore there has been third party editing also (by myself) for an objective view. Tyrenius 21:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - mention as an artist in official websites of three different museums seems to give verifiability to notability. Akradecki 16:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Akradecki. Google hits here include Leiden University, Irish Museum of Modern Art, University of Amsterdam, Haags Montessori Lyceum and the Municipal Museum of The Hague, and Groninger Museum. It indicates sufficient standing that readers may wish to use wiki for more information. Tyrenius 21:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment As the former director of the Municipal Museum of The Hague (Gemeentemuseum Den Haag) I herewith confirm the facts mentioned in Wikipedia about Martin Sjardijn. Indeed, already in 1985 he started his important Weightless Sculpture Project. The animation at the Digistar Planetarium Computer in the Omniversum in The Hague (neighbouring the Gemeentemuseum) was at the time an exciting experience. He is innovative and especially a pioneer in using as a visual artist the virtual reality of the internet. dr. J.L. (Hans) Locher —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.216.11.44 (talk • contribs) For information e-mail jllocher@xs4all.nl
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and redirect to his book. Despite the substantial support for deletion, the man merits mentioning in his book's article, given that the book has been kept previously. Xoloz 16:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Paul Thompson (researcher)

This is an article about a pseudonym of the author of a 9/11 conspiracy book called The Terror Timeline. The book is currently under AfD and it doesn't seem likely that it will be kept. Given that this guy's only real claim to fame is that he wrote a book which consensus seems to feel is non-notable it seems hard to imagine that he himself would be notable. Note that the first AfD for this article ended in no consensus. GabrielF 02:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Did not see link to 1st AfD, so here it is. Also, the result on the book's AfD was "no consensus. :) Dlohcierekim 21:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Morton devonshire 02:45, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. --Aude (talk contribs as tagcloud) 02:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn.--MONGO 04:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Crockspot 05:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Interest in 9/11 is still high and likewise in the protagonists in the debate about it. I can see a case for merging this with the book article, or vice versa. Tyrenius 06:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - nowhere close to passing WP:BIO. He's already mentioned at 9/11 Truth Movement; that's an appropriate amount of coverage for him. My Alt Account 09:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom.--Peephole 11:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

*Delete nn person as per My Alt Account Marcus22 11:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC) Change vote to Merge with book. Now that that has been kept. Marcus22 08:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Merge with book aricle per Tyrenius --Guinnog 11:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. Lankiveil 12:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC).
  • Delete nn --Geneb1955Talk/CVU 16:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I have used the information from this article in The Terror Timeline, but rewritten to avoid copyright restrictions, so I don't think it is strictly necessary to attribute under GFDL. However, it makes sense if Paul Thompson (researcher) does not merit retention to turn it into a redirect for those who search for the author. Tyrenius 21:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
    PS as regards Articles for deletion/The Terror Timeline, current state of play looks very much like "no consensus" (i.e. default to "keep"). A nom based on speculation about another AfD is on very shaky ground. Tyrenius 21:09, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
    PPS The AfD has now been closed as "no consensus (keep)". Tyrenius 00:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge into The Terror Timeline --T-rex 21:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - the film about Thompson and his research is showing all over the country and his website is used as a resource and recommended by the Jersey Girls. Locewtus 23:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
    Could you provide refs for that? Tyrenius 01:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Aaron 00:17, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge or Keep -- The book was kept, I would say merge would be most appropriate. --Shortfuse 03:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
    Any relevant info is in the book article, so there is only a need to redirect this one now. Tyrenius 04:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete NN Tbeatty 08:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. The book was kept via no consensus, so it would be an odd situation to delete the author, who is notable inhis own right for writing the book released by ReganBooks. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge Being that he is only notable for the book and the book was kept, merge his information into it, no need for a seperate article. --User:Zer0faults 13:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Paul Thompson is already an interesting figure in Internet history. No one who has read the book or visited the site can reasonably call his research conspiracist. He is critical in what will turn out to be a very innovative way. If we delete it now, we can just wait a couple of months til he becomes a well known intellectual and the start over.--Thomas Basboll 19:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
    • "It sounds like you realize he isn't notable now, but think we should keep the page because he will be in a few months. I say let him acheive notability on his own, and then we can include him. In Wikipedia:Notability (people) it says, "Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work." Just a minute ago I was looking for reviews of his book, and couldn't find anything. There is "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events." I guess that's a judgement call. To me he's just another one of those we have too many bios of already. Tom Harrison Talk 20:00, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep absolutely I'm amazed that this is under discussion. Ken Thompson was one of the first 9/11 researchers, one of the deepest, and one who does the least amount of speculation in his research. He uses thousands of links to publicly published mass media reports to delineate the timeline. He has published the definitive 9/11 timeline in bookform and on a website that is widely read. He is also seen in the movie 9/11: Press for Truth. Furthermore, I'll go on to object to editors who claim he is "not notable". To make this claim shows clear POV and I regard it as aggressive editing. If you disagree, please read up on the wikipedia trifecta. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaimiddleton (talk • contribs) 15:11, September 13, 2006
      • Comment Dude, this is an article about Paul Thompson, not Ken Thompson. Morton devonshire 02:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep despite my bias against. Several hits at Google news :) Dlohcierekim 21:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge/Redirect Already covered enough in the book entry. JoshuaZ 23:19, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. If that fails, Merge. Do not keep. Jayjg (talk) 20:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect (This result wouldn't require a vote, but there's nothing that should be here which isn't under the book.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge into The Terror Timeline --Bill.matthews 02:17, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The information I added about Paul Thompson to The Terror Timeline has been deleted and I am in dialogue on the article talk page with a view to restoring it. Should the decision be for a merge, then the community consensus can validate its restoration as the simplest way for the merge to be performed. Tyrenius 15:07, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Jayjg above Tom Harrison Talk 13:56, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or merge as his notability is entirely linked to the book. Pascal.Tesson 18:21, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge into The Terror Timeline Travb (talk) 19:42, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge into The Terror Timeline GunnarRene 04:23, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Paul Tompson deserves a Wikipedia bio if anyone does. Only reason there are calls for its deletion is because its part of the ongoing cover up. Calling for deletion is simply Orwellian.— Possible single purpose account: 74.130.29.98 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
  • Merge with The Terror Timeline aricle per Tyrenius SalvNaut 01:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep or Merge as above. --JRA WestyQld2 06:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Garbage. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 15:58, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete, nowhere to merge. Punkmorten 09:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] E-70S-6

Delete Wikipedia is not a catalogue Dave 03:00, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Redirect somewhere suitable, or delete --Peta 05:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Looks like this might be merge-worthy if anyone was to ever create an article called American Welding Society classifications, but without such an article there's not much point in it existing alone. --Aaron 00:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. :) Dlohcierekim 21:51, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, or else someone create American Welding Society classifications and merge it there per Aaron. Michael Kinyon 10:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per above. Markovich292 07:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 10:22, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Charlie Brown Kwanzaa

Non-notable internet meme, I think. Andrew Levine 03:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - Non-notable internet meme --T-rex 03:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. It's hilariously offensive, though. Danny Lilithborne 03:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. VegaDark 04:00, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: "You play da hooker." "Oh! I get to play myself again!" Oh well, not much of a loss. ~ Porphyric Hemophiliac § 04:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. It certainly is a notable Internet meme. Wikipedia has hundreds of pages for games and bands and companies and towns of no importance. Wikipedia has a separate page for every episode of The Simpsons. This is a widely played video with enough bite that people remember it. The only reason for deleting it is that it's not PC.Barticus88 08:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn meme ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 10:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. Lankiveil 12:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC).
  • Merge with Shock sites per Barticus88. I see no violation of WP:NN as it is a well known video amoung the internet community. NeoFreak 20:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to List of Internet phenomena. Its notability is comparable to others on that page. SliceNYC 21:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Oops, it's already there. Delete, then. SliceNYC 21:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 20:13, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I just checked Wikipedia's Notability guidelines for web content, and it does meet #3 under criteria WP:WEB. The Charlie Brown Kwanzaa video was distributed through Ebaums World (http://www.ebaumsworld.com/2006/07/charliebrownkwanza.html) which is a popular comedy website that receives millions of hits per day. Ebaums World is independent of the creators of this video. By fullfilling the criteria in Wikipedia's policy, Charlie Brown Kwanzaa is notable of its own listing. Pforest73 08:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I moved your vote to the bottom. Ebaums World snatches up pretty much every joke video on the Internet regardless of overall popularity, usually without the permission of the creator. How many hits is it getting there, really? Anyway, I have never seen the video myself, so I don't know if it's funny or offensive or what. I just go by notability. And at least two of the people on the "delete" side seem to like it. Andrew Levine 00:51, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Also, I note that you have no previous contributions to Wikipedia. I changed your sig to accurately point to your user name. Andrew Levine 00:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, I do not feel that this is particulary notable, it doesn't appear to have received any media attention either.--Andeh 10:24, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, Internet-cruft. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:30, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. No adequate evidence of notability profferred. Nandesuka 16:31, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep per criteria 1. --Wafulz 17:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Charlie Swiggs and The Worms

One album released on a major label (in a small country), but not sufficient for WP:MUSIC. No edits to page in over a year. Most google hits are Wikipedia mirrors. I am listing it here instead of speedying or prodding it because I have been wrong before about Chinese bands. Andrew Levine 03:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep, "highlight" of the 2005 Tainan May Jam" [3] Kappa 12:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, Taiwan is a large enough country for me that a major label release there is notable. Lankiveil 12:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC).
    • Well, the article says they only had one release on a major label, and the criterion relating to this in WP:MUSIC asks for two. But Kappa's article is pretty convincing. Withdraw nomination. Andrew Levine 16:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 LOT. Seems like the consensus is clear on this one. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lighthouse United Pentecostal Church Omaha, Nebraska

Delete Individual churches are not notable enough for an encyclopedia article. --דניאל ~ Danielrocks123 talk contribs Count 23:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. I disagree with the blanket statement above, but I agree that most individual Churches are not notable. This is one of the non-notable majority. Erechtheus 01:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, no indication of notability. Gazpacho 01:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Per WP:NOT, as this is 60% directory entry (address, schedule) and 40% external links, and not an encyclopedia article. GRBerry 04:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete parishcruft. Recreate the article after this church has reliable sources showing that they have done something notable, like raise the dead. Carlossuarez46 18:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep If this is deleted, then every other individual church entry should be deleted as well. Take for instance listed in Category:Churches in Omaha, Nebraska. Most are not notable. They have been allowed to remain.—Preceding unsigned comment added by slshow (talk • contribs)
    • Comment. Thanks for mentionging that category. I'll check it out. Erechtheus 23:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC) Update: I have added the proposed deletion template to all but the St. Cecilia Cathedral article. It is the only one that is more than a directory listing or that focuses on an encyclopedic topic (the architectural import of the building the article is about). I'm not saying it's the perfect article, and somebody may indeed make a compelling argument for deletion. I think it at least makes its case for inclusion. Not that I should have to even say this, but I am not a Catholic or any sort of defender of cathedral-cruft but not parish-cruft. Erechtheus 01:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment. Perhaps instead of prod tags on these areticles, they should be considered as part of this AfD discussion. I feel that they probably should not be deleted unless the consensus is to delete this article. I'll go ahead and add them to this discussion. --דניאל ~ Danielrocks123 talk contribs Count 23:49, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I am also nominating these articles for deletion for the same reasons as the original.

  • Beautiful Savior Lutheran Church of Omaha
  • Benson Presbyterian Church
  • Covenant Presbyterian Church
  • Dundee Presbyterian Church
  • Glad Tidings Church of Omaha
  • King of Kings Church of Omaha
  • Kingsway Christian Church
  • Trinity Interdenominational Church of Omaha
-דניאל ~ Danielrocks123 talk contribs Count 00:01, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment Don't forget every article here as well Category:Churches by city. There is not guidence on deleting individual churches. --Pinkkeith 16:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete the added articles if this is proper process. Note I already voted delete on the others above. I don't think it is proper process, and I think it likely that an admin will have to relist this group. I'll leave that to the people who understand it all better. I do want to comment that there seems to be a growing consensus in AfDs I have read that it's inappropriate to remove a prod template only to add an AfD template. This is a different situation than the others, though. I just mention that for any passers by. Erechtheus 07:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Comment I have struck out your delete vote above so that you are not counted as voting twice in this discussion. --דניאל ~ Danielrocks123 talk contribs Count 16:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~~~~דניאל ~ Danielrocks123 talk contribs Count 03:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as these articles are of extremely poor quality, telling nothing except the name of the pastor, location, and times of services, making them seem like bits of publicity. Allon FambrizziAllon Fambrizzi
  • Delete per Carlos. —Khoikhoi 04:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all as all are "directory" style entires, in contravention of WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a directory. Of course without prejudice against creation of well written, referenced articles about these churches. --Mako 05:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all --Peta 05:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all. Most individual churches are non-notable, and none of these articles make strong claims to notability. --Metropolitan90 06:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Delete all above, nn curhces. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 10:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all per nom as unencylopaedic, and per WP:NOT a directory. Ohconfucius 10:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete All as per nom. Lankiveil 12:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC).
  • Delete all, please, most churches are non notable. Fram 18:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete, no assertion of notability, being used for trolling. Nandesuka 11:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Raymond C. Lemme

No evidence of notability. Appears to be a minor player in a minor conspiracy theory which is contested from the low amount of google hits.[4] Crossmr 03:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep article has been the subject of a flurry of activity in the past few hours, none of it constructive. I get a huge amount of Google hits personally, you must be on a different data centre.--Pussy Galore 03:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
    The search is very clear and performed with the normal standards of any google search on an individual. There are a total of 23 unique hits, with the first hit being this article, and the 12th hit being the wikipedia catagory he appears on. There is no other "data center" if you're getting so many hits provide a link to the search. You continually claim you've got evidence of notability, provide it.--Crossmr 03:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Actually, I beleieve google employ around a dozen Data centres around the globe, so as to be able to return localised results to users. In short, your Google results in the US, are different to my Google results in the UK. Of course, if I were sensible, I would just use Scroogle instead. --Pussy Galore 03:45, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
      • And again you've failed to provide any alleged information you claim to have.--Crossmr 03:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
        • Hmm, you might want to actually check out the article page, which I've spending the last half an hour improving. How have you improved it in the last half an hour?--Pussy Galore 03:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
          • I've seen your changes, I see no improvement. A bunch of unverified claims. Its not my job to improve the article. You seem so desperate to have this thing kept, yet so unwilling to actually provide any reasoning to do so.--Crossmr 03:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
      • However, [5], UK search results for the same term. No difference.--Crossmr 03:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Just for thoroughness (banned link removed) scroogle, I see no additionaly notability there, no huge amount of hits you claim.--Crossmr 03:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Where did I claim that? And Isn't Scroogle limited to returning 100 results, so as to save on server bandwith? --Pussy Galore 03:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
        • You claimed it directly above I get a huge amount of Google hits personally,. Scroogle does limit to 100, but that tops out at 24, it doesn't even begin to approach the limit. So no, there is no way you get a huge amount of google hits.--Crossmr 03:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
          • Enough of this. Do you have a link or not? No more dodging the issue. Provide a decent link with your next post or simply don't bother posting at all. Round-about arguments will only get your article deleted all the quicker, as it proves you have no real information to show us. As for your assertions on "data centers", that's total nonsense. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 03:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete so long as this remains little more than two sentences. If it can be expanded to a point where I can care who this guy was, then I might vote keep. As it stands, it doesn't assert why this guy needs an article. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 03:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • It would be nice if someone expanded it. Delete for now as the article is unclear about the purported significance of this fellow. Allon FambrizziAllon Fambrizzi
  • Speedy/Strong Delete - There's no claim to notability here beyond insinuation. He has few unique Google hits, and is unencyclopedic to the extreme. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, this is not the place to speculate on the possibility that he might have been involved in something other than the official cause of death and so on. -- Chabuk 03:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment You guys argue here all you want. I'm going to be spending my time improving the article. --Pussy Galore 03:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and WP:NOT. --Peta 05:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep article - I have updated and clarified article and added links to popular sources on Mr. Lemme. --MaxContent 06:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - It's a huge shame we can't have lots more articles about people who briefly received some attention among some blogs. But this will never come anywhere close to meeting WP:BIO. My Alt Account 09:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete does not meet wp bio ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 10:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Self-admitted "new site" fails WP:WEB; keep arguments don't argue on this point, really, so it is substantively undisputed here. Xoloz 16:58, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deviantnation.com

Fails WP:WEB, as near as I can figure. Article is extremely promotional and actively solicits nude models from within the article itself. Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 03:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom and as an ad. Danny Lilithborne 03:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • KeepIt is not meant to be an Ad. I do not work for the site or get paid by them, but I am a member. I created the entry as a factual document of the founding and operation of the site based on the facts I found in their forums and FAQ. I started the article after reading the suicidegirls wiki. Since DN was founded by a former employee of SG (and several of the models are SG refugees as well), I thought it would be relevant. As the site grows and expands, I expect the entry to as well. I didn't' think linking to the model app would be a problem, but have now removed it. Membership pricing and model pay scale are included solely as informational pieces and not meant to solicit business or new models. Torklugnutz 04:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, although you should perhaps add that part about it being founded by former models of Suicide Girls, and how that shapes their operations. Remove the bits that sound like promotion, but keep the article with NPOV. --Down10 TACO 07:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:WEB, add , etc. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 10:09, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. Lankiveil 12:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC).
  • Delete per nom. Alexa rank of 221,806 versus 2,573 for SuicideGirls suggests that they are not quite in the same league. And heck, if they are, as the article suggests, run by Satan, they don't need Wikipedia's help. William Pietri 01:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete :) Dlohcierekim 21:55, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Did a little more editing, removed "Site Features" and replaced with "Site Trivia". Also, in rebuttal to William Pietri, DN is a new site, whereas SG has been around for years. Obviously the older site is going to have a higher Alexa rank. They've got a much larger user base. DN doesn't need Wiki's help. This article is meant to be a place for the history of the site to have a home. :) TorkLugnutz01:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Hi. If you'd like to keep the history of your site somewhere, I'd suggest your site is the right place for that. Once that history is covered by reliable sources, then we'll be sure to include it here. Hoping that helps, William Pietri 00:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete WP is not a web directory. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 20:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I see nothing wrong with it, but the part about what they are looking for in models should probably go.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.232.152.157 (talk • contribs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete both. NawlinWiki 04:01, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Craig Forgrave

A writer with one book published with a press that doesn't seem to meet the guidelines. He isn't on Amazon. He fails WP:BIO, and his book fails the inclusion guidelines for books.

I am also nominating Devil Jazz as the book in question. Crystallina 04:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep: Normally, I see a published book, no matter what it is, as notable. Maybe we should wait and watch. ~ Porphyric Hemophiliac § 04:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete both per nom.--Peta 05:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Google found this profile of him, but I still think he doesn't pass WP:BIO. The book definitely doesn't cut it. And it does look like the publisher does vanity publishing. My Alt Account 09:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete One (possible vanity published) book does not, generally, make for a notable author. And that is true here. Marcus22 12:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete if that press is a vanity press, but Keep otherwise. Lankiveil 12:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC).
    • I don't see any likelihood of it being established either way. Looking at the publisher's web page, there's a lot of talk which sounds like code for "you can pay us, instead of us paying you" (i.e., vanity press). But perhaps they do a little of both. In which case, only the author could tell you. My Alt Account 13:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Yeah, I had a quick looks and it looks like a vanity press to me, I've simply included the other option in case I'm wrong, as an "out" of sorts ;-). Lankiveil 12:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC).
  • Comment: Rememeber this from WP:BIO: "This is not intended to be an exclusionary list; just because someone doesn't fall into one of these categories doesn't mean an article on the person should automatically be deleted."~ Porphyric Hemophiliac § 14:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, only one reliable, third-party, non-trivial source = fails WP:V. Recury 17:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete both. I have no doubt that SomeHuman is onto something, but the article as it stands doesn't pass WP:V/WP:OR on the expanded scifi concept. I'll happily userfy on request for rewrite/expansion, but this must go as it is. The fact that it started as a "one-off" Daily Show joke doesn't help this article's fate any either. Xoloz 17:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Robotocracy, Robocracy

  • del original research. Neologism, only 86 unique google hits for "robotocacy", if exclude wikipediatry and 266 for "robocracy", and no minimally reputable source. `'mikka (t) 04:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as neologism. TheronJ 13:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Fascinating concept-- I guessed what two of the examples would be before I read them. Don't think The Matrix counts, though. That's something else. Oh-- probably great idea for a thesis, but WP:NOR. :) Dlohcierekim 22:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge Of course, I'm sure my username will make me seem a bit biased, lol. I didn't introduce the term and it was mainstream, though it was satire. Those who work at The Daily Show ran a website called [The American Robocratic party] as a joke, as a campaign for America to be controlled by robots (the server seems to be down at the moment, but it was up a couple weeks ago) and featured it on their show, one episode. I admit, however, that the term is rather obscure and I can't find any academic source for it. I also just noticed the other article on robotocracy. Yeah, merge them. 71.246.229.50 16:10, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Del per nom and crystal ball. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 20:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as neologisms and a Daily Show/America:The Book joke. --Calton | Talk 06:00, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep or Merge There's no reason the information should be deleted completely outright, or merged into an irrelevant section.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Nintenfreak (talk • contribs)
  • Merge. The two articles are clearly redundant, however the concept itself has enough of a basis that I'd consider it sustainable. There's probably a dozen titles on my bookshelves that concern the issue. (And only half of them are by Isaac Asimov. See Uchronia for an example of an article in a similar theme that is well-done. That said, I'm not committed to the name, and I could be convinced that it would properly belong in Political ideas in science fiction with redirects (In fact, that article should mention it, regardless of the outcome of this discussion). FrozenPurpleCube 04:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
I have made several expansions and modificatons to the Robotocracy article, and I ask that the voters re-evalulate their votes based on the article as it is today. FrozenPurpleCube 20:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge 'Robocracy' content into 'Robotocracy' (which I just edited a little further, after FrozenPurpleCube's improvements). It is a concept that plays in many minds, one does not need a crystal ball to realize that artificial intelligence or computer stupidity is increasingly playing a role in today's society (traffic control, 'bots' on Wikipedia, ... take decisions instead of human beings, often keeping our minds at peace by claiming a required human action or a guaranteed timely human intervention). — SomeHuman 20 Sep 2006 19:47 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was copyvio!!! Grandmasterka 05:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nicole Austin

Delete Unencyclopedic to the nth degree. Fails WP:BIO, is only notable (if you can call it that) by association. Chabuk 04:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Comes close to being speedyable. Valrith 04:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Current version is from [6] directly, except some pronouns have been changed. If kept, it would need to be a rewritten version, because this one is a copyvio. --W.marsh 05:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sango123 00:53, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Annette (porn star)

Non-notable porn star; resoundingly fails both WP:BIO and WP:PORNBIO. Valrith 04:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Per nom and lack of KY Jelly. Oh, did I say that out loud? ~ Porphyric Hemophiliac § 04:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete- non-notable. Maybe even speedy it if we can. Nwwaew 12:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. Lankiveil 12:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC).
  • Delete per nom. I am impressed to hell that we have a standard for pornstar bios (WP:PORNBIO). Bet it was fun, ahem, thrashing that one out. Legis 14:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - per WP:PORNBIO --T-rex 21:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sango123 00:55, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chadison clothing

Advert for a non-notable clothing company, WP:CORP refers. PROD removed by IP address editor with no comment or improvement of text (aeropagitica) 04:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Post Hasteper nom.--Saintlink 05:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • delete per nom.Aleph-4 09:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. Lankiveil 12:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC).
  • Delete as advertising. JIP | Talk 18:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as unable to establish notability per google. No assertion of notability in the article. It's "still a very young company," hence has not established notability. :) Dlohcierekim 22:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 inequality. --Ezeu 17:44, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Power inequalities

This was prodded but I'm unsure of a few things regarding its being tagged, and I'd rather run this through the more visible process. Can anyone who knows math assure me that this is indeed nonsense? Neutral Andrew Levine 04:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep - The math seems to check out. The term "power inequalities" isn't unheard of, and these all seem like valid examples. needs a few more links to it and some wikification though, maybe some proofs. --Daniel Olsen 05:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete Not nonsense; but this is an indiscriminate ccollection of information. Not an interesting concept; only one article links here, and that's a see also. Only one of these is fruitful (the triangle inequality) and only one (a different one) is non-trivial. Septentrionalis 16:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to inequality. I'm a math student and I've used these fairly often, but I don't think this can stand as its own article, let alone an article made up entirely of examples. --Wafulz 18:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per Wafulz.--Peta 06:04, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sango123 00:55, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brandon K. Rush

Non notable: article title gives no Google hits, "Brandon Rush" + otaku only gives some unrelated NBA hits. Fails WP:BIO and companies fail WP:CORP. Prod removed by author Fram 04:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Sango123 00:56, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Warwick Student Arts Festival

non notable student group per WP:ORG. Certainly not notable outside of the University. Ohconfucius 05:09, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 22:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Level Seven (band)

Fail WP:MUSIC by all counts, contested speedy. No vote here! Teke (talk) 05:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, nothing obviously related on Google. --Dhartung | Talk 08:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable, not every garage band can be here. Resorb 20:30, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Not a speedy because of discography section. MER-C 10:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, impassioned plea below not withstanding, fails WP:BAND with nothing at all music and the webpage < top 100,000 at Alexa. :) Dlohcierekim 23:17, 13 September 2006 (UTC)



Great - so the article doesn't coincide with the rules of notability on Wikipedia. But that doesn't mean the article does not belong - perhaps the rules themselves need to be revised. This is supposed to be an online (so therefore diverse) encyclopedia. If someone has heard of Level Seven and wishes to look them up on Wikipedia (which is reasonable), then why restrict them from doing so? Does it really matter if admins from America or even the UK haven't heard of this band? Is this article harming Wikipedia in any way? No! If anything, it is adding to the already sterling content on this online encyclopedia.
A band is a band. The Beatles were a band. The guy you know down the street who jams with his mates - he's in a band. It is an entity, regardless of fame or notoriety, and as an entity it at least deserves recognition on Wikipedia. Fine, so some people may not check this page as much as they would a more famous band, but some may want to - and because this is a free encyclopedia (in both financial and personal manners), people should be free to read whatever they wish. And if that includes this band, so be it. If it does not - again, so be it.
I understand that, according to the codified rules of Wikipedia, this band should not have a site. But I'm not arguing with you over those grounds; that's silly and fruitless. I'm requesting that as a member of a free nation and a user of a free encyclopedia, this band be given recognition on the unlimited size of the Internet.
Why, other than its contradiction to the 'rules', delete this page?

Truly, what harm is it doing?
--Naylor182 21:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Thanks for responding, Naylor. Following the rules is what keeps the encyclopedia an encyclopedia; it's why policies and guidelines exist. There are ~3,000 articles created every day and the cost is in server space. Wikipedia does not live on the internet, it is in St. Petersburg, Florida and a few other hosting sites. There are literaly hundreds of thousands of bands that have not met the criteria for MUSIC and that is the reason for the policy. If someone searches for Level Seven on Google, they can get the band's website. If/when the band is successful, the article can be recreated with no qualms. You said "Does it really matter if admins from America or even the UK haven't heard of this band? Is this article harming Wikipedia in any way?", and I'm assuming that is mentioned because I made the nomination. Please note that I removed the speedy deletion tag from the article and moved it to this forum to get the community opinion and it is a move I have made as an editor many times. Teke (talk) 04:30, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Being honest, it was nothing to do with you, moreover the member who first put the 'speedy deletion' tag on the page. And I respect your move, but I still stand by everything I wrote above. If information (because that is what it is) doesn't belong in an encyclopedia because of some rule, surely that says more about the rule than the article. --Naylor182 15:41, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Naylor182 - Please stop trying to associate Level Seven with your band. I have reverted your edit - for the second time, again. Please do not re-edit the page. Resorb 20:30, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 argument that this fail WP:V is not rebutted by WP:LOCAL. The lone cite provided in the AfD isn't sufficient to overcome worries expressed in the consensus below. Xoloz 17:12, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cherryland Center

A shopping mall of no particular significance. Wikipedia is not an indescriminate collection of information. Was prodded, but the author removed the tag. Indrian 05:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - nn strip mall of modest size. Article indicates that "Cherryland Mall" was quite a lot bigger before the location was redeveloped, but I don't think that cuts it either. My Alt Account 09:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn mallcruft ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 10:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:LOCAL. Kappa 12:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment if someone wants to dig up some other sources for the article I'd be inclined to keep. As it stands, I really don't like the lack of sourcing, but the mall seems potentially encyclopaedic. WilyD 14:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Okay, I don't know how to properly add comments, but I just wanted to speak my mind. I was the author of the Cherryland page. I'm with whoever said that maybe more sources should be dug up. TenPoundHammer 17:47, 12 September 2006
  • Delete, malls are usually not notable and this one is no exception. It's not even of much local interest or importance relative to Traverse City, Michigan...--Isotope23 16:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Malls are businesses, so WP:CORP applies. There is no evidence or even assertion of meeting it. GRBerry 02:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep WP:LOCAL is relevant given history of the place and local importance. :) Dlohcierekim 23:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment [http://news.google.com/news?sourceid=navclient&aq=%22Cherryland%20Center%22&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLR,GGLR:2006-24,GGLR:en&q=%22Cherryland+Center%22&sa=N&tab=wn local news coverage shows it is a point of reference recognised by people in area. Cheers. :) Dlohcierekim 23:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
      • That article is not even about the mall. If it was really that important, I would expect you to find a reference directly on point. Of course people are going to recognize the name of the local mall -- I certainly know the name of mine -- but where is the evidence that it has anything beyond local name recognition? Local club bands have local name recognition too, yet we have a speedy delete category for those. Indrian 23:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
    • No, but it shows that it is a point of reference for the locals. Cheers :) Dlohcierekim 00:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Just about anything can be a point of reference for locals. A rundown house on the corner of the street can be a point of reference. A traffic light that does not work right can be a point of reference. A block of warehouses can be a point of reference. I certainly hope you are not suggesting that these things should have articles just because the locals know them and use them to oriente themselves in a given neighborhood. What if the article had said it was near the Super Wal-Mart? Does that mean the local Wal-Mart now deserves an entry. What about the Blockbusters that article talked about that went out of business? Should they all receive articles because the local paper thought they were important enough to report about? Does every single business in the world that more than a couple of dozen people patronize deserve an article just because the locals use them and oriente themselves to them? If you can truly answer yes to all of these questions, then there is no reasoning with you, but if you think some of these things cross the line, then you have not articulated any reason why this mall is special. Indrian 01:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as a failure of WP:CORP and fails to provide reliable sources.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 00:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 01:10, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My-boi

del promo of nonnotable dating dot-com, which is in beta. `'mikka (t) 05:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

  • With regret, Delete. My rationale is solely that the site is unavailable, thus cannot possibly be notable, whatever its status in its principal's expulsion from school. However I feel this should be allowed to be recreated once the true notability of the site can be determined in the future. Fiddle Faddle 11:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Ok, let's look through this one. It's involved in a somewhat big and important newsevent that occuring in a region of the United States, it is gaining attention, and it's something that people will be looking for when reading about this topic. It only helps the experience of a reader that is trying to obtain all the information. Also, this meets the clause of non-trival coverage. Yanksox 11:32, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Also, I think as of right now, the nominator's statement about the site being promotional should be negated since it's clearly not used as promotion but for informing our readers about a recent newsevent. Yanksox 11:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. This article is about a nonnotable website. If it is "gaining" attention, wait until it "gains" it to become notable. Wikipedia is not a tool to help it to "gain attention. Mukadderat 02:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • DeleteDlohcierekim 13:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia is not here to document the latest non-notable website betas, especially if they are a result of an incident at a local school. We don't host articles about non-notable bands, why should we host an article about this website? In other words: fails WP:WEB and spam per nomination. alphaChimp(talk) 23:17, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Mukadderat. --ElKevbo 22:50, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Fails WP:WEB and WP:SPAM Bwithh 00:34, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Xoloz 17:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dacryphilia

del Verifiability problem. No reputable information. The coinage is rather dubious: "dacry", what is it? Ebonics for "the cry"? `'mikka (t) 05:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment This term makes sense to me since I've heard of dacryon being a technical name for the tears produced by the lachrymal glands as a physiological response to various emotions (Mosby's Medical, Nursing and Allied Health Dictionary). As for the fetish, no idea but it makes sense on this basis if that was your main problem with the term. Kris 11:10, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 10:09, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep The article has a reference, plus this isn't the first time I've heard this term. Google gets plenty of reslts, as well. "I don't know where this word comes from" doesn't seem like a solid basis for deletion to me. Danny Lilithborne 16:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, as a short Google search shows. See here[7] or here[8] for example. Fram 18:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per google :) Dlohcierekim 23:36, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, google is not a reliabel source.--Peta 06:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but are the sources I found through Google reliable or not? And anyway, even if it is perhaps not a scientific term, it still is clearly a widely used one in certain circles (and for that Google is a reliable indicator), and deserves an entry. It's not because the subject and most of the Google links are not to my taste that we should get rid of it. If the info in the entry is incorrect, give it a cleanup tag or something. Fram 07:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, origin is not Ebonics, the origin is from Latin and Greek. The Latin dacrydium, is a type of tree, and is a diminutive of a greek word that means tear (the drops of resin that the tree leaves look like tears). Also there is a reference to it in Brenda Love's book 'The Encyclopedia of Unusual Sexual Practices'.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Punkmorten 09:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History of the United States category map

Obsoleted by new automated category maps. Out of date. jengod 21:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete if truly obsolete, otherwise move to Wikipedia: namespace. Thryduulf 21:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, BaseballBaby 06:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or just possibly move to Wikipedia namespace. Seems like it would need constant maintenance to be really useful. --Dhartung | Talk 08:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong, but not emotionally passionate, delete ;) This can be easily covered with sub-cats, etc. One merely puts one category into another. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 21:59, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 01:10, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Masthope

Article reads like a travel guide, and Wikipedia articles are not travel guides. Kyra 05:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Merge to Lackawaxen which already has a good article. Current article is just an ad. Dlyons493 Talk 11:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Freedom of Information without Malice

This Masthope page contains information about a community within the geographic boundries of Lackawaxen Township and is relevent to information about Lackawaxen which was not included in the original web site article. It adds knowledge about the geographic features and amenities of Lackawaxen, Pennsylvania.

Ski Big Bear is important to the economy and tourism of the region. Furthermore the article adds other relevant information about the region not discussed in the original article such as the Lincoln flag at Milford. It has value as an addition to the original article not considered by the original author. It does not in any way detract from the original article. It adds to the wealth of information. It is not written as an ad for Masthope. If need be the Masthope article can be re-written in order to bring it more in line with the standards of Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snake Oil Sam (talk • contribs)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, BaseballBaby 06:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Advert / travel guide stuff. Font vanity suggests a copyvio. -- RHaworth 10:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - reads like an advertisement and may well have been intended as one. Also uses non-standard mark-up and font. BTLizard 12:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete advert. Danny Lilithborne 16:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and put what actual verifiable information can be salvaged from this ad in Lackawaxen, Pennsylvania. Snake Oil Sam, if it's not an ad, why was it written in Comic Sans? If it "adds to the wealth of information" about Lackawaxen, and sincerely wasn't meant to be an ad, the information can simply be put in that article.–♥ «Charles A. L.» 17:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Deed restricted commuinties are not notable. Wikipedia is not free advertising. :) Dlohcierekim 23:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

It was written in Comic Sans because I Snake Oil Sam like Comic Sans and like to publish in Comic Sans. I did not understand that it was a sin among the elite of Wikipedia to work in any other than the approved format. Please forgive me for my transgressions. I guess that I am just not up to speed within the cult of Wikipedia.

As far as putting information into the original article I thought that it was better to link to a separate article that I wrote rather than mess with the hard work of someone else. But what do I know I am new around here. Like I said before I can write it to fit your agenda if that would make a difference. Obviously I still have a lot to learn. Snake Oil Sam :-(

  • Delete per Charles A. L. I'm sure there's some verifiable information that can be salvaged from this. TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:01, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 after reversion to July 22 draft. Xoloz 17:42, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Hook

This page looks lifted from a website; not particularly notable, anyhow Down10 TACO 07:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - NN. Even as a purely local interest this doesn't deserve a mention anywhere. Also, article is fluff promotional material. My Alt Account 09:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC) (see below)
  • Delete Check out the hook while my deejay revolves it. I mean....delete ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 10:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and revert back to the July 22 edit Look through the edit history. This article used to be about a notable urban legend, but it's been hijacked. Zagalejo 19:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Definitely Revert per Zagalejo. "The Hook" is very prolific for an urban legend, much more notable than the venue.--Cúchullain t/c 21:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Let's get things moving, I went ahead and reverted it. Frankly I'm still not certain the article is up to snuff but I choose not to vote on it. I would also like to add that User:Avatarded media's edits to that page are nothing short of vandalism. My Alt Account 22:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep :) Dlohcierekim 23:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Cúchullain, prolific indeed. Markovich292 08:09, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Xoloz 17:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Boyko Hadjiyski

Reported in the article to be a Bulgarian diplomat. Can't find anything to verify existence or notability per WP:V. AED 07:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete for a lack of notability (he seems to be just your everyday diplomat, albeit in a funky place), although I'll be swayed if anything turns up about things he's done. Input from a user with Bulgarian might be a bit to hope for, although there are more than 50 out there who admit to having native abilities. BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 09:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless proven notable. The name is likely mispelled. Pavel Vozenilek 11:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Clearly, there is a valid article to be written at this title; that valid article has little to do with the draft now present, though. Xoloz 17:39, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DCKC

This term is completely new. The entire article is original research. Chris Griswold (☎☓) 07:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

While it may be a marketing term - or at least the initials for one - it is not one applied in the way that the article is claiming it is: As the name of a shared continuity among animated series never said to have a shared continuity. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 17:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Really? What makes you think that it is new? Uncle G 09:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
    • What makes it new is that it has never been used to represent an supposed continuity before. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 17:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep - article isn't perfect but that doesn't mean it has to go. At worst, I could see deleting this and making a category for it. My Alt Account 09:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep not a neologism. What's the grounds for deletion here? ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 10:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete A review of the links provided by Uncle G shows that the phrase "DC Comics Kids Collection" (it is never referred to by the initials DCKC) is nothing more than an imprint on the top of certain DVD collections. There is no assertion in any of the links that it refers to a single continuity, or is indeed anything more than a marketing phrase. CovenantD 16:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Neologism, original research. --InShaneee 17:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete This is a marketing term for DVD releases, not a recognized continuity. TheMagnificentHazo 02:51, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Many google hits for many "DCKC's" not related to the comics. :) Dlohcierekim 23:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. This marketing term may merit an article, but this article will never provide useful material for that questionably-useful article, as it describes a continuity that doesn't actually exist. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Punkmorten 09:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spectra Wizard

Non-notable band with no major album releases or significant tours. Google search of "Spectra Wizard" brings up zero relevant links. The band does not meet criteria set out in WP:MUSIC, and by extension is not verifiable and is likely comprised of original research and possibly vanity. --Wafulz 17:39, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Also nominating:

  • Circle of Vampyres --Wafulz 14:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as nn, OR, vanity and unverifiable. Molerat 22:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, BaseballBaby 08:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unverifiable, and fails WP:MUSIC anyways (there's no information on where their album was released, if at all, and Google is no help). Zetawoof(ζ) 16:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete fails notability tests. Akradecki 16:45, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. No google hits and nothing at allmusic. :) Dlohcierekim 23:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. The band is not even on Encyclopaedia Metallum. Prolog 11:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
  • This article may be on a non-notable band but the information is valid, and is not false. I object for the deletion of this article, as I will make the information more relevant and simple. Also, Wikipedia is the only source that has this bands biography, that is why the information is not found on other sites. -Horowitz —The preceding unsigned comment was added by VmoSW (talk • contribs) .
    • If the band is not notable, and there is no other information, that only cements the fact that it shouldn't be on here. Wikipedia is not a primary source of information. --Wafulz 20:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect since already merged. Mangojuicetalk 17:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] KTVI Tower 2

NN broadcasting tower. Delete.-- Fang Aili talk 17:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

So broadcasting towers are inherently notable? How weird. But I will abide by consensus. --Fang Aili talk 19:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, BaseballBaby 08:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 10:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sodastream

Non-notable product; article reads more like an advertisement Todd(Talk-Contribs) 08:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep I am not sure we have a policy on household appliances but I'm sure this would make it. It is certainly widely-known in Scotland. Catchpole 09:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and merge info from Soda-Club. Yomanganitalk 09:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
    • The info from Soda-Club and Milkstream has been merged and the article has been rewritten and sources provided (Uncle G is at work, though yet to pop up here). Yomanganitalk 10:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per above ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 10:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - sound article about a notable if not particularly interesting subject. BTLizard 12:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep this was a "must have" back in the day. I must still have one somewhere... Guy 13:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep but Wikify. Legis 14:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - notable product. Grutness...wha? 00:36, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Note that Soda Club was as part of the next AFD, merged here and turned into a redirect. If this is deleted, the closing admin here should also delete the redirect. GRBerry 02:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - surprised not to find anything on the device that basically pre-dates it, the soda syphon - hunted under all names I could think of. Ace of Risk 14:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Look. I have a Super Mario Bros. Super Show VHS tape here somewhere. It has an advertisement of these things in the beginning. Damn corny one too. That was in late 1980s/early 1990s. The chances are that if you mention Sodastream to any random Nintendo fan in Finland nowadays, there's a good chance they'll laugh along. =) In other words, yeah, I've heard of them and they're probably pretty notable. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 15:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep A very famous product in the UK, especially in the 1970's and 80's. Article might need a bit of a polish, but not deletion. - X201 15:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. As others have stated, this was an iconic product of the 1970s/80s in the UK. It featured as such in the recent series of decade-by-decade television programmes (the title of which I'm currently blanking on, sorry). Espresso Addict 17:06, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
    • "I love the 70's". Although the Wikipedia entry is just full of the US version. - X201 22:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Yes, that was it. Though Sodastream doesn't seem to have made it to the website, it was definitely included in one of the programmes. Espresso Addict 23:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
        • I suggest that both of you read the encyclopaedia article that you are discussing more closely. ☺ Uncle G 11:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
          • Just explaining your point would be more civil. - X201 12:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
            • That was a perfectly civil suggestion. Uncle G 02:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
          • Ah, yes! I rarely read beyond the references. Espresso Addict 17:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Sodastream as the content was merged. GRBerry 02:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Soda Club

Non-notable product; article reads more like an advertisement Todd(Talk-Contribs) 09:20, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 22:09, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dhanakosa

I've brought this here for discussion instead of a prod nomination. It was nominated by User:Gay Cdn on the reasonable grounds of advertising and non-notability. I'm neutral because I don't know whether there's any notability in the context of Buddhism in the UK (or Scotland). There are no leading articles yet in the related categories like Category:Buddhism in the United Kingdom (and I've already prodded a useless stub on English Buddhists). Is there anything here about a retreat in Scotland that's worth editing or merging?? Mereda 09:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

  • delete a retreat center is way beyond the scope of any encyclopedia, even one that is not paper. I can't imagine there being any reliable non-trivial sources about it beyond the retreat's own writings. Send it over to Wikitravel they probally would be interested in this. Jon513 12:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nothing @ google news Applying, if applicable, the same standard applied to local Christian churches, it is not notable. :) Dlohcierekim 00:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 10:38, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jedi Realists

I suppose I could have just proded this but let's take the safe route. What can I say? Non notable group [12], crufty beyond belief, move to Wookiepedia (if they actually want this), WP is not a soapbox, ... Pascal.Tesson 08:18, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Note: Nomination was made on September 10 but not added to the AFD log, Adding this now to the September 12 log. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Cannot see that this is anything else than a group of Star Wars fans. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete move to wookiepedia if they want. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 10:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep This is good info about people that really belief in this. If anything, it just needs more info.[User Talk:JzG|Guy]] 13:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Comment deleted the above comment posted by an anon who thought he could get away with signing under some other user's name. Sheesh, whatever happened to the subtle art of sockpupettry? Pascal.Tesson 18:34, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete oxymoron. Guy 13:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per JzG. Danny Lilithborne 16:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Pilfering from other religious texts and no additions does not a new religion make. Also has no reliable sources. ColourBurst 19:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per JzG --T-rex 21:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Not a notable phenom, Google :) Dlohcierekim 00:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I hope I will not fall to the dark side by saying Delete. Markovich292 08:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Template:Substunsigned2
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mangojuicetalk 17:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 'Let's talk about love' World Tour

Ignoring for the moment the article is written in glowing praise of Celine Dion and is pretty POV, it's completely uncited, and nothing but 2 paragraphs, one of which is a review of the tour, neither is cited. The rest is just a list. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate list collection. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 09:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

There's more coming, I plan on writing some trivia facts about the tour and a picture. The summary of the show is from me, it's not a press review ; I'm French so you can see it's sometimes clumsy.

  • Comment Yeah but here's the thing: You just admitted the article is original research. Wikipedia cannot accept Original Research. Please see WP:OR WP:V and WP:CITE ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 10:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Swatjester. Danny Lilithborne 16:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Is it still bad ? Should I add extracts from press reviews to make it less of a private research. Please let me know

Verifiable sources are always helpful :) Dlohcierekim 00:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 22:09, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Counter-Strike weapons

unencyclopedic fancruft. Jestix 09:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment - Click here for a related past AfD for an article on Counter-Strike_equipment. - Aksi_great (talk) 12:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or transwiki to a gaming wiki. Wikipedia isn't a game guide.--Wafulz 13:09, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per last AFD. If we keep deleting it, eventually they will get the message. Recury 13:45, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep If we delete it, another of the millions of CS players will create it anew or add the information to the article. Or, if they get frustrated that it keeps getting deleted, more of them will vandalize Wikipedia because it is hostile to them. The information is already available at the CS wiki, so transwiki-ing is unneccessary. --Habap 13:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment "They will persistently vandalize" is not a reason for keeping it. If they recreate it, it will be protected. If they vandalize, they'll be warned and blocked appropriately. --Wafulz 14:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment FYI: I have notified most of the folks who have edited the article of this AfD so that they can comment. I have not asked them to "vote" one way or the other, but simply notified them. I think it was 7 or 8 users (I only notified the ones with usernames and the one IP that edited the most). I have not notified anyone who did not edit the article. --Habap 14:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Why should Wikipedia be hostile to them, when deleting stuff that doesn't fit into the encyclopedic mission? If stuff that is deleted gets recreated they are hostile to wikipedia. Also I read this "arugment" as a threat of (internet) violence and this is IMHO not tolerable, I don't think wikipedia should bow its encyclopedia mission just because some group thinks that it must have to publish stuff here. --Jestix 16:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Oh boy. I am not making threats. I am a Wikipedian. I have noticed that whenever there is no article on equipment, some new CS player who wants to help Wikipedia creates a new article on CS equipment. I am merely hypothesizing that if we shoo them away (WP:BITE), we may make them feel unwelcome. This makes them more likely to be vandals. These are merely my observations and not a threat (please check my contributions and review WP:AGF). --Habap 18:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete gamecruft. Danny Lilithborne 16:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator. Pure gamecruft, just a list without any explanation why this should be in an encyclopedia instead of a Counter-Strike manual. JIP | Talk 18:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep. Nice and a little informative to some players. Failing that, I'd suggest doing a Transwiki to the StrategyWiki or something. --TonicBH 21:20, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - infomational but see WP:NOT --T-rex 21:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The weird thing about the article is that it's a list of real world stats on weapons that are apparently used in counterstrike. Seano1 22:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Ergative rlt 22:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:NOT :) Dlohcierekim 00:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Cruft, just like Counter-Strike equipment was. Hargle 10:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete (Sadly). More reminiscent of an instruction manual than an encyclopedia. Markovich292 08:19, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete, no assertion of notability. Guy 13:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chris Contolini

Disputed prod. Non-notable bio, probably autobio. Verging on nonsense. -- RHaworth 10:03, 12 September 2006(UTC)

Certainly not an autobio. Hardly nonsense. Pure, unadulterated beauty. Concern is acknowledged and understood but unfounded. -- Deciti 12:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - while I agree that it is pure, unadulterated beauty, it fails WP:NFT, WP:V, WP:OR. Once you take out the offending items, you also fail WP:BIO. Normally something like this would be speedied, but fortune has smiled upon the pure, unadulterated beauty. My Alt Account 10:20, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete - CSD A7. I don't see an assertion of notability. Tagged as such. MER-C 10:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete - nonsense, some trolling and probably vanity. A wind-up, in other words. BTLizard 12:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 01:07, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] G4 Global Gambling Guidance Group

Contested prod which does not assert notability of the company subject. MER-C 10:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom.--Peta 13:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. May be a good idea but it really is a set of links Nigel (Talk) 12:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete A worthwhile group whose notability has not been achieved ed. Google hits compare unfavorably with ~1,000,000 for AA or the Lions. :) Dlohcierekim 00:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 01:07, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Xcase

Contested prod about non-notable software MER-C 10:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC).

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

The result was Fucking redirected. The Land 16:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fuck in different languages

You have got to be foking, naaiing, steeking, qiing, tebedaing, neeking, kuneling, ?????ing, ?????????ing, jebatiing, ебаing, oeing, ma aye loeing, nga loe ma thering, hna ma loeing, diuing, diaoing, caoing, ganing, follaring, cardaring, fotreing, iyoting, jebatiing, fukatiing, karatiing, sevitiing, prcatiing, píchating, kneppeing, knaldeing, neukening, fikiing, nikkumaing, nussimaing, keppimaing, kantoting, vittuing, nussiaing, baisering, foutreing, niqueing, putaining, fourrering, fodering, მოტყნვაing, mot'q'nvaing, fickening, gamaoing, gamoing, gamisiing, Γαμάωing, Γαμώing, Γαμήσιing, choding, lezayening, choding, baszniing, ríðaing, futuaring, ngentoting, Feisighing, fottereing, scopareing, trombareing, ciulareing, chiavareing, stantuffareing, yaruing, kay-yiing, Qu'vatlhing, ssi-baling, pisting, futuereing, pistiing, dulkintiing, kruštiing, feckening, Ng'othruoking, ?? ???ing, pukiing, Punning, onioniing, झव,Zaving, chiknuing, knulleing, puleing, گاییدن ga-yee-daning, jebaćing, pierdolićing, kurwaing, fodering, a futeing, ебатьing, ебатьсяing, Dàiriching, јебатиing, jebaťing, drbaťing, cogering, culearing, picharing, tiraring, singaring, tiraring, pisaring, chingaring, cacharing, jodering, knullaing, Okkalaamaing, Denguing, เย็ด yeting, sikmeking, چودناing, đụing, địting, đéoing, שטופּןing, fucking kidding me. Wow, that took a long time to type. Unencyclopaedic listcruft. --Rory096 10:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, original research. – Chacor 10:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Fuck, the "in other languages" on the left should cover this. Good article though. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 10:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment some of the contents of this page could be beneficial to the "in other languages" of Fuck, as it is rather lacking. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 10:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Fucking Delete - the bigger problem here (to me) is that this is a very severe case of WP:OR. What the fuck are the chances that the author knows all these languages well enough to be sure the correct connotation is there? I bet half these terms would just make you look like a fucking idiot if you tried to use them in the same way. My Alt Account 10:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - oh, this is a legitimate nomination. Sorry for tagging this with a speedy. MER-C 10:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, Unencyclopedic and OR thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 10:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Fuck, merge anything that isn't already there if it can be sourced. VegaDark 10:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep This The language thing and everything can be sourced. This is an early stuff done by everybody in Wikipedia, [13], you still can found it it older version of wikipedia article "fuck", this is totally not an original research, so it is not a original research, not offese to Wikipedia:No original research policy.--218.186.8.10 10:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
    Wish I could agree with you, but the info in that link doesn't do anything to support 97% of the material in this article. My Alt Account 11:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
    The link change already--218.186.9.2 11:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
    Uh, that's just a mirror of Wikipedia. WP isn't a reliable source. --Rory096 11:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
    This is an important research, it is everybody's work, you can find this article in year 2005 middle "fuck" article, I really hope it can keep at here. --From the original editor of this editor.--218.186.9.2 11:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete completely unsourced and WP:OR, if sources can be found then the more common languages should be merged and redirected into Fuck. Best AFD nomination statement ever, btw. james(talk) 10:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Fucking delete. At least the Czech words are correct (there are more) but WP is not dictionary. Pavel Vozenilek 11:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete --Peta 13:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or merge with Fuck. Preferrably delete as original research, it looks like it's been taken straight from a book and it's totally unsourced. --Alex (talk here) 13:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:NOT a translation dictionary. Guy 13:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, please en wiki is not your English - (foriegn language) dictionary, violates WP:NOT. --Terence Ong (T | C) 13:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, do not merge or redirect anything. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. We don't have and won't have dog in different languages. Words that tickle kids' sense of humor are not an exception. Weregerbil 14:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable. It might be useful when travelling, but scarcely material for an encyclopedia. Legis 14:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to Wiktionary. Perhaps some of this should be merged into Fuck itself, especially the ones that show widely distributed roots, like the jebat'- shared by most Slavic languages, as well as Sanskrit (yabhati) but I generally tend to agree that Wiktionary should be the go-to place for pure lists of synonyms in different languages. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as this is not WP:V and violates WP:NOT and {apparently} WP:NOR. I suppose anything that does get verified could be merged to Fuck... but only if it gets verifed.--Isotope23 16:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Get the fuck outta here (lol in how many AFD nominations can I say that?).UberCryxic 16:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 or merge I'm not going to merge it, because this was split off from the main Mythbusters article (probably because they don't want all this junk there) and no one has given me any guidance as to how to merge. People, PLEASE. If you want information kept, vote keep; if merging is a good idea, do it afterwards. There's a severe limit to how much merging administrators can do. In this case, I'm just going to leave the article as it is, and note that the consensus is that merging is a good idea. Mangojuicetalk 18:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of injuries, accidents, and mishaps on MythBusters

I've contributed to this list in the past, before it was split from the main article, but this is not really encyclopedic in nature, instead being more of a curiosity for fans. It's more suited to fansite, and is a potential magnet to all kinds of trivial additions. The small list of entries on the main article should suffice. Possible transwiki?--Drat (Talk) 10:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - total fanlistcruft. No opinion from me on transwiki. My Alt Account 10:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOT --Peta 13:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unencyclopaedic. List a few of the more notable ones on the main article, that will cover the encyclopaedic purpose of discussing these injuries. Guy 13:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge It is a good listing of the times the guys have hurt themselves. And it demonstrates the "don't try this at home" part quite well. But it doesn't really need it's own page.--Marhawkman 23:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • If there are any particularly notable ones left here, merge them into MythBusters. Otherwise delete per nom. BryanG(talk) 23:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I like the show, but the article is very dull. They hurt themselves, yes. I know. Gohst 11:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge Not papaer. :) Dlohcierekim 00:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I think it's important enough. I was doing a review of television shows for class, and I found this article most useful. --Adam Wang 00:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep or Merge Great list. Don't see why this needs to be deleted. I-baLL 03:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge Is good info, but doesn't need it's own article --paiste 04:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep or Merge, at least for now until a fansite copies the information. --Flip619 20:23, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
  • MERGE: This is very entertaining. --ÆAUSSIEevilÆ 17:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep or Merge A good read and relevant to the show Darksoulz 18:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Merge Relevant to the show (per Marhawkman "don't try at home"). Certainly doesn't need its own article. Markovich292 08:28, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. The entertainment value of the list is not important or even relevant in an encyclopedia. Something isn't worth keeping simply based on it being funny or entertaining alone, as those are opinions of individuals. Besides that, the very reason this article was created was so that the main article would no longer be dominated by the list. Note!: If anyone does take a copy of the article text for use on a site, please be sure to take the appropriate steps for using text from Wikipedia, as listed here.--Drat (Talk) 10:54, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge: Deleting it completely would be a shame but I agree that it does not need its own article. Some of the more minor incidents could probably be removed in the merge process for the sake of conciseness. --Nebular110 21:45, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable show, and this subarticle of the mythbusters page chronicles a repeated aspect of the show: injuries, accidents and mishaps. Autopilots 04:01, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge the notable instances of injury/mishap to the appropriate places (the main article/the individual season articles). There's no need to list each and every time someone was hurt on the show. —LrdChaos (talk) 03:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep or Merge: I think this could deserve its own article, but if not, then more examples from this article be merged into the show's main article; the main article does not cover this aspect of the show enough imo. --Zidane2k1 09:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge - remove the injuries from falling then merge into main article. 203.109.245.204 09:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep It is relevant to the show but I think it's a tad too large to merge into the main Mythbuster article. 205.157.110.11 07:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Not encyclopedic article. Glome83 12:48, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unencyclopedic listcruft. Prolog 15:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
To the editors voting delete on the reasons of "unencyclopedic", it has been noted by others that a clear concept of the show is the "Don't try this at home" element. They bust the myths for our benefit because they are professionals and can (presumably) do it in a safer manner then your average curious Joe. This list makes clear the danger level involved in the making of this show. So what exactly is "unencyclopedic" about it? 205.157.110.11 07:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 22:10, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Candidates for the 54th United Kingdom Parliament

This page was originally nominated back in March (see here). There was no consensus to delete, but there was an expectation that the article be updated and maintained. In early September it was prodded, without contest, but I'd like to run this through AfD again instead. Note that the only extant section is A-C, and it only goes up through Berwick. Mackensen (talk) 11:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

  • I prodded this earlier this week, and was a delete vote in the first AfD. There are many reasons why I think this article should be deleted. At the very core of this is the fact that this article is redundant. Each and every individual constituency article has the list of candidates nominated, and will have running up to the next election. There are plentiful links to the constituencies - such as Constituencies in the next United Kingdom general election - and each notable candidate will have articles here too. As Mackensen says, this article only goes up to A-C, and has not been updated in any fashion since the last AfD. The article would also be prone to vandalism, could be a magnet for vandals, and would mean the duplication of information across hundreds of existing pages. In the last AfD, the consensus seemed to point to the article needing updated for it to survive - I don't think it has. I would request therefore Delete. doktorb wordsdeeds 11:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete The article must stay hopelessly incomplete - 'Unknown, Unknown, Unknown' etc.. - right up until a few months before the election (in 2009 most likely) as nominations for candidates are not confirmed until such a time. Also the title 'Candidates for the 54th UK Parliament' is pure invention. As far as I am aware no-one refers to a (UK) General Election using such a term. Marcus22 12:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete - wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Completely pointless at any time to have a list of candidates. Even if it could be accurate, it's listcruft that should not be here. - Peripitus (Talk) 12:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Catchpole 12:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - highly useless. Both Marcus22's comments above are correct. It seems to me there may be a case for such an article once the election is called and nominations have closed, but not now. BTLizard
  • Delete we have ample time to cover the next general election, it will be over and done with before the deadline. Why the rush? Guy 13:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Further comment - just a thought on the mention of maintainability above. Such an article would be impossible to maintain until the election is called because until the election is called there can be no nominations and therefore no candidates. You could list sitting MPs and prospective parliamentary candidates but it would be misleading to imply that members of either group will inevitably be candidates when the election comes around. And then there's the question of boundary changes. Are any outstanding, and if they are, does the list reflect that? BTLizard 14:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment You are absolutely right. The list seems to reflect some of the proposed and agreed boundary changes but that does not mean much when it ends at Berwick! doktorb wordsdeeds 14:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete its too projecting too far in the future to have any value for a wikipedia article now. Arbusto 17:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete - frankly daft and full agreement with Peripitus Nigel (Talk) 12:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - for all the reasons above, and for the fact that any "prospective" candidates do not technically become candidates until the Election is called, for technical reasons allied to the accounting of expenditure. - fchd 20:48, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete . Jaranda wat's sup 00:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Roy St. Clair

This is a fourth nomination of a collectable card game player who has been suspended and who has no notability otherwise. The first and second discussions ended up in "no consensus." After a couple people who had been strong "keep" proponents then expressed opinion that they'd changed their minds and decided that St. Clair was not notable, I made a third nomination, which was cut short on account that it was too soon of a reproposal. Now we have threat of a new edit war erupting over an insufficiently notable individual, and the edit warring parties have not added any new indications of his notability. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 11:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep based on same criteria as previous AfDs. Lack of {{attention}} is not a reason for deletion. We don't delete stubs after a specific yet arbitrary period of time. Edit warring can be prevented by {{sprotect}}ing the article. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 12:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Lack of attention is not a reason for deletion, but the lack of notability is. In the past, there has never been any convincing case made of St. Clair's notability, and the keep voters were encouraged to show his notability. This has not happened. --Nlu (talk) 12:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I would question whether Yuh-Gi-Oh players are notable under any circumstances. Where are the multiple non-trivial references from reliable secondary sources? Guy 13:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
    • It's obvious that some pro-CCG players (i.e. Kai Budde) are inherently worthy of articles - I'm not sure exactly where you draw the line, but it is the case that Yu-Gi-Oh was the best selling CCG about for some non-trivial period of time. WilyD 16:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
      • If Budde is worthy, isn't also Mike Long? There are a lot of similarities between Long and St. Clair. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 18:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
        • I would imagine so - I was just going for an example of CCG players who are indisputably notable and Budde was the first to pop into my mind. WilyD 21:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, but... - I checked the old previous AfD's, and it's true nobody ever showed there was much coverage of his placing 5th in the Yu-Gi-Oh World Championship. Nor was there significant coverage (outside, perhaps, of obscure online hobbyist press) of his other achievements apart from that championship. Now, here's where my but comes in. English-speaking media doesn't really cover Yu-Gi-Oh tournaments, but perhaps it's different in Japan. In the unlikely event that his 5th place showing got substantial mainstream press coverage in Japan, I'd change my vote. My Alt Account 13:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
    • If he is notable in the Japanese-speaking world but not in the English-speaking world, wouldn't that make him only an appropriate subject for Japanese Wikipedia? --Nlu (talk) 13:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
      • I don't think so. The bigger issue is that even if the coverage exists, we're unlikely to find it, and if someone does, the rest of us won't be able to evaluate it... My Alt Account 13:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Absolutely not. The english language encyclopaedia is written in english, but we're busting our chops to ensure coverage isn't biased towards english language importance, see WP:BIAS WilyD 14:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - for want of a better fit, I'm going to class him as an athlete per WP:BIO, note he then passes WP:BIO per competed at the highest level in a mainly amateur sport and thus argue for a keep - I'm not too attached to it, but it seemed to best way to assess his "notability", whatever that is. WilyD 14:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep if Street Fighter players are notable, then so are Yu-Gi-Oh players. Danny Lilithborne 16:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, perhaps speedily as yet another renomination. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Those prior nominations did not result in "keep"; they just didn't get a consensus to delete. --Nlu (talk) 05:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Not notable. Nothing at google news. 116 Unique Google hits. :) Dlohcierekim 21:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Show me the notable mentions in any media (Japanese or English) that was not produced by someone involved with the TCG company, and it's a keep. Barring that, it's a delete. Surely, TCG competitions are *not* sports. --Kunzite 00:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete The Street Fighter example is not good at all (I believe THAT should be delete also). Not to mention, just tell me, how many people in this world know him?? Not many. Not to mention, numerous Magic players are more famous then him, yet most of those people don't even get an article, so, why should he gets one??--Ion 02:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete This article is more like "self-advertisment" than a bio for a person Baron 23:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete There is no way that this person is an "athlete", even if he is, best showing of 5th place is hardly encyclopedic. If he had placed fifth in an election, there'd be no contest of the encyclopedic value. At least this article is shorter than that for "Lutheran". Agent 86 00:33, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete, no assertion of notability (speedy A7). Guy 13:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kevin Charles Martin

Seemingly unimportant biographical article Drak 12:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Dubious notability and I am dubious about the modesty claim as well. -- RHaworth 12:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete under CSD A7. This was already placed once but user:Tisconi (who created the article) removed it. I've placed {{drmspeedy}} on his talk page. — Tivedshambo (talk to me/look at me/ignore me) —  12:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 10:51, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ShopTurbo

Spammy contested prod about a non-notable website which may be vanity. Note that the comment below was left by the author of the article. MER-C 12:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

  • How can this be considered a non-notable website if it is only one of the three shopping comparison sites in South Africa:
    1. www.jump.co.za
    2. www.bluesting.co.za
    3. www.shopturbo.co.za —Preceding unsigned comment added by ShopTurbo (talk • contribs)
  • Delete - Sure, it fails WP:WEB - but did you really have to add that "criticsms" section? ;-) My Alt Account 12:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
I didn't do that. In fact, I just removed it. MER-C 12:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - no real content, only a link to the website. Surprise surprise. Advertising. BTLizard 13:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - I have deleted the "External Links" section as per user BTLizard comment, and also added more information to the page. Please feel free to indicate what else I must do to not get this page deleted. I will add more information in the next few days. ShopTurbo 13:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Spam.--Húsönd 17:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as it fails both WP:WEB and WP:CORP. Alexa ranking of just under a million. Google brings up zero third party sources/news articles, returning only online directories and zero sites linking to it. --Wafulz 18:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Spam --T-rex 22:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Spam with possible concern about the objectivity of the creator Nigel (Talk) 12:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete NN per alexa. :) Dlohcierekim 21:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Spam and NN --Bill.matthews 02:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mangojuicetalk 18:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism of the Council on American-Islamic Relations

POV-fork of Council on American-Islamic Relations. Please everybody go back to work at one article. --Pjacobi 12:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - blatant POV fork, one article should be plenty for CAIR My Alt Account 12:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Stong Keep. This article covers a POV but that doesn't make it POV. All the info is cited and well written and there are plenty of other "Criticism" pages that have withstood both AfD and the test of time. NeoFreak 21:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - as NeoFreak states above, if it covers a POV that doesn't make it POV, because there is a response section as well. This should not be merged back together, because according to the NPOV policy most of an article should not be criticism. This was already discussed here where everyone but one person approved of it. BhaiSaab talk 22:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I see no reason why this can't go in the CAIR article. Redundant, unnecessary, just not worth creating a cascade of articles about every single subject that warrants a criticism section. I'm not opposed to the idea in general, but in this case it's just not necessary or helpful IMO. My Alt Account 23:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Because an "article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject." BhaiSaab talk 23:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Re already discussed: No consensus of editors can trump policy. Please give overriding reasons why this should be an exception to Wikipedia:Content forking.
Re undue weight: And if it gets an article of its own, there are no undue weight problems?
Re plenty of other "criticism" pages: Unfortunately yes, but they are all under observation and will be handled eventually
Pjacobi 06:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
If "Criticism of..." pages were inherently POV, then those other pages would not exist. We have articles on individual Pokemon characters; there's no problem with giving this an article of its own. This is not a POV fork and is in accordance with Wikipedia:Summary style. BhaiSaab talk 15:08, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - consensus was to move it off talk page. How is this a POV fork?Bakaman Bakatalk 01:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep -per above. Also, I do not see any POV that can't be fixed. Separate article is necessary because CAIR has been heavily and extensively criticised by academia, free press, govt bodies, moderate muslims etc.Hkelkar 01:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per others. I don't see it as a POV fork. Well-sourced too. Arbusto 00:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete; this article's material can (and just has) been merged back to the main article (from which it was removed, I think to make it less obvious.) Sdedeo (tips) 03:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC) keep, now seems to be a consensus among CAIR editors that this material needs to be "broken out". Sdedeo (tips) 20:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Arbusto and others. As it sits, I think the current CAIR article has major POV issues with over abundance of criticism. Merging this will article will only tilt that POV imbalance further. The main CAIR article should be re-focused on just the basic descriptions and history of CAIR with this article serving as a complimentary content fork. 205.157.110.11 07:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep, Dlohcierekim has found evidence of meeting WP:BAND. Mangojuicetalk 18:10, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blahzay Blahzay

This musical group fails WP:BAND. The speedy and prod tags were removed. Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 12:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Not a speedy because the discography section asserts notability. MER-C 12:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep if Album Blah Blah Blah charted 22 on billboard according to allmusic. and 600 Googlehits for "Blahzay Blahzay" review signify. :) Dlohcierekim 19:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - not sure about this one. According to WP:AFDP and WP:BAND, "Bands ... are notable if they have released two albums on a notable label (e.g. not self-released)". My question, as person who has never delved into music labels much at all (I just like listening) is "does this band fufill this requirement regarding notable labels?". If someone could interpret the article/extra sources and give me a determination of this, I'd be happy to cast my opinion one way or another. I've watched this page so that, if someone answers the above, I can alter my opinion one way or another. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 05:22, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 22:10, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Red Hot Chili Peppers BBS

Does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (web)  — Tivedshambo (talk to me/look at me/ignore me) —  12:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete absent credible evidence of notability. A footnote in the chillies' article at best. Guy 12:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - yet another of these small articles containing little bits information that should be somewhere else. Merge into the Chillies' article if you think it's worth it. BTLizard
  • Delete per nom. And no, a forum is not worth mentioning in an article on a band. I'm sure they have a myspace too; that isn't worth mentioning either. Recury 13:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as a non-notable forum. It looks like it's an official forum owned by the RHCP themselves, but that still doesn't make it notable. There are hundreds of bands, film studios, etc., having official fan forums. JIP | Talk 18:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

spell chilis right u silly billies - kris_bass aka kris aka chilin00bmuncher

+ dont delete

its relevant for people who want to know about the forum but are too scared to ask in the forum itself for fear of gettin flamed. i know i felt like that once—The preceding

unsigned comment was added by 212.242.223.139 (talk • contribs) 22:20, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. "Kris", Wikipedia is not the place to put random information. Please read what Wikipedia is not. You could easily start a website with information on a free web host, like Free Webs or Freeservers. This message board does not meet WP:WEB and therefore is not fit for inclusion. Additionally, please refrain from calling editors names. Srose (talk) 21:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

But Kris right!

  • Delete -- web forum, hard to get notablity like that... --T-rex 22:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


Kris: there i changed it. im no wikipedia expert editor so i guess i shouldnt be voicing my opinions like this. but i just thought i should tell people to lighten up a bit + and to spell chilis right. chillies? one l no e. and call me a nerd/geek/whatever for being picky about that, but it is truly a silly mistake to make. that said, if i had to agree, i would agree with JIP. good point, and well made

Chelsea: Exactly right! I thought everyone knew it was spelt "chili". Guess I was mistaken. As for the page, it shouldn't be deleted because of what Kris has already said, and it is a very big message board and it is notable for a wikipedia page.

^ Delete :) Dlohcierekim 00:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't Delete — Chelsea7 Chelsea7 09:07, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 nonsense. Guy 12:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yesh

WP:NEO. At best, belongs on List of Internet slang phrases.

WP:NPOV ("the new cool way") and appeals for help getting the word to catch on...--Onorem 12:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (between merge and keep). Since in either case there's no need for deletion, anyone wanting a merge can handle it through {{mergeto}}. Mangojuicetalk 05:06, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Carlton Players, Birkenhead

Not notable little theater group. :) Dlohcierekim 12:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep - I think there's enough to achieve notability, and it has the seeds of quite a good article. The trouble is that it's so blindingly badly written that it's almost unreadable. BTLizard 13:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge into Birkenhead. I don't see enough verifiable material to stand on its own. William Pietri 00:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge --Peta 06:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. They have their own theatre. I think that's notable enough. -- Necrothesp 00:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mangojuicetalk 18:19, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] All Headline News

Previously deleted by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/All Headline News, this is a somewhat different article although with a couple of sentences which look hauntingly familiar (probably the result of both this and the deleted article being largely the work of single purpose account Eventus (talk · contribs), another person who likes blkanking his Talk page. This article was created by Newsjunky (talk · contribs), that account's sole contribution. I would just nuke it but it is not formally a speedy-repost (rather less spammy this time round) and there was some evidence that at least one historied editor thought there might be the germ of an encyclopaedic topic here. Guy 12:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - fails WP:CORP. And, they're being obnoxious. My Alt Account 13:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Unless this is suddenly notable. :) Dlohcierekim 20:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - Give the article a chance to mature and prove iteself.... This news agency is just as important as any listed on Category:News agencies or Category:News agency and does fit WP:CORP as it's listed and referenced by several news industry watchdog groups (Sourcewatch among others) It's also has been referenced as a prominent news agency in other Wikipedia articles. :) NewsJunky
  • Weak keep but cleanup. Is this the same All Headline News that used to have a TV news operation? If so, it might meet notability just as a bit of history. --Aaron 00:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Comment The issue is not so much the state of the arivle as the subject's lack of notability. Perhaps it is not so prominent as it would like. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 02:55, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Even their press page doesn't persuade me they've crossed the WP:CORP hurdle. Good luck to them getting there, but I don't see it yet. William Pietri 00:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Not notable, advertising. Andjam 11:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - notable. --Irishpunktom\talk 16:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - Needs expansion and cleanup though, is notable(weak) Eventus 17:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
    • This user has only made edits relating to All Headline News. Andjam 00:29, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
      • And to several other categories and articles relating to news. Eventus 15:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - It is as notable as many others that I have seen in the category.. Don't delete it, build on it 70.222.114.176 18:43, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Only edit by 70.222.114.176 Andjam 00:29, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 22:12, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sentulian

Neologism. Never heard of it and Google results aren't so convincing [14]. At the very least, merge with Sentul, Malaysia. Delete __earth (Talk) 12:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - per nom, please do the rest in one afd My Alt Account 14:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom.UberCryxic 16:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. And a Largoan is one who lives in Largo, FLorida. (Yes, real local usage.) :) Dlohcierekim 20:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Ezeu 19:42, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Services Science, Management, and Engineering

The last AFD was called a keep despite there being a concensus to delete. The aritlce is about a business neologism (the extent of use has not been demonstrated) and is in part an advertisment for a masters program of the same name at UC Berkely. Delete --Peta 13:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - looks like management voodoo to me, although the article doesn't have anything that says what it actually is. I would have thought that was the prime purpose of an encyclopaedia. BTLizard 13:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete - a tissue of vague abstractions, essentially devoid of meaning: complete bollocks. I don't care if it's taught at Berkeley, or can be referenced: it remains sesquipedalian obscurantism seeking to vest managerial platitudes with the appearance of rigour or grandeur by an inappropriate level of abstraction. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • (Moved from the Deletion Review. Please in the future take contested "keep" closures to WP:DRV and don't just start new AfD's). | Delete (Ch to Merge, see below) First, it's UC Berkeley, not UC Berkely or U.C. Berkeley. Second, Berkeley has scores of those programs, they're usually a way to tap new sources of sponsorship money and to semi-formally organize faculty with similar research interests. In this case it's a program that awards a certificate (for taking two classes), pretty much the lowest level of formal acknowledgement the campus offers. Third, it's been around since 2005. Fourth, this reminds me to continue writing on my proposal for scientific terms to avoid such redundancy loops in the future. ~ trialsanderrors 17:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - A neologism coined by IBM and/or UC Berkeley isn't automatically notable, especially when it's a new management buzzword. Geoffrey Spear 18:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete the bollocks :) Dlohcierekim 20:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete The article does not show how this phrase is not simply selling old wine in new bottles (i.e. standard management consulting lines of thinking about services dressed up in new jargon). The Berkeley connection is insufficient - adopting the exact same name as an IBM research/university collaboration initiative[15] suggests a sponsorship or other collaborative relationship with IBM. A phrase promoted by notable institutions is not automatically notable enough for an article, especially when there is indication that the phrase is a protologism/buzzword. A shoutout to User:Trialsanderrors to alerting me to the afd listing of this article (my original comment was on the DRV discussion) Bwithh 23:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NEO and the colorful arguments above. William Pietri 00:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, Move I'm afraid I don't have time to do much new research (wife had baby on Friday!), but my argument in the previous AFD was keep, rewrite, and move to Services science. If you read both of the web links from the article, they both say clearly that the supposed new discipline is called "services science". "Services Science, Management, and Engineering" is just the name of the IBM initiative and the UCB program (probably due to IBM fronting some of the cash, I suspect). And services science gets an awful lot of Google hits - about 152,000. (See, for instance this International Herald Tribune article.) It may be a management buzzword, but it looks like it has gotten a fair amount of press. Brianyoumans 06:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I'd say 90% of those simply have nothing to do with SSME, but some of them qualify as secondary sources. Still, with comments like this: "Services is a drastically understudied field", I'm not sure if it's enough to cover it separately from Service. But I'm changing my vote to Merge to Service. ~ trialsanderrors 00:55, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per above. Catchpole 15:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 22:12, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ThePILLARS Publication

Contested prod, possible vanity, non-notable university magazine. MER-C 13:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - possibly the magazine should be mentioned in the University's own article, but without the dreary list of editors, editorial assistants and editorial lavatory cleaners. BTLizard 13:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Non-notable --Bill.matthews 15:20, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn and vanity Akradecki 18:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:NOT a place to list every college publication. :) Dlohcierekim 20:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete basically all the above Nigel (Talk) 12:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G1. Luigi30 (Taλk) 16:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Francis Cooney

It is evident the article is fictional. Enrique Vargas 13:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - fiction. Could have been so much funnier, too. BTLizard 13:45, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Already tagged for speedy deletion per G1. --Nishkid64 14:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - tell author to try again, read PNSG Party for ideas on how to do better. My Alt Account 14:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 22:12, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cherasian

Neologism. Never heard of it and Google isn't so convincing. [16] Most results are from personal blogs. Delete __earth (Talk) 13:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:NEO. --Nishkid64 14:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above, would have been nice if they were all in one afd My Alt Account 14:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above.UberCryxic 16:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. WP:NOT a list of every word for an inhabitant of a particular town. :) Dlohcierekim 21:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Ezeu 18:50, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kuala Lumpurian

Neologism. Some are even original research. See Google search for result[17] . See also Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sentulian, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cherasian. Delete. At best, redirect to Kuala Lumpur. __earth (Talk) 13:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

  • I'd recommend also deleting KLites --Wafulz 20:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Kuala Lumpur. --Nishkid64 14:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Huh? My first thought was troll/hoax walled garden, but looking through the editor's edit history, I guess there's probably an innocent explanation for all this. Hopefully we'll get to hear what it is. My Alt Account 14:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Inspired from Londoner Why inhabitants in London can create Londoner "A Londoner is someone who inhabits or originates from London. ", why inhabitants in Kuala Lumpur cannot create a Kuala Lumpurian? If you delete Kuala Lumpurian, then Wikipedia should also delete Londoner, Parisian, New Yorker, etc. L joo 15:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Londoner distinguishes between two cities on two different continents, talks about things such as newspapers that are called The Londoner, and explains that the concepts of "Londoner" and "Person from London" are not necessarily identical. Can the same be said of "Kuala Lumpurian"? Or is the concept of a Kuala Lumpurian not at all divorcable from Kuala Lumpur?

      Your fallacious "If article X then article Y." argument falls over for New Yorker and Parisian for the simple reasons that the former is a disambiguation article and the latter is about a chain of department stores, and not about people from Paris at all. Uncle G 18:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

    • Also don't remove AfD notices because you want to hear arguments. The whole purpose of the notice is to have a discussion. --Wafulz 18:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

"The whole purpose of the notice is to have a discussion" or "Articles for deletion" (Discuss & Delete are different). Hi Wafulz, I'm still new to Wikipedia, are you a Wiki-administrator? Why call it "Articles for deletion" and then "The whole purpose of the notice is to have a discussion." If the whole purpose is to have a discussion, then it should be called "Articles for discussion" ? L joo 20:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I got the idea from from Londoner, very simple. I believe I can create a page called Kuala Lumpurian. May I know why must delete? If anyone think the content is weak, feel free to add, why must delete? L joo 19:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Uncle G provides a pretty strong argument that deals with "Londoner" specifically- maybe you could address that? --Wafulz 20:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok fine, forget about Londoner, Parisian, New Yorker, etc, may I create page Kuala Lumpurian? L joo 20:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

  • No you can't. You haven't actually said anything about why this article should be kept. It's just a word for someone from Kuala Lumpur, and nothing more- the rest of it is just history of Kuala Lumpur, which is covered in Kuala Lumpur itself. --Wafulz 20:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

You haven't actually said anything about why this article should be kept. Kuala Lumpurian is a name for "inhabitants of Kuala Lumpur" or "peoples living in Kuala Lumpr". Just to have a name. L joo 20:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete please as per the others WP:NOT (Ich bin einer Largoan.) :) Dlohcierekim 21:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

A name for "inhabitants of Kuala Lumpur" Btw, if Kuala Lumpurian or Lumpurian is not the best name, feel free to give a better name for "inhabitants of Kuala Lumpur", anyone? L joo 21:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Does this term even exist? Or are you just making it up for the sake of having a name. If you've made it up, then it should be deleted as original research. If the term is a real term for those living in Kuala Lumpur, then redirect to Kuala Lumpur, just like every other "An x is a person from y" article. For examples, see:
  • Except
I'm saying this based on Wikipedia not being a dictionary or random collection of information, which is an official policy. --Wafulz 22:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Comment Existence is not sufficient to merit a Wikipedia article. The term, like Largoan, is not in sufficient use to merit a Wikiepdia article. You could make up as many words as you liked as a word meaning someone from a particular town. Wikipeida is not an indsecriminate collection of words made up. :) Dlohcierekim 03:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Londoner: A Londoner is someone who inhabits or originates from London. Although the term Londoner is generally accepted as covering all people from Greater London, it is sometimes used to mean more narrowly a 'Cockney', and tradition has it that true Cockneys are only those who are born within the sound of Bow Bells (i.e., the peal of the church bells of the parish church at St Mary-le-Bow, Cheapside, London). Londoners come from a broad range of geographic and ethnic backgrounds. They speak with a wide variety of accents including Cockney, Received Pronunciation and Estuary English. Londoners often have a very distinctive accent, quite distinct from the rest of England.

I'm still confuse, why Londoner is ok, why Kuala Lumpurian is not ok? L joo 02:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Notability. :) Dlohcierekim 03:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, that, and the fact that people actually use the term "Londoner." My Alt Account 03:13, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

So, Londoner is the only notability in the world, the rest are not. Is this a good reason to delete? L joo 04:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Is it really called Kuala Lumpurian? Why not Kuala Lumpuran? Or Kuala Lumpurese? Or KLites? Why Kuala Lumpurian? Personally, I've never heard the word Kuala Lumpurian. Much less on Sentulian, Gombakian, etc. __earth (Talk) 04:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

It can be "Lumpurese", "Lumpuran", "Kualas", "Lumpurian", "Orang KL", "KLites", etc, etc. L joo 05:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete unless there's evidence that "Kuala Lumpurian" is used by more than a few bloggers. Its use isn't established, for example in any journalism among the Google hits (for a comparison, see Mumbaikar), so I don't see that there's a worthwhile starting point for either an article or a redirect at the moment. Mereda 09:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

(for a comparison, see Mumbaikar) Mumbai population is roughly 20 or maybe 30 times more than Kuala Lumpur, surely you win on Google hits. Btw, a total 132,000 hits in Google for Mumbaikar, this number represents less than 0.01 per cent of the total Mumbai population. L joo 11:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

The problem is not so much for the size of the population. The problem is, is "Kuala Lumpurian" a real word? Hence, the neologism reasoning. __earth (Talk) 12:13, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

So far, we have 306 Google hits for Kuala Lumpurian. Some bloggers used it, but it is only a beginning, developing. L joo 12:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Not really. There's only 69 entries as shown in the nomination [18]. A good number comes from Wikipedia and its mirrors. The rest from blogs. Furthermore judging for your contribution (Sentulian, Gombakian, Cherasian etc), it's highly likely its a neologism. __earth (Talk) 13:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

My Google showed 257 hits. Anyway, English is not the only language in Malaysia, naming is too difficult. "Orang KL" showed 558 hits. L joo 14:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Weak delete The Penangite article has an "Expand" tag on it. Why wouldn't this article merit the same treatment? Maybe Penangite needs to be nominated for AfD also. As for "neologism", except for a few widely known Anglicisms, it's always hard to figure out what to call people from a particular non-English/American city. I do agree that, unless a significant article could be written, almost anything that you could say about "Kuala Lumpurians" could be inserted into the Kuala Lumpur article. --Richard 08:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Conclusion

So? L joo 05:22, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I guess you want to know what the conclusion of the AfD debate is. The official answer is:The debate has not been closed (concluded) yet. The unofficial answer is: The article will probably be deleted in a few days.
First off, regarding your point about "the purpose of AfD is discussion", the point is we are not just voting. Instead, we are discussing whether or not to delete this article. So far the discussion is leaning overwhelmingly in favor of deletion. Some AfD's are close calls. This one doesn't seem to be one of those.
AFD nominations stay open for 5 days unless an early close is indicated. This nomination was started on 12 September and therefore would normally stay open until 17 September. However, discussion so far is pointing towards an early close. There are no "Keep" votes and even if you (L joo) voted "Keep", the consensus is running overwhelmingly against you.
If you could show at least a handful of English sources that used the word "Kuala Lumpurian" or a variant thereof, you could defeat the charge of "neologism". However, you would still have the Wikipedia is not a dictionary argument to deal with. To be encyclopedic, the article would have to describe how Kuala Lumpurians are different from residents of other Malaysian cities (such as Penangites) or how they are perceived to be different. All this would have to be sourced to reliable sources, of course.
If this article is deleted, don't lose heart. You can re-create it provided that the new article addresses the issues discussed here. If it doesn't, it is likely to be re-nominated for AfD again.
Please don't take any of this personally. We are only interested in maintaining and improving the quality of Wikipedia articles. We would be glad to re-consider an expanded, improved and sourced article if you write one.

--Richard 08:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Very very helpful statement, thank you very much Richard. L joo 09:50, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 22:14, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gorkens

Gorkens is a character from a non-notable on-line magazine - http://orcmagazine.com which gets a Alexa rank of around 195,000 [19].

Related page Ridgelings also nominated. I@n 13:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete both -- I@n 14:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete both per nom. Danny Lilithborne 16:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete both :) Dlohcierekim 21:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment to closer: Note that there are a number of incoming links to these two articles. -- I@n 00:17, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 User:DVD R W under CSD G3. BryanG(talk) 23:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Animals Park

Hoax? Google search for "Animals Kingdom" Juaniko finds ONE entry: the Wikipedia page Animals Park. An obvious skit copy of Prehistoric_Park. See near the end of Talk:Prehistoric_Park#Specific_names. Anthony Appleyard 14:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as hoax, especially given that the user's only other contribution was to the obviously fake First water birds (which I've marked for speedying as nonsense). --Wafulz 18:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as vandalism per information presented by Wafulz above.--Andeh 19:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Whispering(talk/c) 21:21, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Palmwood

NPOV,verifiability This article contains no references at all. It brings all-good-news as a commercial brochure would. Most (>95%) of this article has been written in a single edit by a single contributor. I'm proposing to delete this article on the grounds of Verifiability and Neutral Point of View. --Philippe 14:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Weak delete. I'd like to point out violating neutrality isn't grounds for deletion- on the other hand, this article doesn't have any reliable sources to verify it. A Google search brings up no relevant third party publications and Lexis Nexis just brings up a bunch of stuff about the Blackberry. A search of "cocowood" brought up one story but nothing else. If other sources can be found, I will change my decision.--Wafulz 22:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Changing vote to Keep with cleanup --Wafulz 16:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep and clean up. I agree with Wafulz completely on the grounds by which we should judge this. Searching around, people definitely make products out of coconut palm wood, so having some sort of entry is reasonable. However, the article should be pruned back to what we can verify, even if that's a stub for now. William Pietri 00:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, but with major cleanup and re-write, and possibly re-name 'palm wood'. Palm wood - from many different species of palms, not just Coconut Palm - is an important commodity in tropical / subtropical regions (e.g. I've seen Date Palm Phoenix dactylifera wood extensively used as a structural timber in southern Morocco) - MPF 08:08, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I can live with a major cleanup i.e. removing almost the entire body of the article instead of deleting. This seems to be the consensus of this discussion. I will start cleaning up shortly, thus eliminating the need for deletion. --Philippe 11:01, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 22:15, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pink Floyd: The Movie

Hoax

This article is completely made up. Tracing the references back, the first reference is a link to a non-existant article from Variety. IMDB does not have this movie listed and the only references to it on the internet are Wikipedia, forums, and blogs. Kevin143 14:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as a rumour (WP:NOT a crystal ball). The rumour must have originated from somewhere, and may be true, but it isn't for Wikipedia until it has been confirmed. --Alex (talk here) 15:09, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete hoaxalicious. Danny Lilithborne 17:00, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:NOT :) Dlohcierekim 21:09, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and alex9891. --Quiddity 04:41, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as hoax (I tried tracing it back when I first saw this on the Cameron Crowe page and came up with nothing) Jfiling 16:34, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete with the possibility of recreation upon confirmation of the rumour (I tried tracing it back when I was rewriting the article and came back with little but chatter about a few forum posts). -- Sasuke Sarutobi 23:34, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 The JPStalk to me 22:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bishop dolarhyde

Nonnotable local TV host, and most of the article seems to be dubious. NawlinWiki 14:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, unsourced, unverified. Akradecki 16:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Lincolnite 18:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Tagged for speedy delete. It is either pure vandalism or an attack page. It is inherently a candidate for Unencyclopedia at best. :) Dlohcierekim 21:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 22:15, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nlpturkiye.com

Doesn't establish notability, doesn't even register on Alexa. I think the impressive list of interwiki links is fake (the German one, at least, is incorrect). --ais523 14:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 22:15, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Det fris bryghus

non-notable amateur brewery. Fails WP:CORP, only claims to notability in article are participation in a local competition and recieving technical support from the 37th best brewery (as voted on a website) in the world. Geoffrey Spear 14:45, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Akradecki 16:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Lincolnite 18:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete is not something brewed in school one day. :) Dlohcierekim 21:20, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 22:17, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chicken Box

This article is the combination of two non-notable topics. One is a local bar that doesn't meet WP:CORP and the other is about a box of chicken wings. Neither are encyclopedic. Delete. Deli nk 14:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom.--Húsönd 17:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Lincolnite 18:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • disambiguate and expand - also the name of a Guttermouth song. PT (s-s-s-s) 18:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. :) Dlohcierekim 21:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable, unencyclopedic, badly written in other aspects, and somewhat incoherent, due to the treatment of two radically different topics in one article. Djcartwright 00:06, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete without prejudice. A messy article isn't cause for deletion. I do find enough material on the web to verify that the bar exists, but not enough to make an article out of. William Pietri 00:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as nomination was withdrawn and there were no delete votes Yomanganitalk 14:24, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Power_violence

Poorly written article, not in the style of an encyclopedia Guest Account 15:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment - poor writing is not a reason for deletion. Yomanganitalk 15:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
    • It is. The german Wikipedia has some articles nominated for deletion because of that reason. Why would the english/american one have to be different? Guest Account 14:13, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • ... and nominating an article for deletion is not the way to fix vandalism. Uncle G 16:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Could use some cleanup and sourcing, but does document a particular musical style (with tongue being bitten to avoid inserting my own POV about said style....). Akradecki 16:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Bad faith nomination. If this were a real editor and not a vandal, I'd point them to WP:OSTRICH. PT (s-s-s-s) 18:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Can we speedy keep? :) Dlohcierekim 21:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Ok, someone replaced the article with the correct one. Can I just delete the header about the deletion discussion or do I have to do other steps as well? Guest Account 14:13, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 22:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Connection addiction

Apparently non notable concept, 941 google hits, not all related. Prod removed without comment. --Rory096 15:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - first formally identified in September 2006, which means sometime in the last dozen days. Simply too new to be notable, and smells like original research too. —Scott5114↗ 15:09, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Identified "by sociologist Carl Smegegi" (a surname that doesn't seem to actually exist anywhere), article created by User:Smegegi. Looks a lot like WP:NFT. Certainly fails WP:OR, WP:V. -- Fan-1967 15:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Lincolnite 18:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. :) Dlohcierekim 21:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. My Alt Account 22:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Do Not Delete Article has been edited to remove subjectivity and the article is well formed on the credible theory. --Smegegi 08:23, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 01:11, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RackStar

Non-Notable product, article created by product manufacturer. SPAM? Bill.matthews 15:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 01:11, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] W. Shane Thomson

Non-notable Canadian businessman YUL89YYZ 15:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Ezeu 18:43, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jigawa ethanol programme

This page is an advertisiment, a campaign speech, an unencyclopedic entry. Speaks of unproven benefits contrary to wikipedia not being a crystal ball as well. Indrian 15:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom --Bill.matthews 15:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete in its present form. It should be noted that this text had been proposed as an Article for Creation and was declined. It was then created despite this declining. The subject itself may be deserving of an article, but it needs to be written from scratch and properly sourced. Thus, I propose if deleted here, it be without prejudice, in case someone decides to write a proper article. Akradecki 16:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - this is a press release, not an encyclopedia article. Once the program has begun, then perhaps there'll be something to say about it. As it stands, though, it doesn't sound like anything more than a blue-sky proposal. Zetawoof(ζ) 16:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, AFD is not cleanup. Kappa 16:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletions. -- Kappa 16:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Once the program is actually implemented, it might ecome notable. Not much at google. This just looks like promotional material to build support for the thing. WP is not a soapbox :) Dlohcierekim 21:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
    • "PRESIDENT Olusegun Obasanjo Tuesday flagged off the ethanol project "... "Already Jigawa State government has provided a 10,000 hectres for the planting of industrial sugar cane spread across the wet land areas of 10 local governments in the state" Kappa 23:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and clean up. I found one article on it to compliment the one in our article. There seems to be enough that we can verify from reliable sources, especially taking WP:CSB into account. William Pietri 00:24, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, I do agree that as it stands now the material is not written for wikipedia however it contains information which could be used to improve a future article. I also agree that the point about WP:CSB is a valid reason for having an article on the topic. AndrewBuck 20:50, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep content but preferrably not the present way: this belongs in an article that either shows current politics, economics, etc with ongoing changes in Nigeria, or a historical overview (or detail) on major Nigerian projects, or an overview of African agriculture/oil/..., or a worldwide view on gaining oil from agricultural products. Do not expect quick reactions and improvements for articles from non-English-speaking and/or developing countries as one may expect from the US or Great-Britain (WP:CSB) - an article like this has a signal function. At the appropriate moment, the content should be available and easily found by search operations, thus definitely do not destroy it. Meanwhile, the boxes at top of the article can sufficiently warn readers of the shortcomings. — SomeHuman 20 Sep 2006 18:34 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 01:11, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shadow Kune Do

20-year-old martial artist, claims to have invented new martial art, but unsourced and nonnotable. NawlinWiki 15:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 01:11, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cato alfons

Non-notable painter, fails WP:BIO. Google shows three hits, two of which seem to be about a class reunion; Wikipedia is the third. No reliable sources given or likely to be found. Was contested prod. Delete --Huon 15:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was redirected to corporate parent during discussion. GRBerry 02:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Riverbelle

gaming website that does not assert notability, does not meet WP:CORP nor WP:WEB and does not list independent sources per WP:V. Been prodded a couple of times, and prods are removed without discussion or article improvement. Akradecki 15:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC) Nom withdrawn now that it has been redirected. Akradecki 01:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Lincolnite 17:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Really no way we can verify this. Also, the website has an Alexa traffic ranking of 18,565. --Nishkid64 19:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I screwed up. All articles similar to this are treated the same way, redirected to the corporate parent than owns multiple such entities. I just redirected it to Carmen Media before noticing the tag was afd rather than prod. In any case I suppose that means my input is redirect, however that redirect should have already been in place. 2005 20:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 22:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stine Høiby

Probably hoax. No reliable sources are given. uboat.net not only fails to mention the capture of U-74 in Norway, but instead claims it was being transferred to the mediterranean at that time. Searching Google for any combination of Stine Høiby and U-74 I could think of produced no relevant results. Delete as unverifiable. Huon 16:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete if sources cannot be produced. Please note, that if deleted, List of Norwgians should be edited to remove her from there. Akradecki 16:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Akradecki. Danny Lilithborne 17:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete.Lincolnite 17:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:V. --Nishkid64 19:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. I suppose there's some remote chance this is true, but I have to discount that chance in light of the page author's habit of writing questionable bios, and tagging his major edits as minor. My Alt Account 23:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 hoax. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 05:41, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Everett L Storey

Alleged inventor of a "super energized mineral concentrate". I have rescued this from speedy deletion because "Everett L Storey" scores several relevant Google hits. This may be worth recording as a mildly notable real-world hoax or charlatan product. -- RHaworth 16:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete The google hits all reek of press release. Delete as spam. Dipics 16:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete in its present form. Storey himself might be a good subject for an article focusing on his atomic era research, but if this cellfood was real and verifiable, it'd be to radiation poisoning what penicilin was to infections: widely recognized and used. Akradecki 16:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete fails WP:V for starters (I have more ...) WilyD 17:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Lincolnite 17:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as a minor (and ultimately nn) pseudoscientific hoax. "Freedom Deuterium act" gets zero Google hits, and "Deuterium Freedom act" only turns up copies of Cellfood press releases. Zetawoof(ζ) 20:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - blatant hoax, and not silly enough to win my praise. My Alt Account 01:07, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete speedily and block from recreation - this is the third time this article has been created. Advertising/hoax/spam - either way it's a waste of time to go through all this. --ArmadilloFromHell 19:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Note: General discussion has been moved to the talk page to keep this uncluttered. Akradecki 02:19, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, good idea! That helped a lot. My Alt Account 02:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 22:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Medeksza

Not sure about CSD on this one. His software seems notable enough (it's been in Wikipedia for a while) but I don't know if he's notable enough.-- Luigi30 (Taλk) 16:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - He hasn't won the prize yet... Akradecki 16:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. If he becomes more notable in the future, by all means bring him back then. Lincolnite 17:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete for now per non-notability. If he does win the prize, then he's notable, and the article should be re-created. --Nishkid64 19:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as failing WP:BIO. Notability neither asserted nor discovered. William Pietri 00:16, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. El_C 10:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Skryped

A word someone just made up. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Was PRODded but tag removed by author without comment so it comes here.➨ ЯEDVERS 16:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Heaven forbid that appearance on WP would give it legitimacy! Akradecki 16:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete.Lincolnite 17:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. per nom.--Saintlink 18:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete with fire. Syrthiss 18:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. WP:WINAD. Only 4 G-Hits as well. --Nishkid64 19:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete. Dicdef, borderline nonsense. Djcartwright 00:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was was redirect to Religion. Whispering(talk/c) 21:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Religious

There was a previous vote on this article, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Religious/2005-08-19. The decision to merge the contents to other articles was reverted because the consensus "wasn't very good" according to the edit summary. So I'd like to have another call to consensus. I propose that this article is nothing more than a collection of dictionary definitions, and the contents should be merged into other articles (if there's anything worth saving). (More than one because there is more than one sense of the word.) The previous proposal was to redirect to religion. If this is not satisfactory, I would propose making this a disambiguation page. -- Beland 16:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Redirect to Religion- reads as a dictdef, and, from the only dictionaries I could find that acknowledge the use of 'religious' as a noun at all, an incorrect one. Geoffrey Spear 18:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect per Geoff. --AlexWCovington (talk) 19:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect. per all above. Wikipeida is not a dictionary. NeoFreak 20:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect. as per nomination. Jgamekeeper 01:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PowerEdge

I prod'ed this, with this text: "Non-notable product line, as they're not inherently innovative. Enumerating all the models in the line might be an interesting article, but even the collection of specifications does not make an encyclopedic article." Another editor removed the prod and made a comment requesiting the topic be kept at Talk:PowerEdge, so that brings us to a formal AfD.

I'm on the delete side, and vary from "why the heck is this here?!" to not thinking the article does any harm -- but I never find myself having a desire to keep this article. It is in poor shape now, but I also don't think that it can be improved to provide an interesting article at all. There's no argument that the line of servers is popular, but they're not innovative and are just repackaged products that someone else invented, designed, and implemented. Anything discussing the business model behind them probably belongs at the Dell Inc. article, and a catalog of the line and its configurations isn't interesting. -- Mikeblas 16:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


  • Keep I don't intend to argue whether the products are inovative, since I don't know enough about their architecture. I also do not dispute that this article needs work. But I would say that the PowerEdge servers are very notable. They have won many numerous industry awards, and google tests return millions of pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bill.matthews (talk • contribs)
  • Keep - not being innovative is not a criterion for deletion. The Dell series of servers has received industry coverage such as this article which took me almost no time at all to find. I'd say it meets WP:CORP as a notable product. -- Whpq 21:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
    • The referenced article is not about PowerEdge servers in general. It's also not completely about a specifc PowerEdge server; it's a press release recap mentioning some announcements from a two or three different companies. While the article has "PowerEdge" in its text, and discsusses one change to one model at one time, it provides zero depth. This specific article doesn't help PowerEdge meet WP:CORP because it is just a press release rehash. I think that articles truly about the line of servers (as this topic in the pedia aims to be), which aren't reviews or PR slpashes, are going be few and far between. -- Mikeblas 21:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - as above. There is evidence that this line of products has enough significance to warrent an entry. Greg Birdsall 21:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Will you be writing up that evidence for the article? -- Mikeblas 03:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. We have NeXTstation, SPARCstation, SunFire, System/360, Programmed Data Processor, Apple II series, ENIAC, and I'm sure countless more. I'm always a little suspicious of articles documenting current commercial products, but this will one day be a notable historical commercial product, and as long as the article isn't spammy, there's no reason to wait. William Pietri 00:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The other prodcucts were the first to do something very interesting; first optical drive, first hardware VM system, and so on. The PowerEdge servers are just servers. -- Mikeblas 03:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. For anyone who needs to see the light at the end of the tunnel, take a look at the Dell Optiplex page. The Optiplex page is not an absolute complete list, but details the vast majority of models that are of any useful relevance today. Think about the time you waste looking through documentation eleswhere when you could find it in an organized fashion, providing instant comparison to all other models. The page needs the content improved, but that is not a justafiable reason to delete it. Individuals in the IT field who actually have a positive attitude and familiarity with Dell business-grade computer equipment should be welcomed to share their expertise and make information easier to understand. Is the reason that we seek encyclopedic content not other than that we are in persuit of knowledge? 23:17, 15 September 2006 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.136.209.141 (talk • contribs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Please defer page move discussion to article talk. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:55, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pear of Anguish

Per a lengthy discussion on Talk:Pear of Anguish, there is no evidence that this device existed in the form described. Wikipedia does not need articles about every sex toy in the world; absent of any evidence of the 'historical uses' of this object, there is no need for an article on it. Please Delete. The Land 16:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Lincolnite 17:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep, there are references, the "lengthy discussion" shows that there is debate about the historical validity of sources that are centuries-old. There is similar debate about whether Christopher Columbus discovered the Americas, but that doesn't mean we AFD his article - it means we deal with the controversies inside the article. As a further note, you may be interested to see that Category:Sex toys indicates we probably do keep articles on sex toys, and there has been zero evidence this is a "sex toy". It's either a centuries-old hoax, or it's legit...it's definitely not a sex toy and it's definitely not unverified. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 18:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Please spell out where the references are. I can't easily see them. I can see a load of modern websites talking about them; I can see a Czech museum exhibiting something that looks like a stopper for a bottle of wine under the name; I can see exactly one purported source for any historic origin of this device anywhere on the web [20] referring to [21]: we are well into the territory of original research here. The Land 20:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, unless the article (which seems like it should be title "choke pear") is entirely re-written to emphasize that this is not a real medieval device, but a modern hoax (If it in fact was, it needs much better references than those BS sites). Even if this occurs, the article must verify that it is a notable hoax.--Cúchullain t/c 21:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - apparent hoax, per nom. My Alt Account 23:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep If it is a hoax the article should be changed to confirm it's a hoax. Seano1 23:09, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
    • It would have to be a notable hoax. Otherwise, WP:NFT applies. My Alt Account 23:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Not that it matters at all, but I have heard of this device, and occasionally used in the context of the Marquis de Sade. I just wish I had some actual sources to back up what I'm going on about. --Wafulz 23:45, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and clean up. Hoax or real, it's apparently a notion of long standing. Merits at least a stub, and more as we get consensus around what it actually is. William Pietri 00:06, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Not verifiable. :) Dlohcierekim 21:19, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and stub per William Pietri. It's at least notable for the controversy over what purpose it served. Kasreyn 01:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep - There are references in torture books. I haven't seen it mentioned in history books; but it DOES show up in books dedicated to torture and execution. I found a book at my local library published in the 80's that included this (this one here), so if this were a hoax - it's been a long one, and STILL HAS NOT been proven to be fake as of yet. And even if it were proven to be a hoax - it would be a notable one to have lasted for so long. Deleting this article just because evidence is lacking is absolutely no reason to come to the conclusion that this device is a hoax, then simply delete it. That in itself, would be original research. The use of the device has been verified by most torture books and museums to be what it is... and while they may be possibly unreliable, we can only for now, just take note of that. Lastly, considering its extent in time, hoax or not - people ARE looking for this article. -- Shadowolf 07:01, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
    Actually that is just recycling the same non-academic tourist museum fluff. It is not a real book but a catalog of the Italian "museum"'s travelling exhibition. By "long" you mean thirty years? Do we have a page on Yetis too? Actually as this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, surely everything that lacks evidence should be deleted? Everything. How would it be original research? You mean there is a value judgement implicit in refusing to accept an article? How? Why? I hate to claim knowledge of torture books but I assure there is no credible printed reference to this. It has not been verified by anyone except this Italian tourist "museum". I have asked for proof for this article for more than a year. I have tried to track down every reference. I have yet to see a shred of proof or even a credible reason to think it existed. Lao Wai 10:55, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
    Actually, sir, we DO Have a page on Yetis (... just as we actually document sex toys as well). They are encyclopedic as commonly documented urban legends and hoaxes (there are others - Lochness monster, Paul is Dead, etc. No, it's not wrong to question the legitamacy of this device, but just because you feel the sources are unreliable does not mean we can/should not cite their claims - a claim can be used to source information, but you just have to let the reader know that it is that - a claim. Let the reader decide for him/her-self the verifiability of the provided sources. In fact, it is totally possible to write a section questioning its verification under this article (in fact - see iron maiden under "Known Usage" for a short stub-type example), but it is no reason to delete it. In fact, if a lot of you think it is a hoax, I'd even encourage to write such a section to create that "awareness". Still, sadly, despite having researched this for so long, it is totally possible that you may NEVER uncover its truth (especially if it is as old as they say it is). That does not mean that it could in no way be real (and it certainly does not mean we should suddenly just give up searching for the undeniable truth!). That also does mean we throw away the POPULAR theories involved with Jack the Ripper's supposed identity (or even the theories of "Possible Other Victims" in Jack the Ripper), who Deepthroat really was before his public revelation ("Other Suspected Candidates"), the theoretical uses of Stonehenge, and so on. In fact, as an encyclopedic site, I'm positive Wikipedia allows for claims and theories as long as they are cited to be such, and reflect popular opinion - simply because there can never be answers for everything. -- Shadowolf 19:14, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep - Numerous citations concerning the Pear of Anguish can be found in reference texts on torture. The device also appears in Ken Russell's film "The Devils," where it is shown being used on an accused witch. This movie was released in 1971, so if the Pear of Anguish is a hoax, it is one that has been perpetuated for over 35 years, and thus notable. --Doctor Dan 02:35, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Which "texts on torture" does it appear in? As someone who has gone over the literature I assure you the opposite is true. There are no credible references to it at all. Anywhere. Who cares if it is in Ken Russell's film? Just because an urban legend survives less than 40 years does not make it credible as far as I can see. Why do you think it is notable if the only reference to it is this film and a bad private-sector museum in Italy (which may be run by a Ken Russell fan for all I know)? Lao Wai 10:55, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
As I mention above, if it's an urban legend, it is one that has survived for over 100 years. As others point out, we have articles on plenty of urban legends, hoaxes, and frauds. It's possible to have a true article on an untrue thing. And often useful as well. Consider the example you raise above: Yeti. William Pietri 22:22, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete Needless to say I do not think that Wikipedia is improved by unsourced, unverifiable, frankly incredible stories with no rational basis whatsoever. Lao Wai 10:55, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
There are PLENTY of Wikipedia entries of "frankly incredible stories with no rational basis whatsoever," e.g. ghosts, demons, Loch Ness Monster, fictional movie characters, etc. Does it really matter whether the device actually existed in Medieval Europe or not for it to have a Wikipedia entry explaining what it is? --Doctor Dan 20:48, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment If this is kept, the closing admin should consider moving it to Choke pear, which seems to be the older name, and produces far more google hits.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, this belongs at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion GRBerry 02:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2006 Israel attack on Gaza

POV title. Only the redirection has to be deleted (not the referenced article) --Gabi S. 16:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

  • strong support no one will be typing in that exact phrase and hitting the go button, so no point. I can see no point in making this redirect but to make one's opinion known to other editors. Dsol 17:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep not an article, take it to redirects for deletion WilyD 17:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep - AFD notice has broken the redirect, not that anybody would type "2006 Israel attack on Gaza" into the address bar. Molerat 20:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 22:20, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Burnout records

Prod removed without discussion. Non-notable record company. They have not actually released any records. Fails WP:CORP and any other notability test I can think of. Dipics 16:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Akradecki 16:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • The company only began trading in 2006, and HAS released a record, and currently has another in the works due to be released before the end of March 2007.Antony.doyle 16:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC) [Note: preceding comment was improperly put on discussion page, I'm copying it to here verbatim for record completeness. Akradecki 16:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)]
  • Comment A record company that has only released one record and only started "trading" this year is, by definition, not notable. Dipics 17:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. This company may yet be notable, but only then will an article be warranted. Erechtheus 18:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete New company that does not meet any of the guidelines of WP:CORP at this time. DrunkenSmurf 18:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suicide_methods

This page should be deleted The suicide methods page has been proposed for deletion 2 times previously, but these attempts have been unsuccessful, for whatever reason. There are a number of very good reasons why this page should be deleted:

Firstly, Wikipedia is not a manual. It is not meant to be used as a resource by people who wish to kill themselves, but it clearly can be. Consider the following which was written on wrist slashing

"Slashing or slitting one's wrists entails cutting through the wrists until one of the arteries is reached. People choosing this method die because of the massive blood loss from the radial artery or the ulnar artery. This method is also frequently used as self-harm, and it is not an immediately lethal method; therefore, not all people who slash their wrists intend suicide (this is then called parasuicide where suicide is either not sought or is not accomplished).

It is generally difficult to die by slashing the wrists since the arteries tend to try to spasm shut in response. Bleeding to death by veins is even harder and rarer. It can take a few hours or even more to finally die from the blood loss, depending on body weight, clotting problems (such as alcohol or aspirin in the blood), etc."

This gives a lot of information to anyone who wishes to end their life in this manner. It tells them some of the problems which prevent a successful suicide, and how to solve them in such a way that will allow death to occur (ie, use aspirin to prevent blood clotting). This is ethically bankrupt, and it is not what wikipedia should be about. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a manual.

Secondly, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. There are some types of information which is already banned from wikipedia, such as information about people who are non notable. This policy is designed merely to prevent self promotion. Surely it is just as admirable for wikipedia to prevent suicide.

Opponents to the deletion of this article may claim that wikipedia shouldn't be censored. But the thing is, wikipedia is not value neutral. Wikipedia is about enforcing a public good, and helping the world through providing access to information which can help people. A suicide manual doesn't help anyone, but it does target vulnerable members of our community. About 1 in 5 people will experience depression at some point in their lifetime. Many people who experience this debilitating illness will consider suicide as a way of alleviating their suffering, even wikipedia users. We owe these people a chance at life by protecting them from information which they may use to kill themselves.

I am aware that it can be argued that the information itself wont kill anyone. That people who wish to kill themselves will do so even if they can't compare methods. But my point is that resources like the suicide methods page will increase their chances of commiting suicide effectively. It is well known that medical practioners have much higher suicide rates than the general population. This is because they are more successful at killing themselves during suicide attempts than people without medical training. Likewise, I believe that this suicide methods page will lead to more successful suicide attempts.

Finally, who wants to read in the newspaper that some depressed teenager killed themselves using wikipedia as a manual. That will happen unless this page is deleted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Katie32 (talk • contribs) 16:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC).

    • Note - this nom is Katie32's first edit at WP. Akradecki 17:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


Maybe a disclaimer would do the trick? something pointing them to the right places that would help them solve the reasons that lead to the death wish in the first place? FreddyE 09:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recomendations

  • Delete. This article may adhere to all the guidelines laid down by Wikipedia, but there are times to ignore all rules. There is no reason to have this page other than assisting a would-be suicide. Assisting suicide is illegal in many countries. — Tivedshambo (talk to me/look at me/ignore me) —  17:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, well written article, may be useful. JIP | Talk 18:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • KeepThis article is helpful, and shouldn't be deleted just because it provides accurate and specific details on how people may end their life. If people really wanted to end their lives the information to do so can be found just as easily from many other sources. And all of this is the opinion of I, a depressed, but not suicidal, teenager. Thank You. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.233.70.103 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete - this is a how-to guide. Much of the text is given over to 'common pitfalls' of suicide methods. --Nydas 19:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per WilyD. --Huon 19:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Akradecki. This is only enyclopedic in the internet age but here we are and the article is a good one. NeoFreak 19:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup. Deglamourises suicide by making it seem gruesome not heroic. As encyclopedic as Torture#Torture_devices_and_methods. Could be worded better though. Molerat 20:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep WP:NOT makes reference to several specific indiscriminate collections of information, and this is not any of those. It is most certainly not an indiscriminate list. It has an obvious and reasonable theme for wikipedia to cover in an encyclopedic way, which it does. What's more, there is certainly no evidence that the sky is falling in terms of wikipedia being used as a resource for depressed teens who want to kill themselves. --Kchase T 20:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, well written article, may be useful. Just needs a few more diagrams ;-). WP:NOT a how to manual - . Even if it doesn't tell you tell you foolproof ways of suicide, this is bad enough. Depressed people on don't need to be pushed. Ohconfucius 02:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and block re-creation. Ignore all rules and common sense apply here. The ideas in this article need not be censored per se; they can be covered in articles about Electrocution, Injury, etc. The problem is not the ideas themselves, but the fact they are brought together in one article. Kla'quot Sound 03:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC) Neutral for now. I suspect that the audience for this article includes some people suffering from clinical depression who may be pushed towards or over the edge by the article. However, I'm still waiting to hear from the experts to decide whether this is just a hunch of mine or whether there is any evidence it would happen. Regarding the morality and NPOV issues expressed in this debate, there is a difference between "imposing anti-suicide morality" and "speaking to depressed people in an ethical way." We need to find a way to do the latter and avoid the former. Kla'quot Sound 22:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as per arguments already expressed above --Clawed 04:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep but tag for some clean up (I agree with the the scant OR). Katie while your intentions maybe good your reasoning is flawed. First off, the reasons those "How to" articles don't exist is precisely because Wikipedia is not a manual and this article isn't a how to but rather an encyclopedic overview of a social phenomenon that is related to the main suicide article. Just as we have articles on rape, plagues, and child molestation because of the encyclopedic merit of their contents so to we have this article. I agree that the article is not perfect but that is why it needs clean up not deletion. A fundamental principle is that "Knowledge is Power" and sometimes you need to throw off the cover of the darker and uglier parts of existance to show it as it is. I would say this article (in a more ideal state) can actually serve an immense benefit in preventing suicides rather then encourage it. In their depressed state with only a shadow of knowledge, an individual can fantasize and visualize an ideal concept of suicide. But when the stark reality of what suicide actually is and what it means hits you, that knowledge can knock a person out of their fantasy concept and maybe the grim reality will cause them to reconsider. An ignorant mind is far more dangerous then an encyclopedia entry. 205.157.110.11 10:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, encyclopedic and sourced article. The nomination is an attempt at censorship and the nominator even created a new account for this purpose. Prolog 10:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete - IAR was made for articles like this, so that the encyclopedia does not become embroiled in a criminal and horrible quaqmire. I agree with Kla'quot. Bringing together such information is dangerous. Common sense should prevail. Sure Wikipedia is not censored, but this only goes up to a point. The true nature of this article is plain to see: it's morally wrong. Ultimately, we as editors should never condone such an article, the first step on a slippery slope that could well lead readers into dangerous territory and unspeakable harms. However small chance of that happening, we must respond to this chance. Otherwise, We, in the end, would be culpable. Jpe|ob 11:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • DELETE THIS ARTICLE...as a therapist who knows of people who have committed suicide using their college textbook as a handbook, the odds of this website being used as a guide are very high. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 199.89.251.1 (talk • contribs) .
  • Extremely Strong Delete - For every reason listed above. I just find it immoral that theres a page dedicated to informing readers on how to kill oneself. There's absolutely no reason for this to be allowed. ETod09 18:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. Maybe the style could use work, but I don't see any reason to delete this. This is not inherently a how-to guide, and it is not that detailed anyway.Voice-of-All 21:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • El keepo - No valid reason for deletion given. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of all knowledge. --Cyde Weys 22:07, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. Topic is encyclopedic. I can sympathize with the nom, but since when did "needs work" equate to "should be deleted"? Luna Santin 22:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Let's not let our differing ideologies get in the way of what this article is: informative, thorough, well researched and encyclopedic. Let's leave our moral outrage out of Wikipedia. To the editor who submitted this for deletion, please consider rereading Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Throw 00:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as per WP:NOT. "Wikipedia is about enforcing a public good." - no, it's not, it's about freely providing quality information to those seeking it (which may or may not be considered "public good", as this AfD clearly shows). -- int19h 07:59, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Seems to be a sensible scheme for splitting out detail from suicide. Information is not "morally wrong". — Matt Crypto 10:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - Any argument that suicide is good or bad, wrong or right, is strictly a matter of an individual's personal opinions and beliefs. It should be noted that suicide has been regarded as both abhorrant and supremely honorable. Therefore we are left with technical nuetrality. It should not be deleted for the remaining grisliness alone, as that would be tantamount to simple censorship. Furthermore, anyone looking to seriously kill themselves should be given out of a sort of humanitarian aid the most complete resouces to do it as cleanly and easily as possible. If they are intent on ending their life, it can't be very good in their esteem, and out of mercy they deserve a good death. Then again, this is just my personal opinion. Even more pointedly, it could be argued that reading all the heretofor unknown unpleasant details of the reader's self-proposed end of one's life may even DISCOURAGE suicide, and therefore SAVE lives. For example, someone intending to jump out of a six story window may come across this article and find that there is a ten percent chance of living from this. Discovering that it isn't instant 100% guaranteed death as portratyed in movies, they may start to consider life after such an event to their persons and their opinion may be -slightly- swayed in the direction of just toughing life out. And lastly, in my own personal experience, I will honestly admit I came to this article considering ways of ending my own life, and after perusing it, am now just thinking of going out and getting really drunk as an alternative. The article itself in summary is "living" (yeah, i'm funny) factual proof that transitioning from life to death is not as easy as a painless flick of a switch, and that there is indeed, no easy way out.11:58, 15 September 2006 69.149.178.129
  • Keep for now, but bring back in a month if it has not been cleaned up, referenced and purged of original research and creative writing. Guy 12:17, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Wikipedia is about providing information, not arbitrary morality policing. Delete this article and you're on the slippery slope to deleting many more.4hodmt 13:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep Wikipedia is not censored, and may contain triggering information. See the general disclaimer. However this has to be a weak keep, as their is a lack of counterpoints to the methods presented, and of clear references. LinaMishima 14:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. WP not censored, but obviously this page needs to be on peoples' watch lists to ensure that it doesn't get out of hand. I can honestly say that no one considering suicide would learn anything here they couldn't learn in hundreds of other places, and at least here, we can prevent it from becoming a how-to guide. The information here is certainly encyclopedic (needs sourcing, but not much is controversial there), and deleting it wouldn't help the encyclopedia in any way. Mangojuicetalk 18:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Needs better sourcing, but for the most part, it's a reasonably good article. --Carnildo 18:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep—The suicide methods page has been proposed for deletion 2 times previously, but these attempts have been unsuccessful for precisely the reason that it will shortly have been proposed for deletion 3 times—unsucessfully. It is a legitimate topic that covers a number of subtopics—several of which are historically or culturally significant. Efforts to delete this article verge on censorship (i.e., controlling access to information to stabilize or improve society). It involves suppression of ideas with the intent of controlling perceptions; classic indicators of censorship. Censorship invariably involves restricting information that does not match the value system of those who censor. Although topics such as obscene speech & sedition have been routinely censored (even in the U.S. where the First Amendment to the United States Constitution specifies that Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech); removing discussion of suicide methods, when assisted suicide is legal in states such as Oregon, would be setting new standards of control. True, Wikipedia relies heavily on consensus, which provides for periodic attempts at censorship by members sincerely interested in the good of humankind (or some subset of humankind). But in the end a neutral point of view, which acknowledges a multiplicity of views, will prevail. Williamborg (Bill) 04:44, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. I have been watching this debate and I think that both sides have points that can't be ignored, and so I think a compromise might be in order.

First of all, slippery slope arguments are being made on both sides. Would deleting this article be a slippery slope to more extreme censorship? Maybe a little bit, but I doubt there are many other articles that people could use the same arguments for deletion as strongly as this one, so I don't think we have much to worry about there. If we keep it, will we see articles about methods of sabotaging airplanes or raping children? I doubt that too. The MOST IMPORTANT thing is that we are not arguing about deleting other articles and we are not arguing about adding a rape methods article -- we are debating THIS article alone. I didn't stumble across this article while having suicidal thoughts, I read it because the subject is fascinating. Personally, I fall on the side of the people that speculate that, unless one is already determined to kill onesself, an article about methods isn't going to persuade them to do it. The truth is, however, that I don't really know what it would be like to be seriously considering taking my own life, and most of you probably don't either. Too much of this debate is based on speculation. In the spirit of freedom of information, I think the burden should be on the advocates of deletion to find research showing that such articles (or books) increase suicidal tendencies. Anecdotal evidence on either side of the arguments over that point (and it's probably the main point of contention in this debate) is meaningless. However, the people who have concerns about suicidal people reading the article as a how-to guide have valid concerns. The fact that there is an article about suicide methods but not about signs of suicidality DOES bother me. There should be an article about common symptoms displayed by people who are contemplating suicide. I'm sure there are myriad reliable sources for this information. I also agree that the article needs some cleaning up. Possibly a longer introduction is in order, and I think that adding something about the general uncertainty involved in nearly all methods of suicide would be good, and I'm sure it would, if anything, increase the chances of a suicidal reader's reconsideration. Look, we wouldn't be arguing about this if we didn't love wikipedia, and we would all weep if we heard about someone who killed themselves after reading this article, but I truly think that if a suicidal person is going through the trouble of research, they are crying for help. If they really wanted to get the job done, they could do it without the research I think. rgrizza 05:15, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep per William Pietri somewhere up there. Markovich292 08:41, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep But needs rewording. Dolive21 19:01, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Although the topic is depressing, it is a well-researched and well-organized article. Mikeeilbacher 22:48, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep This debate has been done to death already more than once. The article is encyclopaedic. GideonF 16:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep nuff said.  ALKIVAR™ 21:23, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep for allt the reasons Akradecki had stated. Encyclopedic, well referenced, well organized. Hopefully this will be the final AfD. Ðra 05:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOT EVIL. Herostratus 08:46, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. Reasoning follows. Suicide is a documented phenomenon. It is certainly encyclopedic. People commit suicide in various ways. These ways have major differences. These differences, and hence the ways, are encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not censored. Perhaps somebody will commit suicide after reading this page. That's extremely unfortunate and tragic. However, I'm sure that recent Canadian shooter read information on the Columbine tragedy (whether here or elsewhere)... The fact that these things happen does not mean that we should delete information about them. If someone is going to commit suicide, they will find a way to do it, whether there's a WP article on it or not. --Storkk 17:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. If Wikipedia were being written in medieval Japan, an article on Seppuku methods would be an absolute requirement. Anville 18:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Nothing has changed since my original comment made almost one year ago. Yamaguchi先生 23:21, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, sourced and encyclopedic. No need to moralise, welcome to the Internet. bbx 03:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is quite a difficult issue, one which I believe strikes on some of the flaws inherent to Wikipedia. Is NPOV actually a POV? Isn't "evil" POV? Is it possible to keep an article such as this sane when subject to the attention of two polarized viewpoints? All things considered, I believe this could be a valid entry if handled carefully. Namely, a set of special guidelines in the talk page detailing how to contribute to the article, elimination of unreferenced material, and a compromise with the "suicide is bad" viewpoint by linking to suicide prevention in the "see also" section (it is relevant, after all). A warning at the top stating that the dangers would be acceptable, so long as it were delicately worded ("If you are considering suicide, seek help now" is not delicate). As for being a manual, you could argue that ricin details how to make lethal poison or marijuana how to maximize drug yields. Any good source of knowledge can be used to carry out an act; otherwise it is useless trivia. If we toss this out on that basis, perhaps we should toss out all of the chemistry articles while we're at it? ~ Eidako 12:32, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, article provides information and would be extremely useful to someone doing research on the phenomenon of suicide. Although it may be somewhat useful to someone wanting to commit suicide (though there are hundreds of sites on the internet that provide much more detailed information e.g. alt.suicide.holiday FAQ), in actuality this information may equally likely discourage someone from attempting suicide. Additionally, as the person who added the radial and ulnar artery information to the slitting wrists section [22], I further would like to make the point that condemning suicide is itself POV. There are some people out there who actually consider suicide as a proper way to end suffering (I am not one of them), and by imposing one's own (arbitrary) morals that suicide is wrong, aren't we being close-minded and ultimately one-sided? Wikipedia brown 20:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Bold text

[edit] Recomendations with reply comments

  • Keep Encyclopedic, well referenced, well organized. Not a manual, as alleged, but a valid reference work. Suicide is a real social phenomenon, and NPOV documentation of the various methods is a legitimate subject for an article here. Akradecki 17:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Comment We don't have a Murder Methods article, now, do we? Nor does NPOV require one. An article devoted to the methods by which a tragedy may be brought about has no place in any encyclopedia. Chelseaboy 10:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Although I do understand the reasons for nomination, Wikipedia is not censored.--Húsönd 17:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Comment Consensus self restraint by the wiki community acting responsibly is not censorship. We do not show images of violent pornography. Chelseaboy 10:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Comment There is a great deal of censorship on Wikipedia everyday. See Wikipedia talk:Images and media for deletion/Archive 2 where there is discussion of many images which have been deleted on grounds of obscenity. Encouragement and enabling for depressed people to commit suicide goes beyond what Kevorkian went to prison for, and is more obscene and less "encyclopedic" than any image of body parts or sex acts.Edison 14:01, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I suppose one could make the morality argument, but when it comes down to it, the article is listcruft. The way the information is organized is unencyclopaedic, and all of it is contained in suicide and related articles. Mystache 17:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
    • None of this is really true though. The organisation is reasonable - guidelines like WP:SUMMARY and WP:LIST can explain why organisation of topics is done like this. WilyD 17:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Sorry, I misspoke. A better way of explaining my vote is that the article seems to be a POV forkMystache 19:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
        • Have you got some evidence to support this? The suicide article is already 38Kb, which is fairly large, this seems like a "natural" spin-out topic. WilyD 21:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep sourced, encyclopaedic. Wikipedia, she ain't censored et cetera. Anyone who a) wants to kill themselves, and b) has access to the internet isn't going to find the lack of a Wikipedia article on the subject any sort of barrier. WilyD 17:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Comment Wikipedia is an increasingly universal and well respected resource. This article is more likely than most to come to the attention of people contemplating suicide. It will help them to succeed. Chelseaboy 10:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I understand the moral rationale for wanting this article deleted, but as stated unanimously in the previous 1st and 2nd AfDs, this is a valid encyclopedic article. People who want to die can easily find the appropriate manual elsewhere on the Internet. There is nothing here that a suicidal person will not find out anyway. What this article needs is to explain that suicide almost always fails (except in the USA where guns are usually available for civilians), and that whether one succeeds or not, the aftermath is gruesome (for oneself if one fails, which is likely, and always for others). Anyway (even though this article is not a manual), suicidal people have the right to information too, so that if they want to take their lives they can do it properly.--Ezeu 17:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Comment When caveats such as those you mention are inserted, they are removed by other editors as non NPOV. Chelseaboy 10:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, bad faith nom by new "editor." This is an established and well-developed article. --AlexWCovington (talk) 19:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Comment Assume good faith. You state no basis for attributing bad faith to the editor. Nor should we disrespect an editor simply because she is new. This article is nominated regularly because many people share her concerns. Chelseaboy 10:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete only because it's kinda crufty (and perhaps original research) and parcel out the bits to either suicide or specific articles (hanging etc.); nothing Ezeu says can't apply just as well to the suicide article. That said, I don't really agree with the nominator's reasoning. If some Fredric Wertham type comes along and claims that Wikipedia is causing all sorts of horrible things to happen, whoever does PR for the Wikimedia Foundation can presumably take care of it. Wikipedia is not a public good; it's an encyclopedia.–♥ «Charles A. L.» 20:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a manual for committing violent felonies. Likewise there should not be an article on how to murder people or how to rape children.Edison 22:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
There is no such policy. This article is not a "how to commit suicide" manual, but merely a presentation of the different methods. --Ezeu 22:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Comment Some have claimed this is not a "How to commit suicide manual." Then is it acceptable to immediately delete any text in the article which in fact does encourage suicide, or provide info on the lethal dose of particular pain killers, or in other ways act as a suicide manual? And the claim is made that "There is no censorship in Wikipedia, but there obviously is. Jimbo Wales has deleted personal articles on several individuals under threat of libel suits, which is censorship. There is no article telling how to murder people, or how to kidnap and molest children, or how to build and trigger IEDs, or how to poison the food supply. If this vile article is kept, it needs cleanup: statements which are OR or lacking verifiable sources should be deleted, along with anything constituting a "How To" manual, such as lethal doses of common substances, or anything constituting "Helpful Hints" which have the POV that suicide is good.Edison 21:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Comment Information on lethal doses is purely encyclopedic and in no way encourages suicide. The real reason it should not be included in this article is because it is better included in the articles about the drugs in question.4hodmt 13:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. The nomination seems well meant, but not in line with Wikipedia's approach. Other issues raised are interesting, but seem only to merit cleanup, not deletion. William Pietri 23:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Comment Cleanup has never worked on this long-running sore of an article because the article title itself - Suicide Methods - naturally draws it into being a "how to" manual, however often it is asserted that that is not what it should be. Chelseaboy 10:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. It could use a little bit of cleanup, but it is a rather encyclopedic topic- a verifiable social phenomenon that spans pretty much every culture. It could be expanded to present statistics and history of methods though. Unfortunately, being tragic doesn't merit deletion. --Wafulz 23:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Comment Suicide is an encyclopedic topic. Suicide methods are not. Chelseaboy 10:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete This article is in pretty bad taste guys. I fail to see how descriptions of how suicides occur can be considered encylopaedic. Sure, this information is usefull if you are suicidal but wouldn't it be better to leave a stub that says "If you are suicidal, check out www.beyondblue.com.au, and remember that no problems are worth dying for". User:Wik98
Comment "no problems are worth dying for" is POV. This article already links to suicide prevention articles.4hodmt 14:03, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Since when is Wikipedia the morality police? Let's remove all articles on rape next, then pedophilia, then murder, then racism, etc. We have to protect the world from itself, after all, right? Someone might be JUST on the edge of molesting a child, they'll read a Wikipedia article and it'll happen, just like that. Our hands will be red with blood. Please. Get a grip on reality people. If a person is killing themselves there are bigger things in the picture than a Wikipedia article. But wait, maybe someone will read my comment here and be so enraged that they'll kill themselves? I'd better not post it. --Rankler 13:07, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
CommentSure there are articles on murder and rape but where is the "List of Ways To Murder Someone" or the "Helpful Hints for Raping?" There is a separate article on Suicide, and that is quite enough without this listcruft how-to manual.Edison 21:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete If someone kills themselves as a result of something they read on the Internet, one has to question their sanity in the first place. People predisposed to suicide will find other sources of information anyway. This entry is encyclopedic. It should be edited around a bit so make it seem less approving (obviously without going into POV, so by adding sources); but if we start here, next we'll start deleting other content on Wikipedia. Plus, people have a right to live their own life. They also should have the right to end it. You would rather lock someone up where they would remain in despair and mental anguish for the rest of their lives, rather than allow them the mercy of ending it all.

    Then again, by including this article, those predisposed to suicide will trigger their suicide in this manner. Therefore it makes sense that leaving this article (which seems to be quite recent) could in fact trigger suicide in a depressed person. People should have the right to make up their own minds, and not have us make them up for them, but at the same time some people are not capable of making rational desicions that they once would have made. This makes this article tricky to delete or keep. There are pros and cons either way. However, in the end, does anyone want to read the headline, "Teen Suicide Over Wikipedia Entry"? Because I sure wouldn't, and if I contributed to that article I'd feel like I contributed to that person's death. This is the only reason why I pick delete. I must admit in my weaker moments I (or others) might be tempted to read this article and follow its 'advice' and this is why I think it should be removed. Ezeu's points above still stand, though.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Psychade (talk • contribs) 15:11, 13 September 2006.
Yeah, and let's get rid of Kurt Cobain, Marilyn Monroe, and The Sorrows of Young Werther while we're at it.–♥ «Charles A. L.» 16:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete - This website does not just list methods, it describes ways to make attempts more successful. It is not impartial, it makes suicide sound acceptable. It links to a page that describes in great detail the best ways to make attempts successful, and deters against methods that have a low success rate. Many people who look up information on suicide are doing it because they're depressed. How can anyone support a page that serves no other purpose than to prey on vulnerable people. Treeny
Note: The above vote is Treeny's first edit on Wikipedia. Prolog 18:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep There has been no substantial reason given for delete. There has been many for clean up but as it has already been said by many users above, this is not the place for clean up. The notion that some one may read it and because of the article commit suicide is pure conjuncture. It's like arguing that the article on Adjustable rate mortgage will make someone want to run out and refinance their home. If you want to apply the Wikipedia standards to that "delete reasoning" it screams WP:OR with no reliable sources showing a direct link between this Wikipedia article and causing teens or anyone else to commit suicide. Show us something that passes WP:V and you may have a case. The moral arguments fail WP:NPOV to boot. Again, there is no valid reason to delete. Agne 20:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Comment Actually, the Talk Page has regularly included edits from users saying they are grateful for it as an aid to successful suicide. So it is the notion that it does not increase the risk of any particular suicide which is conjecture. Chelseaboy 10:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep And expand, it's all encyclopediac. Add wikilinks to all the methods, linking to articles related--people who used the method, historical anecdotes, etc. If this is offensive as a collection, would it be alright to have individual articles like Poisoning (suicide) instead...? I can see the reasoning behind deleting it from a given person's moral perspective but this is actually the framework of a very good article overall. Suicide has been a factor in human life since the human era began, and has played a critical role in life, politics, government, society, and the arts since we first stood up and walked upright. · XP · 03:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC) · XP · 03:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Comment - There already is an article about suicide. This debate is whether to have a separate article going into fine detail about methods. — Tivedshambo (talk to me/look at me/ignore me) —  05:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete - This article is a disgrace to Wikipedia. No encyclopedia in the world has ever included an article on "Suicide methods". "Suicide", of course - but "Suicide methods" absolutely not. The problem is in the title of the article, which attracts edits making it a "how to" manual inevitable, however much it may be cleaned up whenever it is regularly, and rightly, put up for deletion. This article should be deleted and whatever is encyclopedic about the contents (very little) can go into "Suicide". Another beef I have with this article is that the crusaders for it prevent edits which place at the top of the page prominent links and warnings to those who are contemplating suicide, directing them to reconsider and to help. One of my own several efforts in this regards is at 6 April 2003, I had many predecessors in this, who all failed against the regular editors, as I did. Instead, these resources are banished to the very bottom of an info box. This article is profoundly sick. If Wikipedia cannot show an erect penis, how can it justify an article which may be responsible for the loss of even one human life? Chelseaboy 09:47, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Re: erect penis comment. You obviously have not seen the Circumcision page. Wikipedia is not censored and for good reason. Second, the editors who removed the tagged are correct in that those tags interject POV. No matter which way you cut it, a persons view on suicide is a personal one. There is a reason why we don't arrest and try individuals who attempted to commit suicide and fail for a crime of attempted suicide. As for the link, if it fails WP:EL and is interjecting POV in it's own capacity, then it should be removed as well. 205.157.110.11 09:59, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
I've seen it now! More to the point, deletion of a page which may cause death is not censorship, if it happens it will be by consensus or as a result of a policy decision. I agree that, whilst an article on "Suicide methods" exists, editors will always edit out exhortations against following the methods as non NPOV. That is why an article on "Suicide methods", as opposed to "Suicide", is misconceived, and no clean up ever works or sticks. On your arrest point, you are anonymous and so I don't know who "we" is - in fact, attempted suicide has been a crime in many countries for long periods, including the UK before the passage of the Suicide Act 1961. "Suicide methods", as opposed to "Suicide", is unencyclopedic, and I challenge you to identify such an article in any other encyclopedia (excluding, of course, Wikipedia mirror sites). Chelseaboy 10:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually, I was thinking of the Suicide Act 1961 when I was composing my thoughts and some of the logical arguments made for decriminalizing suicide. In regards to your contention that this page "may cause death". Should we then, on those grounds, delete thesky diving, swimming, driving, and Atkins Diet pages on the logic that after reading them you may act in such a way as to cause death? 205.157.110.11 11:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's not a manual. The topic is encyclopedic and can lead to a good article. Article needs to be improved, though. For instance, to cite sources so that it's clear it's not original research. --Abu Badali 00:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment There seems to be consensus above that the article is a manual. Also, the censorship issue has also been discussed above. Wikipedia does delete pages, and whether you like it or not, this is a form of censorship. Furthermore there seems to be some confusion between the encyclopaedic nature of suicide, and the uncylcopaedic nature of the article about suicide methods. We only wish to delete the suicide methods page. I am aware that some of the keep camp think that the article can be fixed, but I think it should be considered that this article has been nominated for deletion twice before. There was plenty of time to fix it up, but it wasn't. This page is immune to proper cleanup.Wik98 00:40, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
    • This page is immune to proper cleanup Leaving aside the symantic problem with that sentance and what you're trying to say, and ignoring the "no-one's been bothered yet" argument, why is cleanup not possible? It is quite clearly possible in this case, with references and more counterpoints being what's needed. LinaMishima 00:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Line, I like what you are saying, but the problem as I see it is that the title of the article prevents this page from being anything other than a list of suicide methods. Over time, the edits will become more and more morbid, as editors wish to add more detail to each method. It seems impossible to prevent editors from adding the type of detail which turns an article like this into a How-to guide. Besides, Lina, what kind of references are being used right now? A suicide methods file that was constructed by anonymous users of a suicide newsgroup. It is hardly the most encyclopaedic of sources, is it? You may argue that in the future some smart fellow might do a search on pubmed for an acedemic suicide review, but I feel this is wishful thinking. In anycase, this article should be deleted on the basis of what it is now, not what it can be. Wik98 01:14, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. The moral and legal objects are well meant and heartfelt. And obviously there may be rare cases where wikipedia needs to assert censorship. But this is not one them. For one, there are plenty of explicit articles on wikipedia dealing with topics that many users find morally objectionable and which may be illegal in any number of jurisdictions around the world, e.g. most of the articles dealing with sexuality in all its variations. One of the underlying principles of wikipedia is that transparancy is a good. Knowing more is good. Ohconfucius edits have helped the quality of the article. As he asserts, there is more work to be done. But in this kind of debate, it seems unfair that the bar is raised regarding standards of citation, prose, style etc to a level that I doubt some WP:FA would meet. Finally, regarding the morality issues. On any consequentialist account, we would have to factor in the benefit this article may provide to people who are concerned about love-ones who seem depressed. How often in post-suicide situations do family and friends lament that they did not recognize the danger signs. Jdclevenger 00:43, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
    • The article for deletion is Suicide Methods, not suicide. I highly doubt in a consequentialist account that the family of a suicide victim would find anything on the Suicide Methods page that would have helped them prevent their loved one from killing themselves. After all this page only discusses ways that people kill themselves, not the signs that people display before they suicide. the suicide page is valuable for the reason you have raised, but the suicide methods page is not. Wik98 01:25, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep It seems that this article is being nominated for deletion solely out of certain individuals' notions of propriety and morality (and this moral outlook is not shared by everyone: personally, I see no problem with suicide, and much less with an article on the ways in which people do it). There is no policy-based reason for this article to be deleted, and its topic is noteworthy. The article itself is well referenced, although it could do with a cleanup, particularly for language and style. However, the presence of the odd comma splice is obviously not why this discussion is occurring. The nominator writes about the article being "ethically bankrupt" and so forth: I think it is providing a worthwhile public service (and this doesn't really matter, since "ethical conduct" is no more what Wikipedia is about than performing public services). The article provides solid information on a phenomenon which is a part of life, and deleting the article will not remove suicide from society, so this whole fiasco is a pointless waste of bandwidth. Wikipedia doesn't exist to save people from their own actions, it exists to provide them with information. So the article must stay. Byrgenwulf 09:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Comment The question isn't whether deleting the article will remove suicide from society. The question is (1) whether retaining the article is likely to increase the number of successful suicides (I think yes) and (2) whether the article is encyclopedic (I think no). Your vote seems confused: on the one hand you say the article is "providing a worthwhile public service", implying your answer to (1) would be yes, and on the other hand you imply deletion would make no difference, suggesting your answer to (1) would be no. Chelseaboy 14:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Seriously, now. Whether or not this article could increase the rate of successful suicides is a moot point, one which would require proper empirical evidence to evaluate (not shrill, moralising do-gooder rants). However, providing information on the various methods by which people successfully kill themselves is indeed a public service (for a variety of reasons), although whether or not the article existed, people would continue to commit suicide effectively, as they have done for millenia. But since Wikipedia, last time I checked, is apparently not here for the "public good", it really doesn't matter, one way or another. The point is that there is no policy-related reason why this article should go, and "ethical" arguments are too subjective to hold water. Byrgenwulf 15:10, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Easy guys. I think this highlights something essential to this debate. Chelseaboy and others are arguing for deletion based on the premise that suicide is a bad thing. I agree with Chelseaboy about this, in most cases -- definitely if some depressed teenager happened upon this article and committed suicide because of reading it, I think that would be a terrible thing. I think most people would, and I think that Byrgenwulf's stance on the issue is pretty radical, but the fact that he and others have expressed their opinions on this side of the fence (Byrgenwulf said, "I see no problem with suicide") is illuminating. There are multiple points of view on this: most people, I think, believe that most suicide is bad (obviously there are exceptions involving the terminally ill, etc., but that is beside the point), however another point of view that many people seem to hold is that suicide is a person's right. Wikipedia has pretty clear NPOV standards when it comes to this sort of thing, and that's why I still think the article should be KEPT. I'm going to anticipate a slippery slope rebutal here: but what about people whose point of view is that murder is not so bad? Do we have to respect any point of view, no matter how radical? I don't think so. I think that if actual well-meaning individuals espouse a point of view and express it eloquently, as the right-to-suicide people have (and I know they mean well as we all do in this debate), then that point of view should be respected. Thus, a deletion based on the premise that suicide is bad would be a violation of NPOV. Also, I think it's exactly this type of article that is the reason why WP:NOT EVIL has not been adopted as an official policy.Rgrizza 16:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Isolated Comments

  • Comment: the article is rather lousy. It concentrates on the final act of slitting one's wrist and omits: (1) statistics on "popularity" of these methods, (2) methods used historically - it concentrates on current society with car exhausts and plastics bags, (3) ignores the preparation stage (or lack of thereof), (4) misses any references to criminology or sociology studies. The text is just rewritten "methods file". If kept it should be labeled as a stub. Pavel Vozenilek 21:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I would suggest a label of "Start" it is too large to be a stub. NeoFreak 21:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment

It seems that proposing the deletion of this page has been far more controversial than I thought it would be. Some of the arguments raised in support of keeping this page are reasonable. Others aren't. It is true that other webpages on the internet will describe the various methods by which people can die even if this wikipedia article is deleted. This article certainly doesn't glamorise suicide and it does portray a verifiable social phenomenon that spans pretty much every culture.

However, this article does provide specific details on how people may end their life, and this can't be ignored. While it is true that wikipedia shouldn't be censored, it often is. There is some information that you can't find in this encyclopaedia, like "tips for how to rape children", and "how to use molecular biology techniques to modify bacterial pathogens and create a new plague". These articles don't exist because they are offensive and dangerous even though some users may find them interesting.

When the quality of this encyclopaedia is threatened, wikipedia users respond by deleting pages. Even though this page about suicide methods documents a verifiable social phenomenon, and it doesn't glamorise suicide, and even ignoring ethical concerns, the quality of this article is so poor that it must be deleted on grounds of quality alone.

This article is listcruff. It merely presents a list of suicide methods which has been taken from a website that appears to be original research. The references they provide aren't from medical journals, government agencies or newspapers. Rather, they have been built from suicide newsgroups. This is not encyclopaedic at all. It's pseudo research.

Although not unanimous, there appears to be consensus that this article is basically a suicide manual. As Nydas wrote, "This is a how-to guide. Much of the text is given over to 'common pitfalls' of suicide methods". Wikipedia is not meant to be a manual, and especially not a poorly written one.

While I concede that this article is interesting in a visceral sense, this is not enough to save it from deletion. I tried to avoid using the morality argument, but given the comment below by a depressed teenager, I am forced to bring it up.

Someone wrote that "This article is helpful, and shouldn't be deleted just because it provides accurate and specific details on how people may end their life. If people really wanted to end their lives the information to do so can be found just as easily from many other sources. And all of this is the opinion of I, a depressed, but not suicidal, teenager. Thank You"

People don't start out suicidal. It begins with depression, and develops as the depression gets worse. This teenager admits depression, and has decided to look up suicide in wikipedia. Doesn't this indicate suicidal thoughts? My fellow wikipedians, we have to protect young people from themselves. Let's not prostitute our values for poor quality articles. Katie32 (talk • contribs)

  • Comment A lot of people on both sides seem to be missing the point. Neither "this teaches people how to kill themselves" nor "this discourages people from killing themselves" is pertinent reasoning. There are, as I understand it, three bedrock content policies for inclusion, and none of them is whether the information is good or not. On the other hand, one of them is NPOV, and removing an article entirely because you don't like it is highly POV.–♥ «Charles A. L.» 13:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. People are claiming we should "ignore all rules" (e.g. NPOV) in favour of deleting this on moral grounds. If the discussion here is sidestepping normal deletion issues, it's specifically because people are claiming that we ought to ignore them in this case. It's hard to rationalise not ignoring the rules if you don't address the reasons behind why we should, according to some, ignore them here. --Rankler 14:06, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Good point. Since I seem to be the only person who said delete other than on moral grounds, and then I modified that position, I may as well strike the earlier delete notation.–♥ «Charles A. L.» 16:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment This is clearly a highly contentious and controversial article, with the possibility of doing serious harm to Wikipedia (in the manner suggested by Psychade). Can I suggest that rather than leave the decision to an admin, it is taken to the Arbitration Committee to decide. — Tivedshambo (talk to me/look at me/ignore me) —  19:06, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Arbcom doesn't usually involve itself in content disputes (actually, I don't think they ever have).--Kchase T 20:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • The article has now been rewritten in a more encyclopaedic fashion It could still do with some work, but I am now changing my vote to keep. Ohconfucius 08:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
    • It is hardly enclyopaedic, even with your 'edits'. My vote is still delete.Wik98 03:04, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Is assisted suicide legal in Florida? I ask because Wikipedia is not meant to show material that is illegal in Florida, as the wikipedia servers are physically located in Florida Wikipedia:Content_disclaimer. I disagree with User:Throw that the article is well researched and encylopaedic. Almost the entire article is stolen from http://www.ctrl-c.liu.se/~ingvar/methods/other.html word for word. This isn't research, it's plagiarism and possibly a copyright violation.Wik98 01:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
    • This article isn't doing anything remotely close to "assisting suicide". To actually assist suicide you have to, you know ... assist in it. Not just write an encyclopedia article on it. I don't think Florida law can be interpreted so broadly as to suggest that merely writing about suicide is illegal. In America we have a thing called free speech ... Cyde Weys 01:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
      • While free speech is a wonderful right to have you must remember American law doesn't apply to Wikipedia. Wikipedia sets and follows its own rules that apply worldwide. Wikipedia is Jimmy Wales' home, and he allows us to put our feet on his coffee table and raid his refrigerator....as long as we follow his rules. Throw 01:34, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
    • As long as having Internet is legal in Florida, everything is strictly under the law here I believe. Besides, writing an encyclopedical article about something that is illegal in Florida isn't an illegal act by itself. See U.S._Constitution#First_Amendment.--Húsönd 01:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm from Australia, and we don't have a bill of rights. Some dude was put in jail for using a loudspeaker to talk randomly at a shopping mall. This violated a local council bylaw, and he tried to argue that free speech was guaranteed, but the high court found it wasn't. . While the U.S. has a bill of rights, and Free speech is more protected, it isn't that protected. I believe that you are not free to talk with others about commiting a terrorist act. Libel laws mean you are also probably not free to say something about someone else which isn't true. Likewise, it is possible that talking to a suicidal aquaintance about the best methods for commiting suicide would be illegal in a state that outlawed assisted suicide, even if this conversation only took part on wikipedia. Wik98 01:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
      • The article in question is not advocating or protesting suicide in any way. What is it doing is making a list of methods of suicide that can and have been used. Any indication in the article where it tries to hint at best methods would be a NPOV violation and should be editted, but this article should not be deleted. Throw 01:58, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
        • This article compares suicide methods, and also provides links to pages like http://www.ctrl-c.liu.se/~ingvar/methods/other.html which do an even more thourough job. The best methods would still be obvious even if it were written in NPOV format. This article should be deleted precisely because it is impossible to compare suicide methods without implying that some methods are better than others. And besides, this article is not at all encylopaedic. It has no historial context, andmost of the information it has is copied directly from suidice method websites.Wik98 02:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • The debate about suicide is not neutral. It is loaded by statistics which show that young people across all cultures are more likely than any other group to attempt ending their lives. Your idea that those who wish to commit suicide should be given the resources to do it out of humanitarian respect is so obtuse as to be obsene. I am saddened to hear of your own battle with suicidal thoughts, yet I do not see your experience as common. People who are suicidal tend to be aware of the grissliness of suicide. Articles like these are more likely to educate them about the methods to use which work. Ie, If I were suicidal, I would find that hanging is a surer bet than slitting my wrists, and I did not know this before viewing this page. But I was aware that both methods were grissly before I came here.Wik98 12:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
    • CommentIt's not like there hasn't been enough time to clean this article up. It has been nominated twice before. The problem, as Chelseaboy noted, is that you can't clean up a page that is named suicide methods. The very name attracts the kind of edits that turn the page into a "how to" suicide manual.203.214.35.136 12:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment WP:WWIN"Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information:" "Instruction manuals. While Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places, and things, Wikipedia articles should not include instruction - advice (legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals,... and recipes." So when this article venture into "How To Commit Suicide," as it clearly does, it violates official Wikipedia policy. It is "unencyclopedic" to provide a forum for people to encourage other people to commit suicide.Edison 13:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC
  • Comment The question keeps coming up of whether there is a substantial risk that the page could lead to a death that would not otherwise have happened. We're pretty much doing guesswork about that, and I think some expert opinions would be very helpful here. Here is a passage from the American Association of Suicidology "Media Guidelines for Reporting on Suicide": Exposure to suicide method through media reports can encourage vulnerable individuals to imitate it. Clinicians believe the danger is even greater if there is a detailed description of the method. Research indicates that detailed descriptions or pictures of the location or site of a suicide encourage imitation. [23]. I'm going to send the Association an email asking specifically for their opinion on how to improve this article and whether they have comments on the deletion debate. I will post all correspondence on the Talk page of this AfD. Kla'quot Sound 03:22, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
    • reply please make it clear to them that you are asking for improvements, rather than a general opinion. If they do provide such material, it would be better to place their advice on the talk page of the article as a formal external peer review. I suspect they will say much the same as myself - add references, include proper context, and add the downpoints. LinaMishima 03:37, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Compromise proposal

Compromise proposal A compromise would be, if the article is kept, at least to allow prominent reference to resources which might help people to deal with their situation without killing themselves. You could regard this either as a balance between NPOV and WP:NOT EVIL or, indeed, as truly neutral point of view in that methods would still be set out (the how-to manual if you will) but the alternative point of view, that there are other approaches open to the potential suicide which deserve consideration, would also be given due prominence. Chelseaboy 17:28, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment I still think that is interjecting POV. As another editor noted, there have been times in civilized society that suicide was considered honorable. There are a variety of reasons for a person to consider taking there own life. In my personal opinion, the vast, vast majority of them are poor reasons but again that is just my personal view. Ultimately, it comes down to each and every individual to make up their own assessment of the matter. It's not a matter of WP:NOT EVIL at all. It is not Wikipedia's role to legislate through our editting any particular view or sense of morality on a subject. To paraphrase another editor in the Hitler article, we don't have to say that things like rape and child molestation is bad because if we write the article in an impassioned, NPOV view the evident facts will shine through. It my opinion that if we maintain NPOV with this article, the same is true. 205.157.110.11 11:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Agreed with IP. Also, NPOV is a long-standing policy. NOT EVIL is an essay.--Kchase T 15:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm still not quite sure where I fall on this issue, but one possible point of compromise is in see also material and in-text references. I think presenting a fair view on suicide has to include material on risks, consequences, suicide hotlines, the extent to which suicidal urges are a treatable medical condition, and so on. Questions of morality aside, I think we all agree that NPOV requires us to be sure that readers come away with a fair picture of the topics we present. William Pietri 15:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Eidako above (in the recomendation area) added the thought about linking suicide prevention in the See Also section. I think that would appropriate but putting a "warning" on top would be WAAAAAY too POV. Another idea would be to make sure that each method has a clear negative comment on what the physical "affect" on the body are with a failed attempt or other potential problems (like with "Driving"). Some already have these (like "Electrocution" & "Asphyxiation"). It's vital to NPOV to neither glamorize suicide nor to moralize about it being wrong. Agne 16:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I'd like to note my agreement with the IP editor and Kchase02, with emphasis upon the difference between the NPOV policy and the NOT EVIL opinion statement. Anville 17:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question

Once this nomination for deletion is defeated, is there a way the article could be protected from future nomination? The repeated attempts to remove it on non-policy grounds can be considered disruptive, per WP:DP.GideonF 21:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment In a nutshell no. Whispering(talk/c) 00:45, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 18:11, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dr. Twister

Delete Fantastically written article, especially for ones first contribution to Wikipedia, but I'm not convinced that the subject is notable enough. Dave 16:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

  • However Lum the Mad is?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Zanderc (talk • contribs)
    • Perfectly possible that I'm wrong, that's why I've brought this here. Dave 16:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
      • I only posted this here because there was a broken link on the Lum the Mad page. User:ZanderC09:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
        • So from whence did you obtain the information that you put into the article? Uncle G 18:00, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete - full of uncited opinions, no reliable sources cited. It would have been a better idea to engage the author before bringing it here though. Yomanganitalk 17:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as original research unless rewritten to be verifiable from reliable sources, hopefully with evidence of meeting WP:WEB or some other topic-specific guideline. Sorry, Zander. I know this seems crazy from the just-arrived perspective, but these policies save us a lot of grief. Hang around AfD for a week and you'll begin to see the context. William Pietri 23:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Delete as CSD A8 by DVD_R_W. Aaron 23:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Compulink

Prod removed without discussion. Non-notable company. Fails WP:CORP. Dipics 16:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Spamming alright: text was copy & pasted straight from [24] Wasn't there a dialup online service in the UK in the 1980s using that name? Malcolm Farmer 16:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

My speedy criteriation was wrong (though it may be A7) Computerjoe's talk 20:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete as copyvio, and tagged as such. Akradecki 17:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete I had initially tagged this for speedy deletion, but it was removed. Computerjoe's talk 18:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment As much as I wish that Spam/Advertising was a valid speedy criteria, unfortunately, per WP:SPEEDY, it's not. Dipics 18:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment Spam/Advertising isn't the recommended Speedy criteria here...it's A8, copyvio. Akradecki 18:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
        • Indeed, but I tagged it as spam. I guess it could be classed as A7, possibly! Computerjoe's talk 20:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per A8. It's a copyright violation. Dipics, did you read why they said it was tagged for speedy deletion? --Nishkid64 19:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment I did even better than that, I looked at the page history. The reason given for the original speedy by Computerjoe was "Ad" which is why I commented on his entry here. My comment was not about the current speedy. Dipics 20:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Dipics is right. My bad. Computerjoe's talk 20:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment. Sorry about that. I made my comment in reference to Akradecki's comment about your comment. (That sounds weird). --Nishkid64 20:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
          • Comment Not a problem at all, I should have been more specific. You were not the only person to comment about my comment about computerjoe's comment about, never mind, I lost my train of thought. Dipics 20:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:58, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Absolute poker

Delete Weak delete (see below) - Blatant spam  — Tivedshambo (talk to me/look at me/ignore me) —  17:20, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete spam, and likely fails WP:Corp.--Húsönd 17:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, I hate to defend spam as much as anyone... but this company seems to at least have a case for meeting WP:CORP. Their recent "Win your tuition" tournament made some news. [25], it's mentioned as a site targetting college students with gambling [26]... not really familiar with this industry but they seem to be somewhat notable in it. --W.marsh 17:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Has an Alexa ranking of 9,364, which seems to be very high amongst other poker websites. I don't think you really can get information about the website from a 3rd party source, though. --Nishkid64 19:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - SPAM and lacks NPOV. --Bill.matthews 20:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep: It reads like spam, but it is one of the top 5 online poker sites. That in itself is notable. I agree that it definitely needs to be rewritten.... the article shouldn't be deleted though. Card Player Magazine is the most respected poker magazine, so please see this article. Just so you know, I put the {{cleanup-rewrite}} and {{advert}} tags on the article. In short, I agree it needs to be rewritten, but it certainly needs to have an article... and it certainly passes WP:CORP and WP:WEB. --Storkk 22:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep As the stub I have torn it down to. "A reputation as a site on which one can earn easy money"? Yeah, of course that's not spam... Irongargoyle 22:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep/redirect. Clearly merits an article, although more than two sentences. Should be redirected to Absolute Poker as that is the name of the company. Obviously passes WP:WEB and also WP:CORP. 2005 22:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Comment - agreed, it needs a renaming. Please see the talk page. --Storkk 22:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
I'd just put the redirect on it now, but I don't know if that would mess up this page. (Added... Just did it, with the afd tag still pinting here.) 2005 23:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Er, it actually needs a history merge now, technically, since a copy-and-paste pagemove was done. Oh yeah, Keep rewritten article, nice work 2005 et al. --W.marsh 23:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Comment: I'm kinda new... couldn't a {{Db-move}} on Absolute Poker be done? Then the idea would be to move Absolute poker to the new empty page. If I'm being an idiot, please reply on my talk page so that I can save and absorb the correct procedures here Thanks, Storkk 23:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, that's basically what a history merge is, except then any new edits on the target page can be undeleted after the move, so the entire history is preserved. --W.marsh 23:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. Absolute Poker is obviously a notable poker company and warrants an article. If the current article has problems it should be edited, not deleted. Rray 01:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep This is why 'spam' isn't a speedy-delete criterion; adverts about notable companies can be cleaned up and NPOVd rather than deleted. --ais523 09:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. It is a solid, mid-sized online poker room and is highly notable. The article reads like spam, though, and needs serious attention. SmartGuy 15:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - I agree that the page has improved dramatically since I nominated it for AFD at this version. However, I still feel it has the feel of on an advert - the screen-shot attracts people to try the site, which is what an advert would do. Reference labels such as "It's an Absolute Poker Party at WSOP" don't help either. User:Storkk has asked me to consider withdrawing my nomination. At the moment I don't feel I can do this. — Tivedshambo (talk to me/look at me/ignore me) —  17:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
    • The reference title is the title of the article/reference. The way newspapers or magazines title their articles isn't our concern, and should not be a criteria to judge the value of an article on a company that is the subject of an article. 2005 22:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, major poker site with over 10,000 players online at the moment. bbx 03:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and de-spam per the above comments. Yamaguchi先生 09:12, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 05:01, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Enemy Down

Contested prod. Non-notable gaming site fails WP:WEB. At present, they claim to have increased from 390 to 100,000 members in 3 days. Likely WP:HOAX. alphaChimp(talk) 17:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:WEB failure. I do need to point out that the claim is that they had 390 members online and that they have a membership base of 100,000. It is actually pretty common for message boards to have lots of members but few active ones, though the 100,000 number is difficult to believe. Erechtheus 18:20, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. It seems to be a hoax. --Nishkid64 19:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. My Alt Account 22:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and lack of assertion of notability. Alexa rank of 105,375 and Google incoming link count of 256 suggest we haven't missed anything. William Pietri 23:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 22:23, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Visual & Game Programming Club

This is a non-notable student organization. There are 0 Google results for the organization name in the title and only one if the ampersand is replaced with "and". Prod removed. Erechtheus 17:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom --dtony 18:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable student organization. There are only 68 members in the club. --Nishkid64 19:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and Nishkid. No notability asserted, none found. William Pietri 23:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Gazpacho 00:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was AfD withdrawn by nom. Aaron 23:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Apple iTV

The Apple iTV is a codename for a product that is announced to be released in the first quarter of 2007: The Wikipedia is not a crystal ball Computerjoe's talk 18:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I withdraw my nomination per added sources. Computerjoe's talk 18:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Erechtheus 18:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC) Keep per newly added sources confirming the product. Erechtheus 18:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. A rumor about a forthcoming product from Apple? Like all the rest, fails WP:V quite badly. Personally I'm still waiting for their new PDA that was absolutely positively going to be released 5 years ago. Geoffrey Spear 18:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC) Keep per below. Geoffrey Spear 19:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
    • How is it unverifiable? The article links to two reports of Steve Jobs giving people a sneak preview of this product. Indeed, it appears to be quite easy to verify the excerpt from the article that is given in the nomination here. Uncle G 18:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
      • You may want to peruse the history. There were no sources in the article and no apparent sources as of the time of these delete votes. That's the danger of a quick nomination. Erechtheus 18:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
        • True, that is a danger; but this edit did come before this edit. However, it has taken me a long time to write a rationale on occasion ... ☺ Uncle G 19:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
          • One minute is a long time? You'll have to excuse me for assuming the unsourced article I read about a future Apple product was based entirely on rumor. In the future I'll reload the article between typing out my argument for deletion and hitting Save. Geoffrey Spear 19:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom.--Saintlink 18:24, 12 September 200 6 (UTC)
  • Keep This is not a rumor, the article is based on an official announcement referring to an unreleased product. Senordingdong 18:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Though as with all upcoming projects, it may change names or be cancelled, at which point it will have to be moved or merged. I've also added the future product template. --AlexWCovington (talk) 19:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep It's official.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 22:23, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tajavartha

Non notable new website, only one Google hit, fails WP:WEB Fram 18:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. --Nishkid64 19:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete. Unless the title is a spelling mistake, the website is way below notability level. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 12:36, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 22:23, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] HallBall

Prod removed without comment. Some kids made up a game, want it documented here. Fails WP:NOR, WP:V and, of course, WP:NFT -- Fan-1967 19:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Yeah, the article has a full-screen picture of the "scientists". Fan-1967 19:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Ok, fine we'll take it down. Didn't realize it was that big of a deal. Sheesh. Jeff687687 15:28, 12 September 2006 (EST)
  • Delete Google scores 54 unique hits out of 181 and article claims to have been developed this year. Can't be notable that quickly. zephyr2k 19:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as author requests deletion. Molerat 19:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • No, actually, author just took down the picture. Fan-1967 19:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. NeoFreak 19:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Yomanganitalk 19:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Nishkid64 19:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete per all above, WP:NFT, WP:V. --Kinu t/c 19:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 20:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 22:23, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jazzerp

Does not meet WP:Soft. Not notable. Sleepyhead 19:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 18:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] High D'Haran

  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}}

NN, WP:LIST, copyvio, fancrufty, WP:FICT. This page is a regurgitation of a geocities page and has nothing about the actual language, it is just a listing of terms. All that is needed is a notation on the language on the source fictional universe page Sword of Truth and the geocities link ref which is being added now. NeoFreak 19:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

it doesnt matter. having it this way makes it easier to find and use. that geocities page could end up going 404 in a week. having the info on the wiki will make sure it stays avalible. and putting it on the D'Hara page will just clutter that up because you know as well as i that we cant have anything close to the High D'Haran info there. this is nuts. there has been no peer review, or any other input. its just been you going on about deleting it since i put it up. get off it. i strongly encourage people to check out the page, and check out the talk page with it. - Patrickjsanford 20:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
I am sorry if I am sticking my nose where it doesn't belong but neo, stop being wiki snob and admit that even though you didn't think of it this page does have its merits. Furthermore I think that everything imitates everything else have you ever heard the phrase art imitates life which imitates art? If this is a copyright violation then so is the page on Plato and Aristotle and Socrates and every other thing that has ever been offered any info on because you cant give a excellent observation on anything without including some of the original material into the article. I notice you haven't jumped on Tolkeins elven language page, why is that? Stop being a snob and let those with new and interesting ideas have their say also. This page does not belong to only you but to everyone, so please stop acting as if you are the Wiki god, okay? Sorry if I've offended you but I am offended by condescending people who are rude, so just stop. The page should stay because it offers an in depth look at High D'Haran. - Selena Moriarti 20:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
I just want to clarify for people before they start screaming about clones and multiple accounts and such. Selena Moriarti is my wife, she has her own account, but we are on a DSL connection, and use the same computer so we will have the same IP address. i think that everyone will be able to see that it is two diffrent people due to the diffrent styles of writing, wording, and oppinions. - Patrickjsanford 20:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. The above comments are the worst kinds of nonsense and unhelpful in these discussions. Danny Lilithborne 20:20, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment meatpuppets, while their opinion is welcome during AfD, are not usualy helpful. If you have not been recruited for a specific opinion then I apologise. Please leave a vote or preceed your comments in this format for ease of review. Thank you. NeoFreak 20:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Please realize that while I am commenting on this article it does not mean that I do not go on Wiki on a regular basis and please don't resort to name calling because I have a different viewpoint and am not afraid to tell you that you aren't being a help to Wiki you are hindering it because of your pride, futhermore I have learned several things from his page as I don't really read The Sword of Truth series I found it helpful in understanding when he goes on about High D'Haran I know now much more about it. - Selena Moriarti 20:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I've read the books in question, and the language described in this article does not play a particuarly significant role in the books, and is never described in detail. I'm pretty sure that the "list of terms and words" contains - more or less - every single word of the conlang which appears in the series, including a number of words inferred from phrases. In total, there are perhaps fifteen or so unique words and phrases which appear in the series.. Zetawoof(ζ) 20:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete Delete I'm against indiscriminate listcruft, and the words of the High D'Haran language are pretty non-notable, even to a Sword of Truth fan. Still, it's possible that a truly motivated individual could expand this into a somewhat respectable article. - Runch 21:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
    • The main issue, as I see it, is that there's very little expansion possible without making things up (i.e, creating fanon). As it stands, I think there's already some significant conjectures being made - for example, the assumption that the chimes reechani, sentroshi, and vasi are the words for "water", "fire", and "air", rather than arbitrary names. Zetawoof(ζ) 22:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Good points. I hadn't even realized that some of the words on the page were conjecture. I've revised my vote accordingly. - Runch 04:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - fancruft to the extreme. My Alt Account 22:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete No evidence of sourcing, much less use of reliable sources so it appears to be a WP:NOR violation. As prior commentators have expressed, there really isn't that much in the books about this fictional former language. GRBerry 02:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and rewrite, or merge what's useful to Sword of Truth. Worth having in some form, but not this form. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep because even though i've been saying this since yesterday nobody would bother telling me how to vote. - 68.217.165.8 14:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Please sign your posts with four tildes, Patrickjsanford so we can keep track of who is voting which way. NeoFreak 15:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • RE: Comment. I did, i just wasn't signed in so it didn't catch my username. oh! BTW, i've been reviewing this page called user neofreak that i think needs to go up for AfD, anyone know how to do that? :P - Patrickjsanford 19:19, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


Hmmm I see it as being a worthy page to keep. I vote Keep it Mystar 13:32, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


Gezzz Neo why is it that all you want to do is to tear down anything but your ASOIAF pages? Talk about fancrufty the whole BwoB on GRRM's page is all that... Dude, you seriously need to stop being an edit nazi. If you cannot add to the positive aspect then stop trying to destroy a page. All you can do is to point out what "you" see as faults. All you do is to add content (and questionable at that) to your asoiaf pages. I think we need someone to look into your abusive actions on this whole issue....

BTW.. this ISN'T Geocities it is Wikipeda... what is or isn't on other MB's has nothing to do with what is or isn't on this page. Mystar 13:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

KEEP it. It's a relavent part of Sword of Truth information. I'd have no problem however, if you wanted to add more to it. Merritt 14:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)Merritt

Definitely keep it. This is where the information belongs. Joedu 16:53, 19 September 2006 (UTC)— Possible single purpose account: Joedu (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic..

Keep it. The language of High D'Haran is a very large part of the novels. There is no reason to delete it. Maybe just add to it.69.253.42.212 18:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)Harmony — Possible single purpose account: 69.253.42.212 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic..

  • Comment: For the record, it would appear someone has been soliciting votes on this issue, as the last two comments were made by users making their first edits to Wikipedia. (See here and here). Please see WP:AFD for more information about the deletion process and policy. - Runch 19:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Also, High D'Haran is definitely not a "very large part of the novels". It is, at best, a bit of flavor. As I noted above, there are no more than ten or fifteen unique phrases that show up in the entire series. Zetawoof(ζ) 00:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Ahhh yes! People who may have been following the edit war of these three agains anything Goodkind and decided to "weigh in" against something they feel is warrented, and here we go! I think you need to take a step back dude. I see teo new people...so what? meritt has had other contrib's and here you go trying to belittle his goodfaith and opinion as unimportant. Stop being a Wiki snob eh! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mystar (talk • contribs) 21:39, September 19, 2006

  • Comment: I made no mention of Merritt, the "last two comments" I was referring to were by Joedu and 69.253.42.212. I merely made a note of it, I did not even add the SPA tags. - Runch 23:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Not saying you put the tag by my name, but there is a tag (as of 8pm est) saying that my account may have been a single purpose account. I can assure you that I did not create it for the sole purpose of putting my 'vote' into this page. Not trying to start an argument, just trying to put my two cents in. Thanks! 192.254.30.2 00:15, 20 September 2006 (UTC)Merritt

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

The result was delete. - Bobet 17:59, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Magebane

Completely non-notable roguelike described in a stub article. Unlikely to ever be expanded substantially. Nandesuka 19:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom, unless sources showing its notability can be found. David Mestel(Talk) 19:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep needs alot of cleanup but it is still a legit gaming stub. Stubs exist for a reason, to beg for editing. NeoFreak 19:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
    This article has been in this state since 2004. How many years do you think that we should hang on to stubs before we give up on them? This is a serious question. Nandesuka 20:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
    Comment A stub by itself is a legit article format. The best way to improve a stub that is acting more like a thorn is to roll up your sleeves and expand it. Often contacting the creator or any major contributing editors for help works well too, esp if the creator has alot of other articles on his plate and might have simply forgotten about it. That last part is just my opinion though. NeoFreak 20:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. No sources - the external link is to a page for a game which (by this article's admission) "has got nothing to do with Magebane except the name". Zetawoof(ζ) 20:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I'm normally in favor of keeping stubs. But given that the game seems defunct, its lack of notability and paucity of information verifiable through reliable sources seem unlikely to improve. William Pietri 23:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete this and Fire It Up with The Spinners. - Bobet 17:52, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dante and The Brick

Advertisement Cfrydj 19:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

  • This is a third-party account of a college radio show. Not an advertisement, since it is not-for-profit.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.51.45.135 (talk • contribs)
    • A lot of the article is written in first-person, and thus could not be a third-party account. Cfrydj 20:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Okay, even if it isn't advertisement, it's not notable. --Nishkid64 20:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I'd have to say this article could be written better - i.e. third person and removing the "our" that is used here and there. But the show is relevant - other WMFO radio programs have wikipedia entries. Therefore, I wouldn't delete it; I'd just have it cleaned up a little. Fireitup 20:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I can find an article of the WMFO radio station, but am unable to find Wikipedia entries for other WMFO radio programs. Could you give some examples, please? Cfrydj 20:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
      • How about Fire It Up, along with Dante and The Brick, the stations top two shows. Just because you haven't heard it, doesn't mean it is not good.
  • This article could easily be written better, and should be written better. But it is not an advertisement and it is indeed notable.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.51.45.135 (talk • contribs)
  • If Fireitup is in any way related to the Fire It Up radio show mentioned in the article, then that user has a vested interest in this article. Both of the anonymous comments came from the IP address that wrote the bulk of this article. We need some unbiased opinions added to this debate.Cfrydj 20:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete There are no reliable sources to suggest that this show is notable, if other WMFO programs have articles and are also not notable then I suggest those be nominated for deletion as well. DrunkenSmurf 20:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment In addition I would suggest adding Fire It Up with The Spinners to this AfD since it is another WMFO program that suffers from the same notability and reliable sources issues as this does. DrunkenSmurf 20:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest that the DrunkenSmurf (Personal attack removed) instead of deleting Wikipedia entries of Sports Talk Radio programs in the Greater Boston area. By quickly looking at his profile, I know exactly why he has no life (went to Holy Cross). GO EAGLES! (#23 AP Poll) —Preceding unsigned comment added by BriBrick (talk • contribs)

  • Ah personal attacks, you flatter me :) DrunkenSmurf 20:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. This article is largely unverifiable, lacks reliable sources, and is not notable. The subject hasn't received any press attention from what I can tell. Srose (talk) 20:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I have added Fire It Up with The Spinners to this AfD because it also lacks any notability. I would request that the author do not remove that nomination, as he has done once already. Cfrydj 20:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Cfrydj, I never removed the nomination to delete the Fire It Up page. Erroneous.Fireitup 21:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

    • My mistake, it was BriBrick that removed the nomination to delete. As we can see from this user's above comments, he/she does have some sort of connection to the WMFO radio station. Cfrydj 21:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Cfrydj, I challenge you to dispute the objectivity of the Fire It Up page. It is written in third person and is linked to multiple other wikipedia sources. The page could be expanded upon by numerous editors in the listening region. The show has been written about in "The Tufts Daily," "The Stonehill Summit," and has been associated with multiple sporting events involving actual Division II and III university athletic teams. The Fire It Up page is not some cryptic babble, and it certainly IS noteable. Erroneous on both counts.Fireitup 21:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

  • I am not disputing the objectivity of the Fire It Up page. I am disputing its notability. It also contains no reliable sources. I am not sure what makes you say that it is "linked to multiple other wikipedia sources". The article does contain links to other Wikipedia articles, but no other Wikipedia articles contain links to it. I am afraid a campus radio station that has been written about by campus newspapers does not qualify as notable.Cfrydj 21:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • So throughout the lengthy history of Wikipedia, whenever articles didn't have links to them, does that mean they were automatically not notable? I am sure it takes time to build such links. If a college newspaper isn't notable, then why are there wikis for college newspapers? Also, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_M._Silverstein is an entry for a gentleman who has affiliation with WMFO, as you asked, as well as college newspapers. In accordance with the notability clause you cite, this page would be deleted as well. And I'm sure a great many other pages would be. Taking edits "by the book" would devoid wikipedia of a resounding amount of valuable information. I simply ask that my entry be spared from what seems to be an argument so editors CAN link to it. Fireitup 21:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
    • At no point have I said that this article should be deleted because of a lack of links to it. I was only refuting your above claim that it was notable because of nonexistent links. Mr. Silverstein is an award-winning columnist. The fact that he gives commentary on "The Ari G Show" does nothing for the notability of either the "Dante and The Brick" or "Fire It Up with The Spinners" shows.Cfrydj 21:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Sir, while suggesting the Fire It Up page should be deleted, you used the statement "but no other Wikipedia articles contain links to it," therefore you used the argument that the article should be deleted based on a lack of links. Also, if you intend to use Mr. Silverstein's notability as an award-winng columnist as a a juxtaposition to the Fire It Up page, it should be noted that the award he received does not have a wikipedia page. Thus, his merit as an "award-winning columnist" is moot.Fireitup 21:45, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm afraid that you are missing the point entirely. In each successive comment, all I have been doing is showing how your arguments in favour of the notability of the article are irrelevant. The only reason I added the Fire It Up page was because of its lack of notability. I only mentioned the lack of links to the article in response to your claim that those links existed. Check the order of the comments, and you will see that this is the case. I also only refered to Mr. Silverstein in response to your claim that his connection with WMFO somehow gave the article on the Fire It Up radio show some notability, which is not the case. I hope that the misunderstandings are settled now. Cfrydj 21:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I respectuflly reply that I have only been trying to engage you in a bttle of logic. See, my refutations have only surfaced to refute your refutations. Let's put it this way: I feel you are wasting your time trying to delete the Fire It Up article. It would not have been deleted had this discussion not occured. I am going to try to edit the article to match it to the specifications upon which you insist. In the meantime I would appreciate that you remove the nomination for deletion. Thank you, 71.233.255.131 22:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC) Only edits are to this page. :) Dlohcierekim 18:46, 14 September 2006 (UTC)"""
    • That decision is up to the Wikipedia community now, to be decided by consensus. So far, anybody not personally connected to either of the two radio shows has voted for it to be deleted. I'm not sure how you will edit the article to make the radio show have some notability, I'm curious to see the end result.Cfrydj 22:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • However, when you think of it, the editor of the Fire It Up page and the editor of the Dante and the Brick page have no personal connection through edits to each other's pages, thus each page has one vote for undeletion. The opposition consists of you and two Holy Cross students, who clearly have a bias against Boston College, Tufts University, Stonehill College, the Dante and the Brick show, blegs, Joe Mauer, all of it. That's just the way it works here. That is clearly unfair. Thus we stand even, one vote to one, in terms of unbiased voters.Fireitup 22:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • What you have also failed to take into consideration are the notability of the guests which appear on Dante and The Brick each and every week. Prof. Chow from Tufts University is an award-winning computer scientist, his work has appeared on Oreilly.net as well as published in various industry periodicals. Mohammad Jahed Dirkalurka is an innovative thinker, who would call out anyone trying to destroy this page as a devil. Bitch Slap Guy is a man of brains and braun, after Katie Couric is done at CBS, it will be him bringing you the news. And needless to say, The Olse & Harry Carey, longtime friends who enjoy each others company as well as each others humor. The Olse is a drunk Irishman, and Harry has been dead for 8 years, but both contribute to this fine show, whose Wikipedia page you are going to delete. And why is that, because you didn't get the job at the mall as the security guard with the big ugly sombrero, so you did the next best thing, make yourself God of wikipedia, where you can control what is notable. F Wikipedia, Dante and The Brick and Fire It Up will Live Forever!
  • I disassociate myself from the racial profiling displayed in the last article, but do note the scientific achievements of one Mr. Chow. He is a notable fellow, a man of letters, a man of foresight.Fireitup 22:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Mr. Chow is a man of foresight, and with that being said, he wants to ask, have you ever done it in the butt?
  • Delete - Local radio shows are not necessarily notable, and this one certainly isn't. My Alt Account 22:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • You are right, local shows are not notable until they become syndicated and POOP all over your radios, just like Dante and The Brick as well as Fire It Up will be doing very soon.
  • If you think about it, the world is a better place today, not because these pages will soon be deleted, but because many more people are now aware of WMFO "The MoFO", and will undoubtedly be tuning into both of these fine programs to hear what kind of shananigans happen then.

Do Not Delete I feel people are making a mistake, such as the "My Alt Account" gentleman, by not addressing each show proposed for deletion separately. We do not now if he finds Fire It Up or Dante and the Brick to be the non-notable show. I do agree with the later commenter who believes this discussion is spreading the gospel of WMFO, just as a wiki page for Marlboro cigarettes informs people about cigarettes. Thus these pages must be notable.Fireitup 23:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Some people just need to mind their own business. Why is this page under attack by the Cyber-Geek Squad. —the preceding comment is by 24.147.18.43 - 23:17, 12 September 2006: Please sign your posts!

  • Delete both Fire It Up with The Spinners and Dante and The Brick per Nishkid64, et al. I hope your show is so wildly successful that an encyclopedia article is appropriate. Until then, you might ponder WP:NOT. Sorry. William Pietri 23:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I just read the What Wikipedia is not article. I wonder exactly how the Fire It Up with The Spinners page in any way meets the criteria outlined in the description. Not to mention, I didn't see any direct links dealing with the N word (notable) on that page. Just some food for thought.71.233.255.131 00:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC) Only edits are to this page. :) Dlohcierekim 18:46, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete both per WP:VAIN: Neither are notable. Dante article fails WP:SPAM. Dante grew out of WVBC (Bethany College) into WMFO (Tufts University); Fire it up has grown out of WSHL (Stonehill College) to WMFO (Tufts University), but it's still student radio. 15 unique out of 75 Ghits for "Fire it up" + WMFO, 6 unique out of 7 Ghits for "Fire it up" + WSHL; 85 out of 273 Ghits for Dante + WMFO, with greater incidence of irrelevant hits. Most relevant hits are the station, spinitron, directory 130.64.87.67, INLD (dead link to previous webhost), and a few wiki mirrors. No serious sources (reviews etc) to back up the article. In other words, utterly fails WP:V. Ohconfucius 04:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Confucius has a solid point. Finally, someone who was able to explain the matter. I don't know what a Ghit is, and I don't know why people continue to cite "student radio" as if it is a demerit, considering student radio stations have wikis, but I believe the vanity clause explains it all. I believe this also qualifies me to ask, out of my own vanity, that people mind their own business.Fireitup 12:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete 10 unique google hits, the top which are for this article. There is nothing notable in the article, and once you remove the advert fluff, you have little else. Wikipedia is an encyclopeida, not MySpace. :) Dlohcierekim 01:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing out my typo. There will probably be more. Please feel free to correct any typo's you find without comment. The truth is though, this is not myspace. Oh, I know you are upset, but you need to leave out the personal attacks, OK? Cheers and happy editng. :) Dlohcierekim 18:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I missed this was a 2 for 1 deal. Delete both My cooments above apply to both. :) Dlohcierekim 01:56, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Learn how to spell dumbass. What is an encyckopedia?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.51.45.135 (talk • contribs) User has been heavily involved in editing the encyclopedia article in question. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 18:41, 14 September 2006 (UTC) Commentor is a no talent ass-clown, in the same fashion as one Michael Bolton.
Comment User:Fireitup is a single purpose account. :) Dlohcierekim 01:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Comment I would suggest not deleting these pages. I think if they were properly re-worked, they would be useful to wikipedia users. This looks to me like an argument over semantics and number of google hits. I think a well-written article on an actual subject, such as a radio show, should stand on its own. It exists over the broadcast airwaves, for sure. And personally, I like to listen to Fire It Up.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.64.34.202 (talk • contribs) :) Dlohcierekim 18:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC) (Only edits are to this page.) :) Dlohcierekim 18:41, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

This is not a matter of semantics, but of notability requirements for an encyclopedia. There are many, many programs on the airways that are not sufficiently notable to have encyclopedia articles. Google hits are one way of rating notability. There are others-- no evidence for the subject meeting those criteria has been provided in "keep" arguments. Perhaps the creator of the article can turn his talents to constructively editing other articles. The deletion of this article will not in any way stop you from listening to Fire It UP. Cheers and happy editing. :) Dlohcierekim 18:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
This is not a matter of semantics or notability. This is a matter of pride. Dante and The Brick along with the Spinners from Fire It Up will not go out without the longest debate in Wikipedia history for an article undoubtedly headed toward deletion by the cyber geek-squad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.51.45.135 (talk • contribs)
  • I don't have any other talent except the talent of great radio. Needless to say, I won't be editing any wikipedia entries for fear that six or seven random people jump down my throat about content and notability.Fireitup 22:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

This may be my first response or comment posted on wikipedia, but I was searching through for shows on WMFO on wiki and I came across Dante and the Brick and the Fire it Up programs. I respect what Dante and the Brick do, I believe they are a fresh face to the usual stale talk/music that is WMFO weekdays. As for the Fire it Up program, they talk some damn good sports regarding the Boston area. These guys have talent and people should catch on to the popularity. Check out their website at fireitup.bravehost.com, you'll see that their show is significant and has a following. There, that's my concerns, if you have a problem with that, then stop being a friggin policeman of the internet and get a life. Go worry about something else.JHA30 06:38, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

To answer each objection to this page in turn: 1. It is not an advertisement. Neither WMFO nor the personalities in question will in any way profit from the inclusion of this article in Wikipedia. 2. The information is verifiable. The WMFO website notes the show and time slot and information about the shows exist in student publications which are archived. The show's prior episode may be reviewed at the station website. 3. The entry is notable. The show originally in question, Dante and the Brick, and the show incorporated by the "geek patrol", Fire it Up, are or were broadcast over a large geographic area with at least the potential to reach a large number of listeners. Both can be listened to from around the world through itunes and the WMFO website. It is uncontested that WMFO is notable, therefore the flagship shows carried should be considered notable as well. 4. The show is "encyclopedia notable". This phrase must be read as applicable to Wikipedia rather than less inclusive encyclopedias. This article provides only verifiable facts regarding a single unambiguous subject. It provides a definition of a radio program that is useful to anyone searching for this information. 5. It is not a "vanity" post. Neither personality's proper name is given and the actual broadcast likely reaches a significant number of listeners regardless of this entry. 6. There is little possibility of misdirecting a reader. There is no competing 'Dante and the Brick' entry and users searching for "Dante" or "The Brick" will realize it is not the information they sought upon cursory examination of the article if not at the search screen. Finally the consequences of deletion far outweigh the consequences of allowing the information to remain. The availability of information about this program is notable and useful to listeners, potential listeners, and any other information seeker. Dante and the Brick offers a unique type of talk radio in its market and Fire It Up offers a unique perspective on boston sports. The Boston talk and sports radio markets are both significant and crowded. The low probability of misdirection shows that there is virtually no consequence to allowing the entry to remain. For these reasons this post should not be deleted. —the preceding comment is by JourneyRocks - 23:31, 17 September 2006 UTC: Please sign your posts!

User's first edit. William Pietri 00:39, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


Oh so because it was the user's first edit, it should not be considered? Is this user not notable because he hasn't had 1 million edits on Wikipedia like those in the cyber geek-squad? What he said was right, come on now! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.18.43 (talk • contribs)

  • "User's first edit" is not a notable comment. It should be deleted.Fireitup 16:16, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Hi. notability does not apply to talk page comments. No insult is indended, but this is a process to determine community consensus. Although we hope new editors become part of the community, most newcomers who start in these discussions turn out to be single-purpose accounts. We still listen carefully to the arguments and evidence provided by new users, but the closing admin may weight community members more heavily than temporary visitors. William Pietri 16:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Who IS said closing admin? I thought this was a community decision...Fireitup 17:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

  • At some point, an admin will come along and close this debate. He/she will read all the comments and decide what the community's consensus was. Cfrydj 17:20, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

The community has spoken, and I'm sorry to announce both William Pietri and Cfrydj have been voted off of this debate. Their comments are rendered useless because they have no knowledge base about the shows. Mr.T pities you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.51.45.135 (talk • contribs) Please sign your comments.Cfrydj 20:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

  • I'm afraid that these sorts of comments will do little to help you keep these pages on Wikipedia. Cfrydj 20:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • A couple questions...so first, a community member's (EDITOR'S) input is considered "more heavily" than regular users of the website? So apparently those who visit wikipedia daily but don't bother to edit pages aren't important. That is a major insult to the user base. I don't have figures, but I'd venture that less than 1% of wikipedia visitors actually edit pages. Therefore, if someone is so passionate about the inclusion of an entry that they create said "single-purpose" account, just so they can join in a debate, it means nothing? That's a slap in the face of the user base. Let this be said, those of you who have entered this dialogue, coming up with cryptic phraseology in bold face type to dismiss community statements seriously lack a funny bone. Why not engage in a lighthearted, spirited debate about these articles? Because it's a waste of time for these "editor" types. Fine, whatever, I give up, you can delete to your heart's content. But seriously, grab a sense of humor or SOMETHING or you will never, ever get laid.24.147.151.4 02:12, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi. The readers are of course important; they are why we do this. But there are many concerns to be balanced, and until you've spent some time here, they aren't all obvious. We generally welcome contributions from single-purpose accounts (and many, many people with no accounts at all). It's just that in AfDs we find that special-purpose accounts generally have a purpose other than building a good encyclopedia. Sorry if we seem cryptic or stuffy here, but with about 1000 AfDs a week on Wikipedia, the responses that seem novel and entertaining to you are regrettably familiar to us. If you spend some time working on articles where you don't have a strong personal interest you'll discover that there's plenty of fun being had. Hoping that helps, William Pietri 06:23, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Point taken.Fireitup 19:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Tons of fun being had at the expense of WMFO's finest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.51.45.135 (talk • contribs)

  • 208.51.45.135's recent edit of Dante and The Brick I feel shows once again that the page is being used for promotion purposes. Oh, and could everyone please sign their posts? At the end of your comment, just insert 4 of the symbol "~" in a row. Cfrydj 19:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 after author blanked VoiceOfReason 20:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Syntagon

Contested prod. Fails WP:CORP, no assertion of notability under corporation guidelines VoiceOfReason 19:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - bad faith, no attempt to talk this over, obvious advert. Lundse 20:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Admittedly, by strict tally, this argument is on the verge of being "no consensus." Considering that the keep arguments fail to engage on matters of policy (deferring instead to personal beliefs regarding the site's quality), the strength of argument weighs in favoring of deletion. The complete lack of reliable sources decides the matter; but, I will happily userfy for anyone willing to search out such reliable sources. Xoloz 00:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wacky World of Erotic Cartoons

This article features no serious claim to (or proof for) notability for this website as required by WP:WEB. Although it has an Alexa ranking of 20,814, it does not appear to have any noteworthy Google coverage (516 hits, mostly from porn sites). Contested prod. Sandstein 05:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep, this is one of the very few nice cartoon porn sites. Most of them are forgettable rubbish. JIP | Talk 09:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
What bearing does this assertion have on the site's notability per WP:WEB? As far as I know, we do not judge our articles based on the merits of the subject, but on its notability. Sandstein 11:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I've seen many other, less professional cartoon porn sites steal images from WWOEC. WWOEC seems to be one of the few cartoon porn sites that creates porn pictures instead of simply propagating them. JIP | Talk 16:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Wonderful, I'm sure, but that still isn't a notability criterium per WP:WEB - and do you happen to have any reliable sources for your assertions? Sandstein 17:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, I think WWOEC has some notability in certain circles. Absolutely not mine. Not that there's anything wrong with it (actually some parts of WWOEC I think are actually pretty wrong - but its still a bit notable).--ZayZayEM 14:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Sure, everything has "some notability in certain circles", if the circles are sufficiently narrow. We're looking for notability per WP:WEB, however, backed up by reliable sources and not by unsourced assertions. Sandstein 17:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, seems notable. Google != WP deletion policy Cynical 22:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment these reasons being listed for keeping the article are not good. It really shouldn't be kept unless someone can find reliable sources showing that it meets Wikipedia:Verifiability. I couldn't find any in a quick google search, perhaps someone else can. --Xyzzyplugh 09:28, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Does not meet criteria of WP:WEB, and, more importantly, no "credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" per WP:V. Also, reads somewhat like WP:ADVERT. --Satori Son 15:11, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: This AfD should be closed already. I would close it myself as "no consensus", but I have vested interest in the AfD myself, as a fan of WWOEC's art (well, some of it). JIP | Talk 17:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
I propose relisting it, as there has been little policy-based discussion so far. Sandstein 18:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, JIP | Talk 20:09, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Satori Son. No reliable sources are present to establish any notability. Without sources it fails WP:WEB, but I would be happy to change my opinion if some sources are provided. DrunkenSmurf 20:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Sandstein. Neither notable nor verifiable. Valrith 20:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Google gets alot of hits and the simple size of the community and the fact that it generates art work seems to make it notable for to me. It needs clean up but it doesn't need to get deleted. A solution could be to merge parts of the article and a link into an "erotic cartoons" type article if an appropriate one can be found. NeoFreak 20:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The problem is although it may seem notable, Wikipedia articles require sources to validate those claims. If you found some reliable sources that establish notability for this site from the google hits you are talking about, please add them. Again, I would be happy to change my opinion if you do that. DrunkenSmurf 20:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Well Google bases its hits ranking off the number of webpages that link to the site which is why Google is often used as a yardstick of sorts to determine Notability. Like I said the sheer number of those hits and the number of participating artists is reason enough for me. Like I said though it's just my opinion. I'll see what I can't do to find some other legit sources to cite to back it up some more. NeoFreak 20:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:WEB. It does seem fairly popular, but I don't see any reliable third-party coverage that we could verifably base an encyclopedia article on. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. "The primary criterion for inclusion is verifiability, not truth." Regardless of its supposed popularity, it shows no real evidence of that. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 23:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator and Mr. Lefty. If we have nothing to make an article out of, we have no article. William Pietri 23:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 22:24, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Longview Solutions Inc.

Corporate vanity page of non-notable corporation; no evidence of satisfying WP:CORP. Valrith 20:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nominator. I found plenty of proof that the company exists, but not enough from reliable sources to even bring them close to WP:CORP. William Pietri 23:09, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per William Pietri and nom. Erechtheus 23:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Found no evidence of WP:CORP. :) Dlohcierekim 01:46, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 22:24, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Myspace U.S. politics forum

Okay, here's a weird one. Basically, this is about a subforum of a website, which does not (IMHO) fulfill any sort of notability criteria (let alone WP:WEB) - and the article contents probably would warrant a complete rewrite in any case, in which case Deleting won't hurt. The more odd thing is that I bring this to AfD: I deleted this already, but thought I was kinda-sorta stretching CSD A7, because this is a web forum and not a group of people; however, while a witty philosopher might lump them to same group, the practice is still highly controversial (I'm not saying yea or nay on that myself). I figured that CSD is for uncontroversial stuff and I can't decide myself, it won't hurt to AfD. So here it is up for evaluation, for the sake of the Process. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 20:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, possibly not even notable in the context of Myspace itself, fails a quasi-WP:WEB test. Looks like WP:SPAM for the group. Everyone adding advertising for their favorite Myspace forum is not the goal of Wikipedia, I think. --Kinu t/c 20:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Kill it with fire. (per Kinu) NeoFreak 20:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 21:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete MySpace is a very notable website, but that doesn't mean all its groups or subforums should have their own encyclopedia articles. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Starblind's inherent notability reasoning. Tracker/TTV (myTalk|myWork|myInbox) 00:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 22:25, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bookmap

Originally proded but tag removed by creator of the article Paullakso (talk · contribs) whose sole edits are to this article. The product in question is a learning tool sold on the web. The Google search for "bookmap + learning" provides 154 unique non-wiki hits although a quick stroll through them will convince anyone that most of these hits are unrelated to that product. Perhaps more telling is the search for "Brain-Oriented Organized Knowledge Map" (which "bookmap" stands for according to the article. This generates 15 hits, including two wikipedia, three forum posts and two from the product's website. Plainly and simly fails WP:CORP. Pascal.Tesson 20:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment - the second google search turns up a little more than that. There is a PDF file reporting from Dutch Ministry of Education studying the use of this learning tool. There's a bunch of entries that appear to be in Dutch which I am not able to read and evaluate. This learning tool may be locally notable in the Netherlands, but since I can't read Dutch, I can't tell. But I don't think it is a slam dunk failure of WP:CORP -- Whpq 21:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
And the google search I used was this one. -- Whpq 21:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Comment actually, I should have made this clear so thanks for the comment. The article indeed refers to a study conducted by a non-profit organization of the Netherlands [27] which technically is independent from the ministry of education (although subsidized by it). It is that organization's task to undertake studies and there's no sign that this one was less routine than the others (and I say this after zipping through all 8 pages of that report). That still does not make it notable as there is no evidence that there was a follow-up since that 2003 study. Surely if this New Jersey based company had a hot product, you would actually have this reflected on their website [28]. Also I went back to your Google search and looked at the dutch pages (I know enough german to at least get a jist of the content. They are mentions in passing that this SLO organization is conducting a study on that product. In fact, most pages have the very same paragprah on the subject which means it was probably a press release or something of that sort. Pascal.Tesson 21:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. My Alt Account 22:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. No notability asserted, no reliable sources cited other than a single small study. Google search for "bookmap 'horn clause logic'" turns up only their site and Wikipedia. There are no incoming links to their home page. Alexa has no ranking data for them. Hopefully the'll become notable and broadly covered, but I see no evidence of that yet. William Pietri 23:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. :) Dlohcierekim 01:39, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 04:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Players Anonymous

Prod removed without comment. Website and "social group" for Utah arts scene. Alexa is over 2 million and Google search finds less than 200 links (80 unique) from other sites. Fails WP:WEB -- Fan-1967 20:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Many of us feel that Players Anonymous is important to the Utah Arts scene, in particular to those interested in the community theatrical arts. It's influence in Utah is worth an article in Wikipedia.—Preceding unsigned comment added by PantydeLeopard (talk • contribs)
  • Players Anonymous is a valuable tool for Utah's theater community. It provides up to date information about auditions, performances, venues and casting calls as well as provides networking opportunities for people involved in all aspects of theater.

--Xenasings 22:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)Xenasings

  • Delete non-notable group. Advertising, hence non-Wiki tone and the vanity of that image gallery. The JPStalk to me 22:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:WEB or WP:ORG, take your pick. Alexa rank of 2,097,942. William Pietri 22:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per The JPS. NeoFreak 23:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • delete blatant ad hockingQrc2006 00:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep PA is invaluable to the local Utah theater community, as well as its growing membership throughout the U.S.
    According to WP:WEB"Organizations whose activities are local in scope are usually not notable unless verifiable information from reliable third party sources can be found." Most theatrical activities listed on PA can be verified through the listed theater, in various news papers, and on other theatrical websites. Furthermore "Organizations are usually notable if the scope of activities are national in scale and information can be verified by a third party source." Though most activities listed are local to Utah we do have members throughout the U.S. who also list theatrical activity which can also be verified in their individual states. Androsia 13:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment We can take it for granted that information about events can be verified. What WP:WEB is asking for is verifiable coverage from third-party sources about your website. That's a very different thing. Fan-1967 18:18, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • User's only edits are to the article and this AfD. [29] William Pietri 18:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable group, though from reading their public pages, they're self-important. They even have a thread on their message board trying to get their members to come here and keep the Wikipedia article going. http://www.playersanonymous.org/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.pl?num=1158092852 --Going insane 14:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Despite the regional nature of the website and low link-count to the site, the site does have high cultural value for the state of Utah, and is well known in the Utah arts community. Sifujc 15:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Comment As invaluable as they may be to those who value them, they do not meet inclusion criteria for Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. [http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Players+Anonymous%22&hl=en&lr=&rls=GGLR,GGLR:2006-24,GGLR:en&start=360&sa=N Only about 300 unique google hits. :) Dlohcierekim 01:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 22:25, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Houdini: Sexual Move

Non-notable sexual practice, discussion of which is primarily designed for shock value. This page was already declined on Articles for Creation. Strait 21:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. I'm pretty sure this is covered in another article anyway. NeoFreak 21:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete --nkayesmith 22:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nonnotable invention for fun of shocking. A good laugh for idiots, but this sexual prank is of no encyclopedic value. `'mikka (t) 22:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. We've outsource all our WP:NEO cruft to Urban Dictionary, and they're doing a fine job with it. Let them continue, I say. William Pietri 22:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 22:25, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Xceog

Fails WP:CORP. Only 177 unique Ghits and no sign of reliable third-party coverage. Pascal.Tesson 21:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. I hope they become notable, but as of yet, I don't think they're there. William Pietri 22:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Erechtheus 23:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Ezeu 18:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zuhra Bahman

Non-notable student. Prod tag removed by anon without explanation. DMG413 21:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete CSD-A7. This doesn't need to be at AFD. Fan-1967 21:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • After some googling, she seems to have gained some attention for her work with NGO's, barely referred to in this article. This should be expanded in the article. Abstain for now. Fan-1967 21:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

speedy keep. The article is copyright violation, and I removed the content. But without doubt google search shows more than enough notability and press coverage. `'mikka (t) 22:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep, but not speedy. She has some press, but what I see is modest enough I think it's worth going through the process. William Pietri 22:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete Although there is a bit of media attention, I don't see an encyclopedic level of notability. Deli nk 18:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep 122 unique goog;e hits, but what there are suggest notability. More than just a student. :) Dlohcierekim 01:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, no acutal or verifiable evidence of notability. --Peta 06:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Ezeu 18:01, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Youth subculture

del essay, which is a random text about subculture. If you delete the word "youth", or replace by the word, say, "army veteran", after small context changes you will get an article of same meaningfulness. I am not saying that the topic is invalid. It is just the article that is useless. Mukadderat 21:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete essay. Danny Lilithborne 22:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. The article itself has citations, and a quick Amazon search reveals book after book on the topic. [31]. A messy article isn't cause for deletion; it's cause for tagging as disputed or requiring cleanup. William Pietri 22:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
    • In case you haven't noticed, we already have an article youth culture. Of course, "youth culture" is not homogeneous. Of course, there are various "subcultures" in it. But we have, say, Culture of India, but there was no one smart enough to write "Subculture of India", although there are plenty of unique subcultures in India, and you know what? there are plenty of google hits for "subculture of india" and "subculture in india" and other variants to collect enough references for an even longer rant. `'mikka (t) 02:17, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • delete. non-encyclopedic essay, which even does not define its title. `'mikka (t) 04:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Keepp after expanding. Next time to avoid such situation please start writing articles from head, not from tail. Next time you can create a scratchpad, e.g., User:JenLouise/Youth Sub, and then move the page into a proper name when the article becomes reasonable and out of danger. `'mikka (t) 18:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep The article has a stub tag on it, because it needs work. Youth subcultures are completely distinct from youth culture. Youth culture arises in opposition to parent cultures or the adult world. Youth subcultures are ways of young people creating and maintaining an identity that distinguishes them from other youth. It is a valid, distinct area of study in sociology and therefore is valid material for an article. JenLouise 06:17, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, on the condition that there will be much cleanup, to raise it up to Wikipedia standards.Spylab 20:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC)Spylab
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 01:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Farthen Dûr

Alright, I'm going to be bold and list this article for deletion (my first ever afd), so please forgive me if my reasons are not valid.

That said, I believe this article is not notable (a fictional event in a recent adventure book, which can hardly be considered classic, or even notable among recent literature). It consists largely of speculation, and is written in a factual tone (I changed the first paragraph to make it obvious it was fictional). The only useful content could be integrated into some of the other numerous, numerous pages on the Inheritance Trilogy.

I'm done. --nkayesmith 08:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep. This is a a major event in a major book, none of which is original research. It describes the event very well, and is definitely notable. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 10:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  • It may not be original research, but it is speculative, and will never be more than speculative ("we have reason to assume that the battle lasted into the morning"). Other 'notable' books have a page of events, not a page per event. (Events in the Wheel of Time series). Having said that, there are quite a few articles as notable (i.e. not notable) as this one...e.g. Patronus Charm, although Harry Potter is more notable than Eragon. --nkayesmith 00:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Um... Haven't I said before that all the content is from the book, and hence it cannot be speculative. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 11:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
  • It also contains a lot of strictly speculative language:
"To wipe out the Varden and the Dwarves (perhaps only the Dwarves that opposed him)"
"From this description, it is safe to say that the Battle lasted a good deal into the morning."
"The Strength of the Urgals is unknown, but from a description in the book, they probably had 3 or 4 times the number of warriors that the Varden and Dwarves had."

Unencyclopedic language, and could easily be merged or redirected into an article about the book. Djcartwright 00:31, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:NOT, or merge into the article about the book. The article is nicely written, but I'm not seeing the topic as requiring an encyclopedia entry. William Pietri 22:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Recury 00:07, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. This level of detail is beyond fancruft. My Alt Account 01:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • delete per above, as much as I like the series. ~crazytales56297 - t-e 23:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Punkmorten 08:55, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Federated Model

  • del someone's original research. In fact, the notion of federated system is surprisingly missing from wikipedia, but the current article is overnaive. `'mikka (t) 22:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • delete unsourced... notability not asserted Anlace 22:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Anlace. William Pietri 22:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 22:31, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Sonic Apple Experience

Zero ghits of band or albums, description of band is "Western Sydney alternative-rock band and counter cultural group of artists formed by a three blind albinos and a cat. The band plays infrequently and has released a series of somewhat influential albums". Prod as unverifiable, probable hoax removed (and an earlier prod was also removed - it had no edit summary so I'd missed it). --Jamoche 19:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Notability asserted, but I can't verify anything about the band, and no sources are provided. Zero Google hits for the band and all the album titles but one. The other one, "Appletronic", gets only unrelated hits. I agree with the nominator that it's a hoax. William Pietri 22:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as unverifiable if not a hoax. Erechtheus 23:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Got no hits at Google and nothing at Allmusic. :) Dlohcierekim 22:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 22:31, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neptune class survey ship

Was de-prodded about a week or so ago with the assurance that "it is cannon" [sic] mentioned in the article (never a good sign). I tagged with {{clean up}} and more importantly {{references}}. While in the most excruciatingly painful sense it is technically canon (see here), the vast majority of this article is pure original research. One line in a TV show and a fan site entry do not combine for notable encyclopedia articles. Irongargoyle 22:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

    • Really random comment When I typed the word "excruciatingly" into Google to make sure I'd spelled it correctly while writing the initial nomination, my first result was a page entitled "Eric's Excruciatingly Detailed Star Trek (TOS) Plot Summaries." I thought that was quite ironic and a little amusing. Irongargoyle 22:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator. William Pietri 22:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete original research. `'mikka (t) 22:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. My Alt Account 22:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom Hello32020 00:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect somewhere into the Star Trek articles. :) Dlohcierekim
  • Delete. Memory Alpha material. Gazpacho 05:13, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Ergative rlt 22:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I looked at the starfleet ship entry on wiki it did not contain this ship. it did not contain the intrepid type either. i found it no more noteable than any other sci fi ship artical. dregj —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.123.177 (talk • contribs) 19:19, 16 September 2006
  • Delete per nom. AlistairMcMillan 22:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 05:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of letters

Obviously a non-notable list, I almost speedied it myself. But, prod was removed 11kowrom 22:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete the definition of listcruft. Danny Lilithborne 22:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete for all reasons (I won't suggest a category as an alternative either). Yomanganitalk 22:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - much more useful articles already exist at the various alphabet pages (English alphabet, Lithuanian alphabet, etc). BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 22:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. That's what English alphabet is for! --Gray Porpoise 23:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. My Alt Account 23:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, there is even nowhere to redirect: there are so many different alphabets!
BJAODN? `'mikka (t) 23:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: On the other hand, an alphabetical list of all letters in all alphabets could be handy, for quick search. For example, what was this letter: Gomel, Gamel, Gimel, Gymel, Gumel, Gemel ? And seeing Aleph and Alpha side by side in the list would be instructive `'mikka (t) 23:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
    • There's certainly something to be said for that (I'm surprised we don't have such an article already, but we don't seem to). BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 00:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Sadly, that's not what this is. D, E, L, E, T, E.Djcartwright 00:36, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment: Well, it's not what it was. Take a look now and see if the new version has any merit as a page; I didn't see anything like it on Wikipedia so far. -- nae'blis 04:45, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete My first un-qualified vote for a Delete. Justification per nom. Jdclevenger 23:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom Hello32020 00:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete because the information is much easier used and accessed at pages describing the English alphabet. SliceNYC 01:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete genuinely worthy candidate. Ohconfucius 04:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Without a doubt-delete. Lorty 00:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia already has a page on this: English alphabet. -AMK152 03:07, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Very Strong Keep or Merge into alphabet, List of alphabets, or similar. This is definitely encyclopedic, and is the first comparitive chart I have seen on wikipedia. Ideally, it will be expanded in the near future. Markovich292 05:50, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Markovich292, but since there are so many alphabets it will have to be expanded big time. Cheesfgf 14:10, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge - the table is a good starting point, but needs extending... maybe in another article. Ace of Risk 15:52, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:29, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Colonization of Ceres

Violates WP:NOR and WP:V. Awolf002 22:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment. I'm not sure I understand how this is an OR issue. The article is well cited and appears to take its direction from those cites. Am I missing something? Erechtheus 23:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
The given links do not provide verifiable information as of WP:V in my oppinion. Instead these are self-published texts, which means this is obvious OR. Am I wrong? Awolf002 23:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
No -- I'm not saying you're wrong. Your argument just wasn't obvious to me so I thought I'd ask. I'll check them out a little more closely before "voting". Erechtheus 23:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough! Note to self: Be more descriptive. Awolf002 00:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Comment: This Afd is only about this article. Do not confuse this as a "vote" about the general topic. My concern is that none of the cited two primary sources pass the policy rule in WP:V regarding Personal websites, blogs, and other self-published or vanity publications should not be used as secondary sources. Does nobody else see this obvious breach of policy? Awolf002 11:16, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep - not inherently deletion-worthy, though I agree with nom about low quality of sources used - why is text from a game cited as a reference? Ergative rlt 21:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
I think it is for the Colonization in SciFi. Æon Insanity Now!EA! 22:49, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Valid, like all the other space colonization articles. --Centauri 11:09, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. The acceptable parts of this article are already present in 1 Ceres. Alternatively, redirect to Colonization of the asteroids, but without merging. Michael Kinyon 13:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Well cited (Could use a few more refs however) and it has no POV issues. Its an article on possible colonization of Drawf Planet Ceres. This article doesn't violate WP:NOR or WP:V Æon Insanity Now!EA! 22:44, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 22:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moon Illusion Misconception

  • del. We have a very good Moon illusion article, which spells it all and more. `'mikka (t) 23:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - redundant fork riddled with WP:OR "As Galili et al. did not address instructional methods for helping to solve this problem, I found further information". --Daniel Olsen 23:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unencyclopedic, badly formatted. Djcartwright 00:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. per above and WP:SOAP :) Dlohcierekim 14:19, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Redundant mess. Ergative rlt 22:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom.--Peta 05:13, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Redundant. TheronJ 18:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 22:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] North County Community Church

Non-notable church housed in a high school. 58 Google hits, not all relevant. Article is extremely unencyclopedic and most of it seems to be about a group of friends. PROD (confirmed by a second editor) was removed by the article's creator without explanation. -Elmer Clark 23:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as the editor lodging the prod2 template. Erechtheus 23:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete. Unencyclopedic to the point of being uninformative. Djcartwright 00:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOTABLE Hello32020 00:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as it contains neither an assertion of notability nor citations to reliable sources to support any such claim. GRBerry 03:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. WP:NOT a listing service for churches. :) Dlohcierekim 19:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 22:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Diamond Seven

Verifiable, but reads like a bookseller's ad; unencyclopedic and not of great apparent notability (26 total Google hits, most of which appear to be incidental mentions and this page). Djcartwright 23:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete POV ad possibly by publisher or someone involved in the project (creator was User:Ardmoremedia). Also possible copyright violation (see sopyright notice at the bottom of the page and the talk page of the article's creator). Violation of WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:C, WP:VAIN, etc. --Daniel Olsen 00:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Daniel Olsen Hello32020 00:19, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per all above; also appears to fail WP:BK, which was my rationale on the original PROD. --Kinu t/c 04:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per all above. :) Dlohcierekim 19:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Fails WP:BK (proposed guideline for notability of books) since it is published by a vanity press and has no independent coverage. Pascal.Tesson 16:41, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.