Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 September 15

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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The result was speedy keep per the nomination withdrawn. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 17:49, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kuata

No evidence that this is an actual martial arts concept. Google kuata gives a bunch of results on a Kuata Island in Fiji; kuata +"martial arts", +fighting and +technique also give us nothing martial-arts related but WP-derived sources. VT hawkeye_{talk to me} 02:34, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

delete this is not necessarily a hoax, although it does ring the bells, perhaps a dic def for a concept not used in english. If so it should be a redirect anyway to Shadowboxing. although i question the need for uncommon non-english word redirects. --Darkfred ^{Talk to me} 05:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• I have been bold and reworded the article to be about the island in Fiji, which is far more notable than the martial arts term, if that even exists. Shall we close the AfD?--Cúchullain ^t/c 04:13, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Retract by submitter cool by me. VT hawkeye_{talk to me} 23:07, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 18:24, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Toby Meltzer

Tagged as A7. Notability claimed (see talk). No vote, have at it. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep It would be ridiculous to delete this article about a surgeon of worldwide acclaim. Shame on anyone who deletes this article. He is even refered to in several other Wikipedia articles. One of the ironies of Wikipedia is that few people do this to puny minor Hollywood psuedo celebrities of little cultural significance. Meanwhile, somebody like Dr. Meltzer, a pioneering surgeon, known worldwide by people who ought to know about him, who spent decades in medical school and perfecting his craft, of important historical significance, gets put on this list by ignorant people without a clue. People need to STAND DOWN from this kind of Wiki behavior unless they can demonstrate some reliable reason for doing so. There is none in this case. Removing this article would violate written Wikipedia policy. Nobody commenting has shown good basis for removing it. I VOTE NO, regarding its removal. What kind of luddites are making these decisions? Who created this nomination, based on what research or criteria. Go check on the discussion on the article page about this.Janniejdoe 16:48, 14September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Article and talk page discussion demonstrate notability. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 03:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep re. my comments on the talk page. Relevant, notable and well-established in his field, Toby Meltzer is one of the United States' most well-known GRS surgeons - Alison^✍ 04:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep That first comment nearly convinced me to vote delete, it looked so much like the typical sockpuppet attack you see here. However I remembered seeing this guy on TV so keep. --Darkfred ^{Talk to me} 05:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep, apparently not just "prominent" for sex-changes but opinionated in the various debates about it. --Dhartung | Talk 05:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Cannot see evidence of WP:PROF here. JFW | T@lk 07:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Providing some references for his key innovations (so we can judge their citation index) would be helpful to make me reconsider my vote. JFW | T@lk 07:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• There are a bunch of citations on the talk page. He's also featured prominently in the IJT - Alison^✍ 17:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. He only gets 7 citations on Medline, which is less than I'd expect for a surgeon of the pioneering status claimed. Can anyone point to an independent review, preferably in a peer-reviewed source, which asserts his importance? Espresso Addict 22:35, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. You need to check the talk page for this entry. Toby Meltzer, MD has numerous articles in available through pubmed. Also because he is no longer a clinical professor, and is instead a practicing surgeon, is importance and reputation are based on his work, not on "publish or perish" pseudo importance. This surgeon's work is innovative and important, and important to people who read about the related wikipedia articles that mention him. And somebody removed my signature from my KEEP VOTE above.Janniejdoe^Janniejdoe 16:48, 14September 2006 (UTC)

• I checked the edit history for this page. No one removed your signature from your "vote", but someone did add the {{unsigned}} tag after you forgot to sign. -AED 06:44, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete without prejudice towards recreation if references for key innovations are provided, as per JFW. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable per Wikipedia policy. As is, the article lacks reliable sources and citations for claims. The burden to verify is on the editor(s) who wish to include the information, not on the reader(s) to look elsewhere. (This edit by Janniejdoe is troubling in that it makes up 80% of the article and smacks of copy-and-paste.) -AED 06:44, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - Dr. Meltzer is an immensely notable doctor in the transcommunity, much like Marci Bowers and Stanley Biber. I am working with the article's editors to input reliable sources to back up some of the "pioneering technique" claims (So far all I've found where blogs, self-published sites and medical journals that you have to pay to access and verify). Some of the resources that I did find and add into the article gives ardent claim for notability-like performing 400-500 SRS surgeries a year. The source I added goes on to note that on average only 800-1100 are done in the US in a year. He also has numerous peer reviewed contibutions to notable medical journals. (See article's talk page and Google Scholar. Overall I think this article is a valuable entry in an area that is scarcely represented on Wikipedia due to systematic bias. It is not in a perfect state but the subject is certainly notable enough to deserve an entry. Agne 15:38, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Notability established through book references (added since AfD) and 2100+ Google hits. Meltzer does not grant media interviews and keeps a low profile, which may make him less visible than other surgeons, but he is probably the most prolific American specialist in these procedures working today. Article could use references for his cricothyroid approximation innovations as well. [14] Jokestress 06:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Reading comments here and seeing the googles, he seems quite worthy Ekehoe 06:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Subject is well-known in his field, has appeared in various television programmes and is one of the primary SRS surgeons in the US - Lyndau 16:39, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
• delete As much as it pains me to give the black-ball to another Plastic Surgeon, with all due respect, as a practicing Plastic Surgeon myself, I'd submit that Dr. Meltzer is not someone widely known within the field of plastic surgery despite a clear expertise in a very specialized area. His academic work & writing are relatively modest and I'd submit he clearly falls short of professional noteriety to really merit an individual entry. A talented surgeon yes, but not someone I think most of his peers would single out as someone wiki-worthyDroliver 04:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

• I think the point here is that WP is not peer-reviewed, thus the criteria are different. It's not that the guy is notable within his peers, but that he be publicly notable for some reason. So it's not the field of plastic surgery, but the field of SRS - Alison^✍ 18:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) Comment Actually, Dr. Oliver's comment enhances Dr. Meltzer's encyclopedic worth by virtue of being an expert in (as you note) a very specialized area. In an area that is under-represented in Wikipedia (relevant to systematic bias), after the late Stanley Biber, Dr. Meltzer is probably the most notable SRS surgeon. He is certainly the most prolific in the US. In deleting this article, we sharply decrease Wikipedia's value in being a comprehensive source of knowledge in this area. Unless, of course, the area of GLBT related articles (and in particular transgender-related articles) is, in itself, not worthy of encyclopedic inclusion. Please don't interpret that as a Strawman because I'm not contending that anyone here is arguing that. Rather, I want to emphasize how relevant the Dr. Meltzer article is to Wikipedia's desire to overcome systematic bias and be a free source of knowledge to all--in all areas of encyclopedic merit. Agne 18:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I would disagree with your rationale somewhat. If we're to catalog contemporary or historic physicians, I think there must be some threshold as to someone's notability. In medicine you've got to assess their historic signifigance in the field, academic achievment (did they publish extensively or produce influential sentinal papers), professional status (were they leaders in their field) , and consider other ways for which they've gained noteriety. Dr. Meltzer is clearly not going to meet at least the first three of those milestones if you poll other surgeons I'd argue. A "comprehensive" source would certainly contain entries on transgender issues, but featuring a successful surgeon who performs the operation but is otherwise lacking in historic/professional stature is diluting things too much I submit. Again, it pains me to argue against inclusion of a physician someone has felt enough about to profile and this isn't a slight against Dr. Meltzer. Droliver 01:58, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

You missed my point entirely, sir. The problem with your rationale above centres around the "otherwise lacking" and "if you poll other surgeons". This is not peer-reviewed, firstly. Secondly, Dr. Meltzer is at the top of his specialised field and is thus notable. Thirdly, when I started the article, it was not that I "felt enough about" the subject, rather that WP was incomplete without mention of Dr. Meltzer for all the reasons I have previously stated. - Alison^✍ 03:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I would concur with Ali. His stature among his peers is only relevant in the regard (in respects to notability) of whether or not he is viewed as an expert in his field. I would think a Biologist specializing in elements of Creationism is not highly noted for "historic/professional stature" among other biologists, however if those biologist concede that he is the "expert creationist" in their field then he has notability in his field for the benefit of a wikipedia. Remember, wikipedia is geared towards the reader and those who will be moved to want to research and look up such information in an encyclopedia. There are far more people interested in who is the expert of SRS surgery then in "who do the plastic surgeons regard highly among their peers". Agne 04:23, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. I think this is someone that in a non-notable (see WP:Bio). Wikipedia doesn't have the bounds of a normal encyclopedia-- but at the same time I don't think it should be the place to look-up super-specialized surgeons that may be well-known in their super-specialized field. Sexual reassignment, I think, borders on non-notable (WP:Notable). Why write a bio on someone in a field that barely makes it on the radar? I think this article pales in comparison to Gary K. Michelson --even though it is written a lot better. Also, I think Meltzer pales in comparison to say Stuart W Jamieson -- another surgeon that does a slightly less obscure surgery (pulmonary thromboendarterectomy) and doesn't have a WP entry. Nephron  T|C 03:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you want to contend that Sexual reassignment is non-notable then your delete vote would be supported by that contention. However, I think you are mistaking in that regard. Compared to your pulmonary thromboendarterectomy, "sexual reassignment" -wikipedia gets 101,000 ghits. "Pulmonary thromboendarterectomy" -wikipedia gets 30,200. In Google news, "pulmonary thromboendarterectomy" gets 0 hits. "Sexual reassignment" gets 58. This minor comparison also doesn't take into consideration that often "sexual reassignment" is shorthanded to "SRS" or "GRS". Agne 04:23, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Your point about Google is mute. If you search for anything related to sex-- it will give you more hits. Some would say the internet was invented for porn. If you're talking medical literature-- the situation is the reverse. A search on PubMed for "pulmonary thromboendarterectomy" yields 202 hits versus for 104 "sexual reassignment".

Any case, if "...only patients with symptomatic acute pulmonary emboli are counted, approximately 2500 individuals would progress to chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension in the United States each year." [15] We're talking the same order (of magnitude) here. It is like breast cancer and prostate cancer-- they kill about the same number per year... but you're more likely to find info on breast cancer[16] than prostate cancer [17] 55 million vs. 19 million hits. Nephron  T|C 04:12, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

First, I will note that my search was done in "quotes" which meant the results were specific to the type of surgery looking for--not just random sex stuff. Secondly, take a step back for a moment and think what is more likely to be searched for on Wikipedia. An article on SRS or Pulmonary thromboendarterectomy? Conversely, would an article on the most notable SRS surgeon or most notable Pulmonary thromboendarterectomy surgeon get the most interest by readers and editors? Agne 04:31, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

My point was that SRS is a rare bird and that a Google search is not necessarily a good representation. Any case, I see the cruft (WP:CRUFT) will likely stay-- it seems WP has critical mass of SRS enthusiasts. It's just like how the inventor of Neuticles got their own article. I suppose it could be said that one person's cruft is another person's gemstone... and admitedly I've probably written more than my share of medicinecruft articles... so I'll leave it at that. Nephron  T|C 07:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Folks, that's "sex reassignment" (sexual means something quite different to sex). Google responds with 230,000 hits for that, and goognews gets 130, which is far more representative. - Alison^✍ 04:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Doh! You're right. Thanks for catching my gaffe and your right. That is a far more compelling representation. Agne 22:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. In my opinion, the only medical procedure more controversial than sex reassignment is abortion. With how much various groups that are a part of the religious right get riled up by the concept of SRS, the surgery is, in my mind more notable than a "Pulmonary thromboendarterectomy" or most other procedures. Given the controversial nature of the operation, I feel that the surgeon that appears responsible for around 50% of the surgeries is notable enough for inclusion. --- The Bethling^(Talk) 05:11, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
• keep please the person is notable and well established in his feild plus many book references Yuckfoo 21:50, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per my esteemed colleagues above. --Myles Long 21:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep... I personally know one patient who flew 1200 miles for surgery by this guy.  ALKIVAR™ 03:19, 22 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 author requested deletion. alphaChimp^(talk) 03:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Penispenispenis

An article about a non-notable internet trolling phenomenon. Somehow, I doubt it's going to serve as anything other than trollbait. Of course, it also fails WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:WEB. alphaChimp^(talk) 02:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete This definitely does not qualify for an article. Delete it. -- P.B. Pilhet 02:56, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. We had it happen here and it wound up on BJAODN. Well-written and formatted, though. I hope this user stays around. - Lucky 6.9 02:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.--Jersey Devil 02:59, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete basically serves no purpose other than to glorify BS that bored teenagers do while wasting time online. — NMChico24 03:04, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - I was just goofing around a little. You're right that this doesn't really qualify as an article lol.--NoobGuy55 03:06, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

  Comment. Although this technically makes it an author request (CSD A1, I believe), should we let this AfD run its course to permanently prevent creation of this article (future creations would be CSD G4)? alphaChimp^(talk) 03:08, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

  Comment Isn't this CSD G7? "speedy request by only editor"? Your call. Bobo. 03:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

  Comment. Woops, you're right. alphaChimp^(talk) 03:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

  Comment. If I don't delete it, another admin will. alphaChimp^(talk) 03:31, 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 merge and redirect all band members to band page. (Although from perusing the articles I suspect there is nothing to merge.) --- Deville (Talk) 15:47, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PJ DeCicco

Non-notable by himself. Band he is in is barely notable -Nv8200p talk 02:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• Merge into the barely notable band. Unless notability of the band is better established, I believe that article runs the risk of a future AfD as well. ju66l3r 03:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per above. I'll nominate his cousin for deletion as well. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Authalic (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 fly away, mistakenly created article! Grandmasterka 08:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fictional characters who can fly

This page is a list that was started accidentally as an article instead of a category. As far as I can tell, it's been completely transferred to Category:Fictional characters who can fly, and isn't needed anymore. HKMarks 02:51, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete This article is made redundant by the category of the same name. Could maybe be speedy deleted as a "non-controversial maintenance task." --IslaySolomon 03:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Categorize and delete. I'm all for lists, but this one has no additional value over a category. No red links, no non-alphabetic ordering, no annotations. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep categories can't replace lists. Please see WP:LIST if you're unclear on this point. If the list has no encyclopaedic value, the category should be deleted as well, since they cannot be redundant. WilyD 13:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• Just to be clear, it was created by a new user who thought they were creating a category.(old revision) It contains no additional annotations, and is ordered just like a category. If it had any redlinks or anything I'd agree, but... --HKMarks 14:33, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• YOu could probly db-author then - but I won't argue to delete encyclopaedic content just because made in error - it's not fruit of the forbidden tree or anything. WilyD 16:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• Well, I think it should be deleted... but if it isn't we can just rename it to "List of fictional characters who can fly," hope someone decides to maintain it, and hope it doesn't turn into listcruft and/or stub bait. : P -HKMarks 19:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per nomination. Orsini 19:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom. Clay4president 02:56, 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 MERGE to American Indoor Soccer League. Herostratus 06:14, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Canton Crusaders

Non-notable, never existed THB 21:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete unless some good reason to keep can be established But try proposing deletion next time instead of this, if the outcome is obvious. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 22:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Changed to Keep or Merge into American Indoor Soccer League upon a closer inspection at what Kappa is talking about. Apparently there's more than meets the eye. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 22:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or merge, probably merge Kappa 06:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as what, inexistent? At any rate not notable. And merge where, please? Sandstein 21:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to "a more comprehensive article" per the deletion policy. American Indoor Soccer League doesn't look too full. Kappa 21:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Merge to American Indoor Soccer League what little info is given about the Crusaders in its own article. Make it a note next to the team's name as a "Previous Team" or whatever. ju66l3r 03:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to American Indoor Soccer League per above. -- NORTH ^talk 10:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to American Indoor Soccer League. Adamkik 08:03, 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. alphaChimp^(talk) 01:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arctic metal

Contested prod; non notable term, lack of content, unsourced. IronChris | (talk) 03:47, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. This term has more to do with a home improvement store in Brooklyn than it does the music world. Non-notable...and the rest of the nomination as well. ju66l3r 03:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Another nn interpretive variation of metal. Rockpocket 07:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as a non-notable term. Prolog 08:02, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable term -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 17:55, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. Yamaguchi先生 23:37, 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. alphaChimp^(talk) 01:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Australian Jazz Fusion

No opinion on the subject, but this is a personal essay in a totally unencylopedic tone. Opabinia regalis 04:01, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Reads like a magazine article. Not encyclopaedic. ---Charles 04:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above, as Wikipedia is not for essays. SM247^{My Talk} 06:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all above. Rockpocket 07:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above.UberCryxic 22:28, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. per above. —dima/s-ko/ 03:08, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. Yamaguchi先生 23:37, 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. The raw vote total is 6-3 Delete. One of the Keeps is Weak. So the numbers say Delete. As to arguments, not meeting WP:BIO is a strong argument if true. My analysis is that it is true. WP:BIO asks for actors to have appeared in "well-known films" and so forth. Regardless of its artistic merit, Brand Upon The Brain! is an indepentt 90-minute black-and-white silent that has, at least not yet, attained the status of "well-known" as far as I can determine. I'm not seeing a counter-argument to overcome the failure to meet WP:BIO. So with both numbers and argument favoring Delete, I so close. Herostratus 09:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Katherine E. Scharhon

Non-notable person; doesn't come close to meeting WP:BIO. Valrith 04:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Keep based on IMDB entry. Encise 05:38, 15 September 2006 (UTC)Encise
• Delete, seventh-listed actress on one film-festival indie entrant (itself barely notable). Get that lead part and come back to us. --Dhartung | Talk 05:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. The cast listing is purely alphabetical, so it seems impossible to determine how big the part is, but, as you say, the film itself is of pretty marginal notability. Fan-1967 14:00, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete IMDb entry does not make somebody worthy of encyclopaediuc attention per se. SM247^{My Talk} 06:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete one minor role is not enough to pass acting bio guidelines. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This person is non-notable. --RMHED 12:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• KeepComment: It was my understanding that the cast links were part of the article stub. (I apologize if that’s not the case. I just thought Wikipedia wouldn’t want “dead links” if they could help it.) I also think there is a misunderstanding as to what the film is or who plays what. When the stub was created random people from the film were listed in alphabetical order. The film is new, but I also thought Wikipedia prided itself on keeping up to the moment and being ever-changing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.185.104.214 (talk • contribs) 22:34, 16 September 2006
• KeepAnother Comment: I have in fact seen this film, and can say that this person is in fact a lead role. I am disappointed by people's inability to correctly analyze article information before making snap judgment posts. It saddens me that people jump to the worst before actually reviewing the true information. This article and its information deals with independent film/a Canadian film maker/and film history. If in fact independent film/film festival films, or film history, does no interest you - or you don't know a geat deal about it, I wonder if perhaps you should refrain from posting. Just because information does not fit into what you personally are interested in, or does not show up on YOUR radar, does not in fact mean it should be "chucked out". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.185.104.214 (talk • contribs) 18:44, 17 September 2006
• Keep. The article has been expanded from its previous version. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 20:06, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - does not yet meet WP:BIO. BlueValour 21:44, 23 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 09:10, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hilltop computing, Hilltop Computing (redirect)

Notability/importance in question. Basically an ad for a non-notable company. ghits: [18] — NMChico24 04:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete NN company, fails WP:CORP. TJ Spyke 04:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. ---Charles 04:28, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. SM247^{My Talk} 06:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: we agree that this article is not appropriate. We apologize for any inconvenience! ---HilltopComputing
• Delete. per above. —dima/s-ko/ 03:08, 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. alphaChimp^(talk) 01:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] James L. Barr

Non-notable biography article, fails WP:BIO. Only hint of notability in the article is his company. Searches on the company return nothing applicable: "James L. Barr Consulting": [19]
"James Barr Consulting": [20]
And, for what it's worth, the article appears to vanity. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 04:44, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete:The article has a nice pic, but it's still a failure of WP:BIO. --Hetar 04:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - judging from the comment that the author placed on this page before the first deletion reason was placed, it's definitely vanity. I didn't see any indication that this gentleman met the bio guidelines before placing the notability tag on the page. To the author: please read the above guidelines, and the verifiability requirements, which give an indication of why the article has been nominated. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:BIO. Encise 05:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC)Encise
• Delete per nom. SM247^{My Talk} 06:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - non-notable, vanity. BTLizard 09:44, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete vain vanity in vain. Danny Lilithborne 18:26, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. Yamaguchi先生 23:42, 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 keep. Punkmorten 18:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tête-bêche

dictionary def Darkfred ^{Talk to me} 04:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• The article would be useful on wictionary, so I will not vote delete, perhaps my nomination was too premature. --Darkfred ^{Talk to me} 05:24, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • This is not a dictionary article about a word. It is an encyclopaedia article about a concept in philately, i.e. a particular pairing of stamps. We delete articles on concepts if they are perpetual stubs that cannot be expanded (because no information from sources beyond the stub content actually exists), although in some cases article merger is the better solution. The obvious target for such a merger here would be the as-yet-unwritten article on postage stamp printing, which would explain for starters how cliche replacement can result in tête-bêche pairs. Uncle G 11:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
    • As per the comments above and below feel free to WP:SNOWBALL this as keep. I withdraw my nomination. --Darkfred ^{Talk to me} 14:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep The information here goes beyond a dicdef I think and is more conceptual - it is a definition in a particular context. Perhaps merge into philately. SM247^{My Talk} 06:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This clearly goes beyond a dic def. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per MacGyverMagic. --MaNeMeBasat 14:26, 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. - Mailer Diablo 09:11, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A while

dict def, very common phrase Darkfred ^{Talk to me} 04:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• Strong delete Wiktionary entry on 'while' is already adequate. SM247^{My Talk} 06:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete (see below). Wikipedia is NOT a dictionary. (please tell the creator). I will slap anyone who dares to link to this in the article space with a wet fish. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Actually... speedy delete. It already exists on another project and it's clear no encyclopedia article can be written on the subject. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete absolutely a dicdef. I'd like to see it speedied but I'm not sure which criteria would allow for that. Cool3 19:30, 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 no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Year 10,000 problem

Year 10,000 problem was nominated for deletion on 2004-11-09. The result of the discussion was "keep". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Year 10,000 problem.

This article is all original research. The only sources on this are a few joke articles which were not written by reliable sources anyway. Fails Wikipedia:Verifiability, and probably Wikipedia is not a crystal ball as well. Xyzzyplugh 05:06, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete It's Original Research and bad original research at that. Most of the article's just wrong. Fan-1967 05:44, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The article itself says: This may not be a problem in the year 10,000, as it is unlikely that any of the technology or software in use today will still be active at that time. I'd go even further. I doubt any computers in operation today will even exist then. It may deserve a merge to the Y2K problem where it was originally mentioned, but it certainly doesn't deserve its own article. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Mgm (except for the part where s/he proposes the IMHO unnecessary merge). -- NORTH ^talk 10:13, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - this is a legitimate topic that has had some media exposure. Someone's going to type in "Year 10,000 problem" and expect to see something. My only concern is the use of a comma; there's no need for a separator. --AlexWCovington (talk) 10:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep per User:Uncle G's recent addition of existing code which now is failing. (Would have been keep, otherwise, as people would expect to see an article on the Y10K problem.) And the comma has been discussed. I agree it shouldn't be there, and there was agreement the first time, but not the second time after I improperly reverted a move. You may bring it up again at WP:RM, if you wish. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 13:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep sourced, encyclopaedic - article is in obvious need of cleanup, but that's not an AfD issue. WilyD 13:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment As the nominator of this, I think that, given the sources Uncle G has found, merging this with Year 2000 problem would be reasonable. The majority of this article is still about the Y2k problem, with basically one paragraph which is actually about the "year 10,000" problem. As Uncle G's source on this also mentions the possibility of a year 100,000 problem, and as the creation of Year 100,000 problem is therefore possible but undesirable, merging seems the best course to me. --Xyzzyplugh 13:41, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comments Unless I missed something, the sources are: (1) a 1998 public opinion poll about Y2K, with a footnote at the very end about the alleged Year 10,000 problem, but no references or sources to support its existence; (2) An April Fool's day post about the problem (3) An essay that there might be such a thing (with no technical description of an actual issue), so we better look at it; (4) A fanciful blog posting from the year 9998 (still with no technical description of an actual issue); (5) A posting that actually invites responses to a humor page; (6) Another fanciful blog entry, this one purportedly from 9996 (still no technical description of the problem).

    All modern computer systems store dates as a number of days since January 1, 1900. There may conceivably be an issue in 2079, when that number passes 65,536, the number which can be stored in one 16-bit word of computer memory. The only verified issue about year 10,000 is that Excel formatting routines can't handle displaying the value. That's it. Fan-1967 14:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

    • All modern computer systems store dates as a number of days since January 1, 1900. — If that's the premise that you based your earlier "Most of the article's just wrong." comment upon, then we have articles on time_t, Unix time, and Time (computing) that you should read. ☺ Uncle G 14:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
      • True, there are other time storage formats. None of them have an issue with the year 10,000, because none are storing the year as decimal text. Fan-1967 14:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
    • There are now systems that use ISO date format (the one used at the top of this discussion) internally, and you can bet that some of them assume a 4-digit year. Gazpacho 01:10, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep has sources and examples, discusses a notable computing phenomenon. - CNichols 15:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and do not recreate this crystal ball until the year 9990. --DrTorstenHenning 16:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This is clear crystal balling folks. First off, does anyone actually believe that current software/hardware is going to be used in the year 10,000? Common sense says, No, no one will be using them in 7990 years. That said with how fast computer technology is evolving, this is fairly a null pointed article. As someone who derives a paycheck from the industry, this is complete and utter non-sense --Brian ^{(How am I doing?)} 18:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge. There's no reason to believe that the epoch will still be in use, much less the systems. Gazpacho 19:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. -AMK152 03:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per tha above: OR, crystal balling, lack of respectable sources. Sandstein 05:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep There is another aspect of the phrase 'Year 10,000 Problem' that is not in this article, but could be. We use this phrase in our software development group and I have heard others use it in others groups with an ironic twist. It describes a problem that would require a systematic examination and overhaul of all the code to address a theortical problem whose real significance approaches zero. "That's a Year 10,000 kind of problem--let's leave it for my successor." We also have occasionally used this rather non-ironically to describe in a generic sense any kind of problem that would require large scale code examination for a payoff, that while perhaps important, does not produce new features and is not very sexy. Obviously this by itself would not be the basis for inclusion in the article. But if my description of the phrase had wider currancy and was verifiable, it would provide a non-crystal ball componant for the article that would be useful. Jdclevenger 13:25, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment There's the problem: "if my description of the phrase had wider currancy and was verifiable..." Doesn't seem that it is. Fan-1967 13:30, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete complete and utter nonsense. Plus the problem would actually occur in the year 65536, as years are now most often stored in 16bit's. --Darkfred ^{Talk to me} 16:44, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Absolute rubbish. We might as well have an article on the Year 100,000 problem as well. - Hahnchen 15:27, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - The Y2K problem turned out to be science-fiction as well, so even if this "problem" turns out to be nonsense, there should still be some evidence on the sort of nonsense it was. Furthermore, please note that i ended up reading about this issue after some research on "The Long Now" project which should be deleted as well if we do decide that such long-term thoughts are none of our business. -— Eyeprotocol (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Delete per nomination. This is a non-problematic. The only problematic part is very addequately dealt with in the Y2K problem, which is already past and well documented. The remaining hypotheses and theorisations are so crystal ball (ie it won't happen for another 8,000 years) that it falls off the scale of WP:NOT; 2079 is still 73 years away. Ohconfucius 09:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. Seems worth having per the discussion. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and iron out any original research issues (the article does contain some referential notation). Yamaguchi先生 22:52, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - it's well written, it mentions the inherent humor value, and balances it with the real issues, which may not be catastrophic, but do exist. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:30, 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 delete. alphaChimp^(talk) 01:36, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Localization issues in Star Wars

Obscure Star Wars trivia regarding the minutiae of translations of Star Wars in various scandinavian languages, does not justify a wiki entry Artw 05:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• Strong delete Wikipedia is not the place - I doubt Wookipedia would want it either. SM247^{My Talk} 06:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I'm actually quite sure Wookiepedia would like this, but it doesn't belong here. A Train ^{take the} 14:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as either fancruft or original research in linguistics. --DrTorstenHenning 16:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per all above. Orsini 19:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Few notes here:

• The Article was not yet finished
• I was going to make a topic on SW's discussion page about adding more info on it.
• This was not intended to compose only of obscure trivia.
• Finnish is not a Scandinavian language.
• This is not original research, it's all confirmed fact.
• I was intending on adding similar information regarding localizations in other countries

I couldn't open wookipedia, but I'll try it on IE and see if I can make an improvement. -TheHande 10:58, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• • Wookieepedia was misspelled in the above link. It's here if you want to see it. -LtNOWIS 20:54, 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. alphaChimp^(talk) 01:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cora Galenti

Likely fails WP:BIO, Google renders 33 results. Plain translation from a journal article. Reads like an advertisement. Húsönd 05:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete not encyclopaedic, a mere journal article translation. SM247^{My Talk} 06:35, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Daniel.Bryant 08:06, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per SM247. --MaNeMeBasat 14:31, 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. alphaChimp^(talk) 01:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Defeatschool

^{[Check Google hits]} Non-notable website, fails WP:WEB. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 05:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Doesn't register at all on alexa or google. Godaddy.com, where the domain was registered, turns up that the domain has existed since September 7, a whole week. (A white pages search appears to find that the site owners are running it out of their home.) Wikipedia is not for promoting new, unknown ventures. Fan-1967 05:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Defeatarticle per nom and above, painfully non-notable. SM247^{My Talk} 06:33, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete hard to establish notability for a website in seven days Nigel ^(Talk) 12:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This one speaks for itself. WP:WEB anyone? — NMChico24 20:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Deleteschool - NN site, fails WP:WEB Torinir _{( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options )} 23:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Also has no sourcing, and not enough information to be verifiable beyond mere existance. Torinir _{( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options )} 23:59, 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 move to Wikipedia:WikipediaFS. Mangojuice^talk 16:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikipediaFS

Non notable Wikipediacruft. 909 Ghits. Rory096 05:44, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete: It is self-referential to boot. Though the tool could use a mention on some list of wikipedia tools(wherever that would be located). --Mitaphane _talk 07:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

That would be WP:TOOLS. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:03, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• Move to Wikipedia:WikipediaFS Computerjoe's talk 15:38, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Move per Computerjoe. Danny Lilithborne 18:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. not really self-referential, but not notable either. I hope it doesn't use write-through caching. Gazpacho 19:24, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Move per Computerjoe. Hołek ҉ 12:04, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Move per everybody and their brother. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 19:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - no independent reviews to establish that it works well. BlueValour 22:39, 23 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. Mangojuice^talk 16:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mythic Russia

This appears to be a non-notable game, as far as I can tell. It's self=described as a "standalone" so that seems to influence its impact. I've prodded it twice (one time it was seconded), and the prods have been removed without improvement and without discussion. I'm bringing it to the community for further input. It is unsourced/uncited, so my conclusion is Delete. Akradecki 05:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom.--Jusjih 07:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• delete per nom. —dima/s-ko/ 03:09, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. It seems to be widely discussed on the Web: 4000 Google hits for "Mythic Russia" HeroQuest. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 19:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
• OK, I'm the author, so I'm biased (obviously I'd hope it stays but equally accept the will of the wiki); the only comment I would make is that use if the word 'standalone' is intended simply to note that this is not just a supplement for an existing game, but a game in its own right, albeit using the HeroQuest game engine under license. --Mark Galeotti 14:54, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete for now. It is lacking any independent reviews. I have no problem with it coming back if it proves a success and that can be documented. BlueValour 22:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Fairly notable recent release in the RPG community by a notable RPG author, and the first game apart from HeroQuest to use the HQ system. And incidentally, you shouldn't have prodded it twice. Once a prod has been removed it shouldn't be restored, as clearly stated in WP:PROD. -- Necrothesp 01:41, 24 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 by Lucky 6.9 under CSD G4. MER-C 08:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Western Double Standards and the Kurds

Short essay-type article. WP:NOT a soapbox. Article title itself is a serious WP:NPOV problem. However, as there are actually sources here (seemingly in short supply with many new articles), I'm open to the possibility of a merge & delete (not merge & redirect) with a serious POV tone-down, if an appropriate article can be determined (perhaps Kurdish people?) --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 05:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. I agree -- if the sources are good, they should be incorporated into the appropriate articles (subject(s) of the criticism, article(s) about Kurds, and such). Beyond that, this particular page sounds more like a personal essay than an article. Better to move the content elsewhere, since it's probably good stuff. Luna Santin 05:56, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/US Double Standards and the Kurds. This has been discussed before... --Cat out 06:03, 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 no consensus. Mangojuice^talk 04:49, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gynaika

Non-notable Greek language magazine/ad/promo for Nea Aktina A.E (deprodded with no good reason) ArmadilloFromHell 06:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

This magazine is extremely well-known and important to Greek culture. How are culture defining events supposed to be reported for counties that do not have everything posted on the internet such as Greece? As any Greek of the significance of Gynaika Magazine and I assure you he/she will be able to write the same article. YellowSubmarine 06:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps in http://el.wikipedia.org/wiki/%CE%9A%CF%8D%CF%81%CE%B9%CE%B1_%CE%A3%CE%B5%CE%BB%CE%AF%CE%B4%CE%B1 --ArmadilloFromHell 06:51, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Notable as first women's magazine in Greece. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 06:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Gynaika Magazine cannot be found in the Greek Version of Wikipedia. Moreover, the first women's magazine should not be confined to only the knowledge of Greek speakers. YellowSubmarine 07:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per TruthbringerToronto. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I've done some formatting. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:00, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - seems notable enough. BlueValour 22:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: may be notable, but where's the proof? This article fails WP:V. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 00:23, 24 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 09:11, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Natalie Russell

Her murder did make major news at the time, but Wikipedia is not a memorial and I don't think this stub would be expanded much further with encyclopedic information. I was going to redirect to Paul Denyer but out of respect for the victim decided against it. -- Longhair 06:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete -- Longhair 06:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions --- Longhair 06:24, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. SM247^{My Talk} 06:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above.--Jusjih 07:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I don't see how it would respect the victim. Besides, we should be thinking about the encyclopedia and people putting here name in the search engine would be looking for him, but he'd show up in the text search anyway. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Computerjoe's talk 15:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Seems unlikely to be expanded beyond stub. Cnwb 04:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, Wikipedia is not a memorial. Unlikely that the article will expand beyond it's current contents anyway. Lankiveil 11:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC).
• Comment, Paul Denyer and the Frankston Murders are a well known criminal case in Australian law as well as being an integral part of Victorian history. The victims names are encyclopedic as future research, analysis or historic assessment may substantiate. The stub wasn't created as a memorial, but if an article is not warranted may I suggest its inclusion as a section within the main Denyer article? Encise 02:52, 19 September 2006 (UTC)Encise

Comment: Natalie Russell makes mention in the first paragraph of Denyer's article. If you can expand on information there, go ahead. Be sure to provide reliable sources for your contributions. -- Longhair 03:25, 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 keep. Enough with the mass nominations. The next trainwreck I see like this will be speedily kept. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kim Hunt

I am nominating a series of biographical articles. The articles are Million Dollar Winners in Who Wants to Be a Millionaire. While their achievements are notable in the scope of the show, in scope of WP:BIO they are not. Since this is an important topic for the show, I have created a List of top winners in Who Wants to Be a Millionaire and copied the information in each article I've listed for deletion. If this nomination fails, then I request the removal of List of top winners in Who Wants to Be a Millionaire as it will be redundant. Mitaphane _talk 07:06, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

The other articles are:

• John Carpenter (2nd Nom)
• Dan Blonsky
• Joe Trela
• Bob House
• David Goodman
• Kevin Olmstead
• Bernie Cullen
• Ed Toutant
• Kevin Smith
• Nancy Christy

Delete, per nom, unless one does something exceptional in the next few days. Jefffire 08:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep/Comment. I don't think a mass nomination is appropriate because not all of these persons are on the same footing. In particular, it seems to me that Carpenter achieved bona fide renown and in addition was involved in more than one event likely covered by the press. My keep applies to Carpenter's article. In addition, I'd like to comment that I'm not sure I see how a list of non-notable people would be worthy of an article. If these articles are deleted, the newly created list article should also be deleted. Finally, I think the tactic being employed here is ill-advised and against the spirit of AfD. It creates a de facto referendum on whether content should be presented in one form or another instead of focusing debate on the suitability of content for this encyclopedia. AfD should be about content, not form. Erechtheus 08:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep (nominate only the non-notables of the list). A spot check also produces Nancy Christy was the first woman (May 8, 2003) to win the top ($1,000,000) prize on the United States game show Who Wants to Be a Millionaire. You can say what you want, but to be the first woman to do something, is notable (even if it's a bloody game show) I don't think a mass nomination is in order here either. There's at least two people in this list who deserve an article in my view and if someone doesn't deserve their own article, it doesn't neccesarily mean a list of WWTBAM winners is not notable. This needs a different approach. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep all. While Wikipedia isn't an indiscriminate source of information, neither is it a paper encyclopedia. Major winners of gameshows should be notable enough for inclusion. Brisvegas 09:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC) After mulling over some more, I figure that since the entries would still be listed, it makes no major diifference. Changed vote to neutral.

• Keep the Carpenter page at least, Listify the others. Carpenter's WWTBAM victory was very notable in it's own right, (citing press coverage.) The other winners may be notable enough to list, but not on their own page in my opinion. AfD Precedent says spelling bee winners et. al. are considered notable. It should be noted that Carpenter's first AfD nomination resulted in a No Consensus. --Roninbk 12:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Each article should have their notability judged individually. For example, Bob House is not notable for anything except winning on the show, while Kevin Olmstead is notable not only for winning the show, but for the fact for a long period he held the record for the highest winnings on a game show, and is also a founder of National Academic Quiz Tournaments.--Nonpareility 14:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• I vote keep for all (as independant articles) with varying levels of conviction. Strong keep for Carpenter, as he was a genuine celebrity for a few months; keep Olmstead, for reasons listed above; keep Cullen due to his success on multiple game shows (he was also part of Jeopardy's Ultimate Tournament of Champions); weak keep for all the rest. Who Wants to be a Millionaire was really popular in its prime, and it has always had a good sense of its own history (compared to shows like Wheel of Fortune, which never talk about their past contestants). I think we can spare some space for every million-dollar winner. Zagalejo 14:58, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete]Their 15 minutes of fame are over unless the TV exposure led to some notable carrer in movies, TV, or whatever which itself makes them notable. Edison 01:18, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - I have to agree that a mass nomination is not appropriate here. There is no question to me that Carpenter (since he was the first winner) and Olmstead (since he held a game show record for a few years) should have their own pages. While I'm not sure that each and every winner should have their own page, I do think every page should be decided individually.--Jatterb 17:42, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I also agree mass nomination is inappropriate, and Carpenter and Olmstead should definitely be kept, with the others weakly kept. (Many of the articles include substantial information on the million-dollar question, which, in my view, is borderline encyclopedic.) I did suggest redirection for non-notable people (or, I should have implied, for biographies that don't state much more than what they are notable for) in the talk page for Kim Hunt. Hunt could have been redirected to Who Wants to Be a Millionaire (US game show) if article content was an issue. I recently redirected David Korotkin, the first contestant of the US Millionaire (which I now brought up in WP:RFD), and I also redirected Robert Brydges to the UK version of Millioniare. Tinlinkin 08:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to List of top winners in Who Wants to Be a Millionaire, if not already complete there. --FlyingPenguins 02:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep all. Millionaire isn't like the other game shows, and as long as we don't start expanding to "500k winners," I think this will be fine. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:15, 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 Redirect to America's Next Top Model, Cycle 5. SoLando (Talk) 14:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Coryn Woitel

The subject was the 6th participant to be eliminated in season 5 of ANTM,and does not appear to have had any high-profile activity since the show. 119 unique out of about 1,410 Ghits, most of which imdb, antm, blogs etc. Ohconfucius 07:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom--Jusjih 07:38, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Reality TV cruft. MER-C 08:17, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to ANTM as we usually do with tv show contestants who do not deserve their own article. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:41, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to ANTM There is no here, here. Fans of the show who would come to wikipedia to find out more information would be sorely disappointed. I have argued strongly in other AfD debates for keeping separate articles on particpants in certain kinds of Reality Shows. But that support is qualified by the requirement that someone take the time to actually produce an informative article. That minimum requirement has not been met here. Jdclevenger 00:09, 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. - Mailer Diablo 09:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rami_Okasha

Appear to be an entirely non-notable person. Certainly not encyclodedia material. Most of what is written is unverified as well Jefffire 07:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. MER-C 08:17, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete come back if he wins the election. It is tempting to keep articles like this on a 'what's the harm' reasoning. However, we have too many lesser known biographies, they are badly partolled and often a target of libels and other damaging crap. --Doc 09:06, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - not at present notable. Banff and Buchan is solid Scot Nat and was not even remotely winnable for Labour in 2005. Aberdeen South is Lib Dem and doesn't look much more hopeful. As for the rest of the article, so what? BTLizard 10:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - non-notable in the Wiki sense. Springnuts 14:09, 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. alphaChimp^(talk) 01:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Purefect Desktop

does not meet req of wp:soft. not notable. 350 google hits Sleepyhead 08:03, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as spam. MER-C 08:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Yet another web-based desktop indistinguishable form any other web based desktop. Artw 18:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete spammy. Danny Lilithborne 18:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above.UberCryxic 22:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete they have an IDE which other WebOSes don't have. Greenminz 15:54, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The above undelete "vote" is from the creator of the article. Danny Lilithborne 21:50, 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. Mangojuice^talk 04:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of films with similar plots

Seems to be original research. Also, it doesn't define how similar the plots have to be in order to be included in the list. Do similar plots only need similar characters? Similar themes? Similar inspirations? Similar locations? Or do they need all four?--TBCTaLk?!? 08:08, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete (Neutral; see below). This is more something that should be in the film entries themselves. This list is not even restricted to a specific plot. Any plot similar to another will do. More focussed lists like List of animated films about animals (to include Madagascar, The Wild, Shark Tale, AntZ, A Bug's Life and Finding Nemo) for example would work much better. The lack of focus means it's a indiscriminate collection of facts, which WP is not. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep It needs work but doesn`t deserve deletion.Andycjp 15th Sept 2006
• Delete It's a pretty interesting collection of trivia, but it is WP:OR and I think it also qualifies as an "unmaintainable list." The criteria is so vague, we could probably put nearly every movie ever made on it, if we sat down and thought about it. It lists two films about Wyatt Earp as having similar plots, but you could say that about any two biographical movies about the same person. Given the loose criteria, why not include the various film versions of Romeo and Juliet -- and others based on them (ie. West side Story)? As well as the hundreds of other films based on Shakespeare, mythology, the Bible? They would certainly qualify as "having a similar plot." And that way lies madness...or a fun party game. But not an encyclopedia article. Dina 12:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • The introduction to the article states that what it is documenting here is the phenomenon of competing studios either coincidentally or deliberately releasing movies with very similar premises, at the same time (e.g. in the same season, or year). Certainly such a phenomenon has been talked about in the past — the sudden spate of asteroid impact movies a few years ago, for example. Here's a whole Usenet thread on the subject. Here's a film reviewer giving examples from the 1960s. Here's a reader writing in to a magazine asking about such movies. Here's someone discussing how people appear to copy James Cameron a lot. Here's someone explaining one strictly financial motivation. The problem, as indeed was stated last month on this article's talk page, is sourcing, in order to prevent the article straying off into original research territory. There are plenty of people who have compiled lists of "copycat movies", such as this one and this one. But they aren't particularly good sources. However, this is a fairly good source, being a magazine article.

    If the article actually mentioned the common name for these movies, "copycat movies", it would probably help (a) to clarify what the list is actually of, and (b) editors to look for sources. Uncle G 15:24, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: If the list can be restricted to the phenomenon Uncle G is talking about I have no problems with it, but it should be renamed at the very least. Either to Copycat movie (and describe the whole thing instead of just giving examples) or list of copycat movies. - Mgm|^(talk) 17:58, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Rewrite and move to List of copycat movies per Mgm. Danny Lilithborne 18:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Rewrite and move to List of copycat movies per Mgm. Seems more clear-cut. --Dynamite Eleven 19:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Unmaintainable, unencyclopedic. If such a information is important it belongs to the article. Pavel Vozenilek 22:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Which article is "the article"? Uncle G 22:41, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I think he's referring to the movie articles listed in List of films with similar plots--TBCTaLk?!? 22:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep but add citations in the form of links to reviews. --Ellissound 23:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, add cites. Calwatch 07:16, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, it's a fascinating subject. Squallypukkerdum 10:08, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep (in some form -- is there a Wiki site for just lists?) I came here this morning specifically looking to see if someone had made such a list. I found it by lookin up Antz. I view it as interesting trivia, and I don't care how accurate or consistent it is, because I can look at the short descriptions and decide for myself. danwWiki 18:42, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• neutral completely unmaintainable and completely OR. Yet I can't resort to the idea of deleting this fun trivia. I wish we could move all this out of the encyclopedia and into WikiTrivia or something. Pascal.Tesson 20:58, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, and move per above. -- Wikipedical 04:54, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep; many of the films listed here are very subjective (Finding Nemo and Shark Tale are almost completely different, bar both being about fish). Would only support keeping with cites from reputable reviewers. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 18:13, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Agree that it may be original research, but in most cases the films are obviously related. "Released within a close period of time" basically says it all here. I was googling for this list (for the Pixar copycats in particular) and finally found it here. --71.231.203.169 03:46, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • But how close is a "close period of time"? A few months? A year? Two years?--TBCTaLk?!? 04:12, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. The information is quite fascinating. And some of the films cannot be called original research. Every critic drew harsh comparison from the Wild to Madagascar, the same can be said for Antz and A Bug's Life. Calicore 04:34, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The article should be renamed "List of Copycat Films" and citations should be given. Naufana 19:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, delete, a million times delete. Original research and subjective in every way. —  MusicMaker 03:27, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete. Although it is an interesting list, it is definitely original research. -tcwd 01:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Nice information that belongs on Wikipedia. The "no original research" nonsense gets another couple rounds to the brainpain. Scumbag 07:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This info is trivia, but many critics and articles bring up the topic when similar movies appear close together. Plus I like having it in one place to see how common it really is. I don't like the "List of films with similar plots" title because that can be applied to thousands of films, particularly remakes or variations. "List of Copycat Films" is much better and more accurate to the list being created. --Mtjaws 15:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Technically it's original research, but the information arguably holds some value for the interested reader.

• Keep. This is not the most factual and encyclopedic page on Wikipedia, but it is much more interesting than, say, Brewster, Nebraska, and interesting should count for something. It is also probably the only such list on the entire internet, and to lose it would be a shame.

Amber388 14:57, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. This is a real "phenomenon" and noted by various sources both on the internet and in print/broadcast media. This is not OR, it's just not sourced very well. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 16:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This shiz is fo real - tru dat tru dat--Dante Alighieri
  • I'm sorry, what? Naufana : ^talk
  • I'm confused as well. The comment seems to have been added by an anon ip [21].--TBCTaLk?!? 07:01, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and rename - though perhaps List of "copycat" films with a comment that films that seem to be related. -- Beardo 08:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - the phenomenon of Hollywood, coincidentally or not, simultaneously producing two films with similar plots has been noted in the trade papers and elsewhere (there was an article in The Economist about it in 1999) and the article about this is both noteworthy and interesting.  ProhibitOnions  ^(T) 20:56, 24 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 09:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lists of words

I asked about this on the Village Pump, and one person said it should be AFD'd, and the other thought this structure was helpful for navigation as described at Wikipedia:List guideline. I thought this article would be a good test case to see if these should be transwikied to Wiktionary. Others in Category:Lists of words may also be good candidates for transwiking. Beland 08:17, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• -ism, where the list of -isms link redirects to has a suffixes navigation template as do all the other articles in the series. This list provides no additional information not already included in the related articles and is in fact less complete than the template. The categories mentioned are not entirely relevant to the lists in question. Delete - Mgm|^(talk) 08:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• In case this is kept at least rename to "list of lists of ..." Pavel Vozenilek 22:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Personally don't think the sub-lists are encyclopedic either, at least not by any definition of encyclopedia I have ever read. --Darkfred ^{Talk to me} 01:17, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete but deny test-case The presense of the 'sufix' template means a poorly linked to article listing sufixes is not needed. However this is a terrible test case for the catagory and the lists within. As already stated on the village pump, these are access/navigation articles. If you navigate through Lists of words to -logy, for example, you will then be presented with such things as Codicology, Palynology, Sociology and Philology - all good articles in their own right. In many respects it is as if the articles within were judged on name alone, and not on their actual contents and WP:LIST.

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

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

The result was delete. Mangojuice^talk 16:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Beyond Chron

Non-notable blog. Gets 123,000 Google hits -- only 120 of which are unique, which looks a might suspicuous. Calton | Talk 08:38, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. MER-C 08:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)`

• Wrong -- it has contributed greatly to the San Francisco political discourse, at least among insiders. It has broken various political stories. Randy Shaw is a very controversial figure in local SF politics, and his opinion is widely read and respected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulhogarth (talk • contribs) 19:22, 15 September 2006, Creator and (essentially) sole editor of the article

• Whether Randy Shaw is respected or reviled is completely irrelevant, as this is about the website "Beyond Chron", not him. And I fail to see the slightest sign that "it has contributed greatly to the San Francisco political discourse". Any proof? --Calton | Talk 23:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Beyond Chron first reported the story that Mayor Newsom's press secretary had bought an apartment where a tenant had been evicted -- which even the SF Chronicle had to later <a href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/04/10/BAG86I6JRP1.DTL">admit that this was newsworthy</a>. Also, when Joe O'Donoghue wrote his anti-Newsom poem at Beyond Chron that speculated that the Mayor was gay, the Board of Supervisors responded by <a href="http://www.sfweekly.com/Issues/2005-06-29/news/smith.html">censuring Joe O'Donoghue.</a>
• It should also be noted that Beyond Chron has already been mentioned on Wikipedia's entry of the San Francisco Chronicle, which shows that it is a notable blog.

Delete and salt the earth with the ashes. Fails WP:WEB very badly. Not verifiable via search sites (google, yahoo, ask, msn, webcrawler). No media attention given (articals about the blog itself and not just the stories it has 'broken'. Full-length featured article. Just a sentance or mention in passing is not acceptable).

Web-specific content is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria

1. The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.

         * This criterion excludes
               o Media re-prints of press releases and advertising for the content or site.
               o Trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply report the internet address, the times at which such content is updated or made available, a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of internet addresses and site or content descriptions in internet directories or online stores.
         * This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper and magazine articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations.

Nothing shows this is the case for this blog site.

2. The website or content has won a well known and independent award, either from a publication or organisation.

Nothing that I could find.

3. 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.

Nope, can't say this is true either.

The article itself must provide proof that its subject meets one of these criteria via inlined links or a "Reference" or "External link" section. Even if an entire website meets the notability criteria, its components (forums, articles, sections) are not necessarily notable and deserving of their own separate article.

Well, it fails WP:WEB... --Brian ^{(How am I doing?)} 20:26, 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. Note that the BBC article used the term, it wasn't about the term (see WP:NEO). Mangojuice^talk 16:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Censuswhack

Neologism taken from a message board. Very very few Google hits. Woohookitty^(meow) 08:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Were it not for the BBC article, I'd agree with nom. Press coverage tends to establish notability --Roninbk 12:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as neologism. Every data source or web site with search functionality can become the subject of a whack, but this is not worth an extra article. --DrTorstenHenning 16:59, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, the press writes about neologisms sometimes, that doesn't make them not neologisms. Recury 19:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Not as notable as Googlewhacking, but still worth noting.

Category:Greek magazines —The preceding unsigned comment was added by YechielMan (talk • contribs) .

• Delete - simply not widely used enough to merit an article. BlueValour 23:02, 23 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. alphaChimp^(talk) 01:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pokelives

Vanispamcruftisement. Contested prod. MER-C 09:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. -- TexMurphy 09:28, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. BTLizard 10:17, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. PJM 11:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 18:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. —dima/s-ko/ 03:11, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Shinhan 17:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete there is not even an assertion of notability. Shinhan 17:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete Wow, this is surely something, but whatever it is, it's certainly not an encyclopedia article. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 21:19, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per WP:SNOWBALL -- Ned Scott 00:08, 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. - Mailer Diablo 09:30, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GFDLvio

This seems like a hoax. There are only around 73 Google hits, and most of them seemed to have originated from Wikipedia. --Ixfd64 09:28, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Self-referential and author failed to include a verb in the last two sentences. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• It's not a hoax. It's original research. An editor made up a word on Wikiquote, and another editor decided to document it on Wikipedia, mis-using Wikipedia as a publisher of first instance. Wikipedia is not for things made up at Wikiquote one day. Delete. Uncle G 10:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep or Merge to Copyright infringement--Xiaon 11:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Can you tell us why you believe this is a speedy keep candidate, and/or why it should be kept or merged? In my opinion, this should be deleted per Uncle G. Srose (talk) 12:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, WP:NFT. PJM 12:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Uncle G. Danny Lilithborne 18:33, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as above. Hołek ҉ 12:06, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Cedars 14:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. Yamaguchi先生 22:55, 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 redirect to Amy Rose. Mangojuice^talk 16:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jennifer Douillard

Redirect to Amy Rose - Only voiced Amy Rose for a few years, no information is known of this person beyond that and that she was replaced by Lisa Ortiz FlareNUKE 05:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep but expand. --Prof.Thamm 07:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep and expand. Actress has voiced Amy, a notable video game character from a notable video game series (Sonic the Hedgehog), for around eight video games [22].--TBCTaLk?!? 08:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment Yes, but while Amy Rose is a well-known character. There is almost nothing known about Douillard. I wouldn't even count her as a voice actress since she only had a single role and doesn't seem like she ever attempted anything else.

• Redirect, not notable enough for her own article. Doubtful there are any non-trivial sources about her. Recury 19:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect, There really isn't anything notable I could find outside of her vocing this one character. With just that one credit, I don't see anything notable that wouldn't be found on the main Amy Rose page. -- The Bethling^(Talk) 07:28, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect - I agree, there doesn't appear to be enough known about this VA for a standalone article. A mention of her as the voice in the Amy Rose article would work. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:49, 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.

[edit] IBRAINS Technologies Corp

The result was speedy delete since author has blanked it. Guy 10:38, 15 September 2006 (UTC) Spammy contested prod. MER-C 09:33, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete - pure bloody spam. BTLizard 09:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - Author blanked the article. [23] Tagged for speedy deletion (CSD G7). MER-C 09:51, 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. Mangojuice^talk 16:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CD-adapco

Contested prod which does not assert the notability of the subject (a company). MER-C 09:35, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete - spam and vanity from single-purpose user account. BTLizard 09:59, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Sorry, I was in the process of adding the article, I'll try and correct the mistakes, but I don't accept that this is any different to the entry for any other commercial company such as ANSYS or Oracle Corporation. CD-adapco is one of the few companys mentioned on Computational Fluid Dynamics that does not have an entry of its own. StephenFerguson 10:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The difference, Mr Ferguson, is that the articles on ANSYS and Oracle are not written by anybody connected with the companies in question. While admittedly, you might not be related with CD-adapco, the fact that this is your first edit of the Wikipedia strongly suggests this opinion. Wikipedia is not an advertising medium. If you are here legitimately, then I'd advise you to start with other less controversial topics to edit, and build up a healthy list of contribs before starting to branch out into areas that may seem like self-promotion. --Roninbk 11:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - fails to contain any sourcing that shows compliance with WP:CORP. BlueValour 23:09, 23 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. Mangojuice^talk 17:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unlock Reality

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}}

Simply put, I don't know what to make of this. That the manuscript exists is largely backed up via the references provided (I'll take BookCrossing as a source independent of the subject of the article). That it's notable is somewhat more debatable, given that it "is not in bookshops yet" and therefore appears to be a 100-page manuscript floating around the place. To give credit where credit is due, this began life as what looked like a Dan Brown-inspired viral-marketing page and now makes a lot more sense. BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 09:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• Forgive me please if this is the wrong method to comment. Unlock Reality has reported readers in Canada, California, The Netherlands, Sweden, Spain, The Isle of Man, Guadaloupe, Switzerland, and probably a few more. It is a Bookcrossing Success of major magnitude, if nothing else.

  It has spawned over 20,000 websites which makes it a phenomenon of our times. I mean what else do you know which is unpublished which is getting that kind of attention. These are points I ask you to consider.

  If I might also please add what I feel makes it notable and worthy of a space here is that it is totally unique, a one of a kind unusual occurance which many people across the world are enjoying. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmonome (talk • contribs) 2006-09-15 11:26:19

• Delete, we don't have enough information based on Bold textreliable sources and not Original research to produce an article about this manuscript. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 11:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Realizing this was lacking, I have added a link to reports from England, Sweden, Spain, the Netherlands, the Isle of Man, the Caribbean. Canada, Budapest in Hungary, Pennsylvania USA, and Switzerland which constitutes original research from reliable sources from around the world. These are infact first hand reports and impressions of the actual text from readers. These could also be transferred here under a heading Readers Reports, if that would be better?

  signed Tmonome Sept 15th

• This article appears to be part of a campaign of stealth advertising to publicize a forthcoming book. The claim about 20,000 web sites made above is wholly unsubstantiated. (At best, it is the substitution of counting Google hits for actual research.) The only mentions of this manuscript (which is improbably both an "old manuscript" and yet "copyrighted") are on the book's own vanity web site, on self-submission web sites, and on press-release web sites such as PressBox (where the contact information for the press releases refers back to the self-submission web sites). I've yet to find anything at all that isn't part of this self-publicity drive. The only evidence that this manuscript is getting any attention at all is published on those web sites, and thus could be completely manufactured astroturfing for all that anyone can tell. Even the news story that hit the headlines on 2006-07-10 appears to have been carefully orchestrated. (The "trust" that purportedly owns this book has publicly berated its "members" for leaking the book.) This isn't an encyclopaedia article. Delete. Uncle G 12:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - think I'll go with Uncle G here Nigel ^(Talk) 12:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Response, the link I added to the page represents a considerable number of readers from around the world, each with a link to their profile on Care2 and contactable through their messaging service. The 20,000 or so recorded hits on Google is a fact in itself and reflects an interest in the topic. The link to websites and discussion groups which is on the page, if followed lead to many individual’s contributions, all of whom showed an interest. To suggest this is all manufactured is frankly ridiculous. These are all very real people who have enjoyed this work, and are worthy to be respected as researchers in their own right. Especially those who took the time to make actual reports.

  signed Tmonome Sept 15th

  • The "20,000 or so recorded hits on Google" are not research, and are merely occasions where the two words "unlock" and "reality" occur in succession on a web page. Counting Google hits is not research. Uncle G 16:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Citations are: bookcrossing forum, unlockreality.org, yahoo groups, geocities, and care2 forum. No Reliable Sources. -- Fan-1967 14:51, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Reliable Sources. Here you are presented with reports from the general public who have first hand experience of reading this text. That would be a reliable enough source in a court of law, so why not here? Here we have not one or two witnesses, so to speak, but a considerable number, and as I said, on the Care2 site, these are linked with people’s profiles, allowing each to be contacted through the messaging service. These are eyewitness accounts of people's experience with the text. It is difficult to judge these unreliable, while not being insulting to them.

  Apart from that, the link unlockreality.org was produced to show participation by the public, and if followed leads to many website blogs stories and discussions. The Care2 group alone has over 3,000 members yet we have Uncle G telling us "The only evidence that this manuscript is getting any attention at all is published on those web sites." With respect, surely these 3,000 or so members on one of these sites is evidence that this manuscript is getting real attention.

  I don't think anyone is daring to say the text does not exist.

  Through the method provided by Bookcrossing, this text has made its way round the world. That is noteworthy. People from all round the globe are confirming that fact, and that evidence has been presented here. Can we dismiss that?

  We go to medical experts to get a medical opinion and you would accept that as reliable here, No? Well Unlock Reality is a book, and it has gone to book readers for its opinions. These people are witness to its existence, its travels, and its value in their opinion. That is the evidence they bring to this table.

  I love what you are doing here by the way. This is an excellent project.

  signed Tmonome Sept 15th

  • Which is why we need to be very careful about what gets included. Forum and group entries can be created by anyone, anonymously, with no way to determine number or identity of actual posters. Who are "ISDT" or "AnonymousFinder" or "dscape-2"? No way to know. This is why we require verification from independent Reliable Sources, as we define them. That requirement is absolutely written in stone here. Fan-1967 16:08, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Here you are presented with reports from the general public who have first hand experience of reading this text. — No. What we are presented with are a number of postings on a web site, whose authorships we have no way of determining.

    The Care2 group alone has over 3,000 members — Given that the very first message from one of those "members" on the group's main page is "my name is barbara Smith i like to play bowls out side and go to bingo and go over sease for holidays by the way i ane not veary good at spelling i wuld like to meet inturesting pople so i cane get to know them reley well", the membership count of the group is clearly not a relevant metric. Counting the number of purported people on the page that you actually linked to gives a number that is a couple of orders of magnitude smaller: 22. But as with all such discussion fora, we have no way to know that these are in fact real people at all. Even if they were, there's the fact that those are the very same people that have submitted press releases about this book to PressBox and other web sites, to take into account.

    People from all round the globe are confirming that fact — No, they actually aren't. There's nothing outside of the vanity and self-submission web sites, and even they tell us that there's no book yet. There's nothing to indicate that this isn't a campaign of stealth advertising to publicize a forthcoming book. Uncle G 16:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

As I see it what is happening here is a search for independent conformation of the fact that there is genuinely a movement of interest behind the text Unlock Reality (UR) and that it is a genuine publication. I argue that the below links to the records of a court case in the UK’s High Court and several resulting articles from different independent news outlets are such conformation.

The case involved someone attempting to infringe the copy write of Unlock Reality (UR) held by Iindividual Self-Discovery Trust and place it without their permission on the Internet in order to make a profit. Such an attempt in of it self is proof of a wide spread interest. The subsequent case, proof of the existense of the Iindividual Self-Discovery Trust and a broad interest in UR the numerous articles about the court case further proof.

http://www.casetrack.com/ct4plc.nsf/items/0-203-2283

http://www.theregister.com/2006/07/10/google_ad_disclose_case/

http://www.out-law.com/page-7082

http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/topnews/wpn-60-20060710GoogleTellsWomanWhichArmToTwist.html

(there are more articles on this case if you wish).

Tony H - 15/09/06— Tony Hartly (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The casetrack.com link is strange. As best as I can determine, casetrack is a subscription-only service. Why does the link work? JesseW, the juggling janitor 04:59, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Uncle G, your decision to quote a random profile disappoints me. Here it is again:

The Care2 group alone has over 3,000 members — Given that the very first message from one of those "members" on the group's main page is "my name is barbara Smith i like to play bowls out side and go to bingo and go over sease for holidays by the way i ane not veary good at spelling i wuld like to meet inturesting pople so i cane get to know them reley well"

Not sure where you found this, but I suggest your point would have carried more weight if you had selected one of the people reporting on reading the text in question. Say I discovered that Barbara Smith whom you quote is actually a member here too, what would that say about this group? Nothing I should think.

The court papers, now that is a different story.

signed Tmonome Sept 15th

Been studying your definitions and have a couple of questions, which might help me to make the article better. This one for instance:

Your reference says: “An opinion is a view that someone holds, the content of which may or may not be verifiable. However, that a certain person or group expressed a certain opinion is a fact (that is, it is true that the person expressed the opinion) and it may be included in Wikipedia if it can be verified; that is, if you can cite a good source showing that the person or group expressed the opinion.”

Now it appears to me that people’s opinion of Unlock Reality is a vital fact to be proven here. Uncle G tells us there are 22 people in the group I linked to, who express an opinion after claiming to have read the text, but he also points out these might not be real people.

I respond by pointing out that this particular group have links to their profiles, and can be contacted through the Care2 messaging service. When you ask for proof, what exactly would satisfy this situation? Who would it take to make contact with enough of these 22 people to establish the fact?

And when we see 3,000 members of a group dedicated to the text in question, while it is possible for memberships to be duplicated, is it fair to assume that none of these people are real?

And when a search turns up over 22,000 hits when you Google the texts name, and at least 80% of the entries in the top 100 are directly related to the text, can we really assume all of these are fabricated? Even in a court of law, which employs the strictest sense of justice, we hear about reasonable doubt.

We have evidence from British High Court papers that The Individuals Self-Discovery Trust exists as an entity recognised by the court. Those papers also prove the court accepted their connection with the text enough to make a ruling in their favour. The fact that someone felt it was worth the effort and expense in breaching this copyright, indicates there must be a demand making it worth that risk.

Given the verifications provided by the courts, is it reasonable to conclude that all the interest which we see in Unlock Reality is fabricated?

Here is a test for you. Just look at the Care2 site, go to the archives, and see how long it takes you to count the postings in each thread, and while you are there, see the variety and ask yourself what manner of person could fabricate all this?

We are being asked to discredit comments from this site because it may have all been fabricated. I say looking at the actual evidence, the site itself, this is not a reasonable conclusion any reasonable person could possibly come to. And if I am right on this, the article should stay to be improved upon. No Deletion.

Signed Tmonome 15th Sept

• Comment: For more information, see Astroturfing. -- Fan-1967 18:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• Blah, blah, blah, Delete per Uncle G. Danny Lilithborne 18:34, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Uncle G. I trust his opinion of Wikipedia policy a lot more than a newly created WP:SPA. ColourBurst 19:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Someone sued them / they sued someone = notability? Wow, where do I sign up? my name is barbara Smith i like to play bowls outside and go to bingo and go over sease for holidays by the way i ane not veary good at spelling i wuld like to meet inturesting pople so i cane get to know them reley well 06:20, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I commend User:Uncle G's for his, as usual, excellent research, into the claims of this article. I find this article itself is a half cooked SPAM. And for good measure, thre is no measure that the book satisfies WP:BK.-- danntm ^T _C 06:46, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Just a note to say I have added the high court references, as I conquer these are vital to the article.

I note you have an article in progress about the Course in Miracles. This was also a book distributed in manuscript form for a time, which had a similar enthusiastic following. At which point did it become worthy of consideration here? Any book or music or work of art might benefit from a mention here, but does that fact exclude admission? I think not, as I find many things listed here which can be bought. So are we saying Unlock Reality has to be in the best sellers list to warrant inclusion? That would be like saying, far from being against supporting organised promotions, you actually award the ones who are successful.

I’m sure admin will have noted I personally have done my best to take advice and bring this article up to the standard required. I see something unusual happening here, something real, which I feel deserves a mention. I look to the discretion you have to not exclude this.

The measure that the book satisfies is that it is real, and it is of interest. There is sufficient evidence presented in the article to prove that in any court, and indeed one High Court has already ruled on it.

signed Tmonome Sept16th

Regarding the article on A Course in Miracles, I'd suggest the notability would stem from such things as the commercial success of the book (including foreign language translations), the fact that it has been controversial (and not just as a result of litigation) and possibly even the way in which it has integrated itself into pop culture. "Unlock Reality" may well end up achieving all these and more, but until it has then I'm not sure it's a fair comparison. Additionally, the fact that one specific article on a similar topic exists doesn't necessarily mean that any given article on the same topic need to exist. BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 08:41, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Reasons given for Course in Miracles inclusion:

commercial success

has been controversial

has integrated itself into pop culture

Boiled down, what makes something suitable for inclusion in an encyclopaedia is:

It exists

It is of interest

If one is actually looking at this from a neutral point of view, we are not allowed to judge the level of interest, but merely need to establish it is there to satisfy the criteria. IMHO

signed Tmonome Sept 16th

• Delete astroturfing, per Uncle G. I guess my research was less detailed but I found nothing to contradict this analysis. Guy 11:46, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Uncle G. Ergative rlt 17:36, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I would like to object to the repeated use of the word astroturfing in describing activity surrounding Unlock Reality. Having read the article on astroturfing I must point out that there has been no evidence put forward to indicate in any way that such a practice is taking place. No evidence to indicate that any of the people showing support are other than genuine individuals.

Genuine Grassroots movements tend to follow the path of least expense, it would appear, and that makes sense, if you think about it. Just because astroturfing efforts attempt to mimic these movements by following similar paths, that does not give you or anyone the right to brand something phoney or dishonest, with no evidence to back you up. That is not assuming good faith in any way.

When I say: “People from all round the globe are confirming that fact” referring to the books travels — Uncle G replies “No, they actually aren't.”

It is fully wrong for him to say that. He has no proof to deny this is happening. Just because he does not accept the sources does not mean it is not happening or that he can declare it is not happening. Actually they are, Uncle G.

Also Uncle G tells us:

“What we are presented with are a number of postings on a web site, whose authorships we have no way of determining.”

That is not strictly true either. It has been mentioned several times that each of the names which would confirm the books far travels have links to profiles. Each person could be contacted and asked to send a postcard whose postmark would confirm their location. Like I have heard said here, we have lots of time, and the cost of messaging these people is free. I’m surprised that none of you who are assuming good faith and seeing this from a neutral angle are making any suggestions to help me here.

I see a lot of Deletes, but we are thin on the ground for positive suggestions. No one with some imagination here who can put what is happening in a way that reflects what is known and satisfies your criteria? There is a lot there to just dismiss out of hand. I would be grateful for your help.

signed Tmonome Sept 16th

The fact that not one single established Wikipedia editor has bought your arguments should be a sign to you. The fact that there is that much forum activity without any notice at all from Reliable Sources is in itself suspicious, and is a pattern we have seen before. We do not have to prove that the book is not notable. You have to prove that it is notable, and forum postings are not sufficient or acceptable evidence. Fan-1967 22:09, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

“Dear Mister Galileo the fact that not one single established scientist has bought your arguments should be a sign to you. The fact that you have done so much scientific activity without any notice at all from Reliable Sources is in itself suspicious, and is a pattern we have seen before. We do not have to prove that the sun orbits the earth. You have to prove that it is the other way around……….”

The validity of reasoning and the collaborating evidence presented constitute the salient pieces of this discussion, surly not who is presenting them. How does one become an ‘established Wikipedia editor’ – I presume by putting forward sound arguments, thus the un-established become the established. Why not have just a few editors in a closed room? Because doing it in the open and letting anyone who wants to particapate allows the ‘un-established’ to be heard also. I find the overt snobbery being displayed here quite something.

It is written above that the burden lies with those who wish to establish that Unlock Reality is notable.

Well it would appear that it is. The Dalai Lama has a copy as does the Arch Bishop of Canterbury. These two men represent the religious and spiritual concerns of countless millions of people. Millions of people who take notice – or find notable – what these men do and read.

The Internet is awash with sites, members and postings, each one representing someone taking note of UR, i.e. finding it notable. The idea that this vast number of entries is the work of one person or group is just absurd. We are not talking about 5 or 10, there are literally tens of thousands.

There are several (at lest eight I have counted) newspaper stories about Unlock Reality's High Court case – when was the last time you saw 1 newspaper article on an un-notable story – let alone 8?

Un-notable hey?

Tony H - 16/09/06

What I feel makes this text notable now is that is has gone as far as it has in manuscript form. There is nothing which even comes close to this.

We could take a few steps and confirm the books travels round the world, or rather than dismiss this altogether, take a neutral view of the internet activity for a moment, by seeing it as a fact that there is a huge amount about this which appears on the internet, which by its nature cannot be fully confirmed but also cannot be ignored, then we still have pictures with exact times and place of very notable people, the Dalai Lama and The Arch Bishop of Canterbury, considering the work, and a High Court Judge ruling with several offical news stories filed as my friend Tony mentions.

We live in a world where, internet phenomena exists as a fact. More and more, not less and less things will be affected by the many free avenues the internet provides, and respectfully, you should have a way to deal with that which is actually neutral to reflect your stated philosophy.

People using the public forums which the internet provides are expressing their right to free speech, and just because some might abuse this, that does not make it right to dismiss the majority of genuine people expressing their views. If you don't feel these voices are worth considering you might want to ask yourself why Rupert Murdoch recently spent $580 million to buy Myspace?

And indeed, why is Myspace included in Wikipedia as it is soley comprised of "a number of postings on a web site, whose authorships we have no way of determining." as Uncle G puts it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myspace

You might argue that the sheer number of entries on Myspace makes it unlikely that they are all fabricated, which is exactly the same arguement we are making for UR. And when you consider the resources available to someone at Mr Murdoch level, we might well ask which is the stronger arguement of these two.

This is a reality you have to deal with if you really do intend to look at things in a neutral way, not something you can just brush away because it is not perfect. These thousands of internet entries may not carry full weight, but they must be allowed to carry some weight in the light of what supports them.

There is a lot being said here, and I trust it will all be considered.

signed Tmonome Sept 16th

The argument regarding MySpace is, with respect, utterly fallacious. The article on the site is (or at least should be) about the site itself, rather than anything which is on it. Say what you want about lonely teenagers writing about their existential angst and how such-and-such a band is the coolest thing on the planet, but the site has become notable for a variety of reasons. Not the least of these is the fact that it is, to put it mildly, massive in terms of numbers of users.

What we're not in the business of, though, is treating someone or something's MySpace page as proof of anything much beyond their existence. Keep an eye on the AfD listings for a few days and you'll see a series of unsigned bands and wannabe actors having their pages nominated for deletion. Those arguing that the article should be kept will frequently cite a MySpace page.

In other words, the site itself is notable but everyone who has a page on it is almost certainly not so. BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me)

I contend that ‘Notable’ means, ‘worthy of note: significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded’.

There is an inherent problem here, part of what it is to be ‘notable’ is to be unusual. Unusual entails ‘out of the ordinary’, ‘different to the norm’ or even unique (as may be the case with UR).

The point is that UR’s notability is inextricable linked to it’s unusual nature, which in tuАrn means that ‘similar examples’ or parallels with pervious decisions taken on this site and examples are irrelevant and will be hard to find and if found would serve to show it to be less notable.

Therefore I contend that those who say UR is not notable should have to produce similar examples of unpublished books with a list of attributes comparable to an international following, thousands of websites, getting attention from world spiritual leaders and at the centre of a high court action, in order to establish that UR is mundane/ordinary and not ‘notable’.

Tony H – 16/09/06

The alternative would be for those saying that it is notable to demonstrate how it lines up with the proposed criteria at WP:BK. BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 09:54, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I note that the Wikipedia test for notability for people is also recommended for use with books.

From previous comments I read here it appears I wrongly assumed that Unlock Reality’s relatively high Google hit count was not to be considered in determining its notability. I see now that it is an alternative factor recmmended which can be used, which you have dedicated a page to explaining, entitled the Wikipedia Search Engine Test, also referred to as the Google Test -- Does the subject get lots of distinguishable hits on Google or another well known search mechanism?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Search_engine_test

Accordingly I present the following recent search result to be added for consideration:

Google Search conducted Sept 17th 2006, 16:07 GMT Results 1 - 10 of about 24,100 for "Unlock Reality". (0.31 seconds)

Signed Tmonome Sept 17th

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:BK#Threshold_standards

While Unlock Reality is still a manuscript, (not published yet), and as such would not be expected to satisfy any of the book threshold standards, it none the less satisfies one of the threshold standards for books set by Wikipedia, as a copy of the manuscript is officially catalogued by its country of origin's official library. British Library c2004. Shelfmarks YK.2005.b.3116

http://catalogue.bl.uk/F/JH1LCBVKX7EE83U1T2XK4SCAVUGS7KRTTBDCGB7J781QFMURGU-06263?func=find-b&request=unlock+reality&find_code=WTI&adjacent=Y&image.x=29&image.y=4

This may be useful in further verifying its existence, if nothing else.

Signed Tmonone Sept 17th

• Nice cherry-picking on the standards. The full sentence there is: "Books should have at a minimum an ISBN number (for books published after 1966), be available at a dozen or more libraries and be catalogued by its country of origin's official or de facto national library." I think you need eleven more libraries. Fan-1967 16:19, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

The intention of bringing the manuscript's British Library catalogued status to our panel's attention was stated as clearly as possible.

signed Tmonome Sept 17th

• Comment Someone close this AfD already, please. Danny Lilithborne 21:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

• You don't want to see Tmonone repeat the same arguments ten more times? Fan-1967 22:41, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

• DELETE DELETE DELETE DELETE DELETE DELETE DELETE DELETE DELETE DELETE DELETE DELETE DELETE DELETE DELETE...agree with Danny Lilithborne...Wikipedia is not a soapbox, but Tmonone has thought AfD is his for arguing "keep" until he's blue in the face. By the time he's done, I'll be that clichéd skeleton in the corner replete with cobwebs. —ExplorerCDT 21:59, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with defending an article, but not to this extent. Guy 22:47, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me Guy.

Your site provides a means for me to tell you why I feel this topic is suitable under your terms to be included in your publication, and now you are criticising me for making use of it. Aren’t you meant to be presuming good faith, or did I just imagine reading that here somehwere?

--Tmonome 06:41, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: to Tmonome Make the argument once, and concisely. Personally, you're either trying to win by either fatiguing us into not reading through the AfD or by spewing an Argumentum verbosium and that just makes me and other editors sick. You don't need to defend something over and over again and then harass people who vote against what you think with lengthy speeches for the lost cause of trying to change their minds. Most people won't read what you have to say anyway if you can't say it in less than a usual paragraph. And most people don't change their minds, much less give an AfD a second thought. Vote, give a brief discussion of why you voted the way you voted, and move on. Oh...learn how to format your contributions to a discussion too. Because you screw up the aesthetics and flow of a page with an unwieldy, unformatted post like you've spewed (repeatedly) above. —ExplorerCDT 07:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

My discovery of this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Search_engine_test

made all I said on considering Search Engine results redundant. I apologise.

(there is no option to indent on my (Firefox) browser. Help Please)

--Tmonome 07:43, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Putting a colon in front of the line (like in this one) indents it. More colons indents further.

See how easy it is? Fan-1967 13:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Just to let everyone know, I've put the article through an extensive clean up just now. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 21:18, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, but I don't see that helping. The issue is the notability of the subject, not the quality of the article. Frankly, this AFD is overdue for closing and I suspect your effort will go for nought. Fan-1967 21:20, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Thank you for your help RoyalGuard. I'm grateful.

It should be noted that there have been some major changes in actual content of the article too, since this discussion began, as comments were all considered and acted upon as much as possible.

--Tmonome 11:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. With the exception of the recent cleanup (which I'll admit makes things a lot easier to follow), the only change in content since this was originally listed was this edit and the following one correcting spelling. While this is an addition of matter, it hardly moves the work any closer to notability. BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 11:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Respectfully changes in content were:

The question of how this could be an old manuscript yet hold a copyright, was answered by adding it was “recently updated”.

The list of countries the manuscript has travelled to, was added with link to reports from readers.

And the entire litigation section was added with link to verify.

--Tmonome 15:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• You know, there's a very simple way to get your book in Wikipedia. Publish it. If the buzz is real, it will sell a lot of copies, show up with a good sales ranking on Amazon and similar sites, and get reviewed in major publications. Then it will qualify for an article. Fan-1967 15:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Respectfully, it is not my book. The remainder of what you say may be true, but many feel this manuscript has done more than anything in manuscript form before it, and deserves a place here now. Notability is about being unusual not just being famous. It is unusual now. I invite you to provide an example of something comparable to prove me wrong.

--Tmonome 15:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• No, notability is about being famous. Many things are unusual. Fan-1967 15:58, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment

Notable 1. worthy of being noted: remarkable

2. person of distinction

Collins Essential English Dictionary 2004

says nothing about requiring fame.

herein is the rub of this entire discussion

• Well, the dictionary has their definition, we have ours. Ours is that, if you need Wikipedia to let people know about you, you don't belong here. Wikipedia is not for helping little-known enterprises gain exposure (or help them find a publisher, for that matter). Fan-1967 16:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• Actually, there is no official Wikipedia policy on notability.

--Tmonome 17:02, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• True. It's a guideline. Doesn't stop us from using it. Fan-1967 17:04, 25 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 21:10, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] D'Andre Devon Lampkin

Disputed prod and suggestion to userfy declined. Non-notable autobiography. -- RHaworth 10:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete A7. The only news coverage on the dude is in a local Long Beach paper on being among six high school grads awarded a $1000 scholarship. Pan Dan 11:00, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - sorry, but he's just not notable. BTLizard 11:03, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all very worthy, just not notable enough. --RMHED 18:33, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 18:35, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Do you guys have any suggestions on how this can be saved? Check out these other notable mentions: ACLU Legal Brief: Williams v. State of California, http://www.decentschools.org/courtdocs/01FirstAmendedComplaint.pdf, Statement of Mark D. Rosenbaum Legal Director, ACLU of Southern California August 13, 2004, Quality Counts 2003: The Great Divide, Los Angeles USD Student Depositions, Williams Case - Correspondence (CA Dept of Education, and had it not been for students like D'Andre Lampkin, this would have never happened: Notice of Settlement Memorandum. And yes, all of these sources recieved media coverage, including appearances of the governor. Zodiac01 11:46, 15 September 2006
• Delete, "mentions" are not sufficient. The above sources would not qualify as "non-trivial" coverage per WP:V. It can be saved by being userfied. Recury 19:33, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comments:
  • I don't understand, please clarify "userfied" and "non-trivial" Zodiac01 15:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I just read the WP:V and I think I understand now. In one of those above links, D'Andre is lauded for his efforts by the ACLU. I'm sure the ACLU is a verfiable source. Please help me fix this if there's anyway it can be fixed. Zodiac01 15:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • RHaworth, I just found your comment stating "Don't tell me to Google!" I'm obviously new to the wikipedia experience and no offense was intended. I just simply referenced where the information could be found. Zodiac01 15:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

No need to apologise, man - just do what I asked for - provide a link to a Google search. "Non-trivial" means something more than an article that contains your name - we are not questioning your existence! "Userfy" means move the article to user:Zodiac01 - I have agreed to stop userfying otherwise I would have userfied this one on sight. -- RHaworth 12:44, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• • Here ya go, D'Andre Lampkin, D'Andre Devon Lampkin, Explorer D'Andre Lampkin. And more important, I also found the link to an association started in 2003, LACLEEA Zodiac01 15:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Doesn't meet notability guidelines yet...eventually, he may. But not on this day. —ExplorerCDT 22:02, 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. - Mailer Diablo 09:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] House Arrest/Lover Boy (Haunted Graffiti 5-6)

This is an article on a reissue of 2 albums which is almost identical to the articles on those two albums (House Arrest (Haunted Graffiti 5; Reissue) and Lover Boy (Haunted Graffiti 6; Reissue)). Ordinarily I would simply redirect, as I've done with Worn Copy (Haunted Graffiti 8; Reissue), but in this case there's no obvious target because the article covers two albums not one. I propose deletion. kingboyk 11:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Baseball,Baby! ^{balls•strikes} 09:48, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment There are loads of (new) articles about obscure records (not available on the mass market). I believe policies need to be more clear where to draw a line of notability. I am searching argumention ideas for a village pump discussion by the way. User:Yy-bo 15:12, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Bobet 10:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• A rare delete from me. I arguably make more album articles than anyone else here, and I know better than to think this is even remotely useful. Note that they were reissued as a double disc/album/whatever in each individual article and be done with it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete; redundant and without an obvious redirect target. (Liberatore, 2006). 11:50, 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 09:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shawn Tempesta

Article for non-notable local radio disc jockey and webmaster. Does not meet requirements of WP:BIO. No reliable, reputable sources per WP:V. Was {PROD} but removed by anon editor with no comment or changes so come here for deletion. --Satori Son 12:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• He actually is a known disc-jockey in Las Vegas. I think we might be getting a little picky here. Mix941.fm shows his position with the station, Radio-Info.com mentions him in New Bedford, MA, plus his own bio on ShawnTempesta.com and MySpace at ShawnOnTheRadio.com shows he is not unknown. This isn't a Colbert Report situation...I don't think it should be treated as one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.20.96.116 (talk • contribs) 12:53, 8 September 2006

• I am not claiming the man doesn't exist, simply that he does not meet the notability requirements of Wikipedia:Notability (people). Also, self-published sources are generally not sufficient to establish notability. Please read Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Thank you. --Satori Son 13:58, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Bobet 10:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment — Do any local (non-nationally syndicated) radio disk jockeys merit notability? Perhaps a few who have made it into the news. But I suspect most do not. — RJH (talk) 18:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, no most do not because most don't have enough good sources about them. This guy doesn't appear to either. Some are popular enough to have been written about substantially though. Recury 19:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete pretty much impossible to build a reliable biography except to say his name and his job. I don't think he makes WP:BIO.Pascal.Tesson 02:12, 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 keep. Mangojuice^talk 17:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tropical nations at the Winter Olympics

While I've contributed information about tropical nations competing at the Winter Olympics, I feel this is a bad idea for an article - the focus is arbitrary. It lacks citations, and is a magnet for original research, inaccuracies and points of view. Andjam 10:51, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep. The odd focus can probably be rectified with a title change (to what? Not sure, but it would need to either be stricter on what is defined as "tropical" to disclude Australia, Iran and others or be more inclusive so's to get them in). Citations shouldn't be too hard to find, since there are (I presume) already articles on the various countries named. As for the fact that it's a magnet for nasty things, so is at least 25% of the entire 'pedia. This one hasn't yet attracted anything untoward that I can see. That all being said, the fact remains that there's already articles on "[Country] at the [Year] Winter Olympics", so perhaps this is superfluous. BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 11:06, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. As per above. It is a dull topic, and there is unlikely to be many widely available sources for this topic to be written to an encylopedic standard. It has already attracted misleading information about Australia, Iran, Algeria, and Cyprus, which do not have mostly tropical climates. Rintrah 11:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete ONLY per failure of WP:V - vandal/misinformation target is not a criterion for deletion, after all, we have George W Bush as an article. Nor is poorly written a criterion for deletion. WilyD 13:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - a curiosity article. Not dull at all, although the Tropical criteria is questionable, the focus is on warmer countries, who have sent people to the Winter Olympics. --MacRusgail 15:01, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per the above. Needs to be copyeditted and closely watched for OR, but it's fine. —Nightstallion (?) 15:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Could become a great article if retitled and expanded. violet/riga (t) 16:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per T. Anthony's recomendation to limit the "tropical distinction". This could be a very worthwhile and encyclopedic article. Agne 19:48, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to Winter Olympic Games. Punkmorten 19:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep. One of my biggest pet peeves on Wikipedia are articles with what the nom calls an arbitrary focus, but I'm not sure this qualifies. The idea is that countries that basically don't have a winter still have athletes that compete in the Winter Games is an interesting one that should be covered somewhere, but since its such a minor topic anything more than a sentence would mess up the balance of Winter Olympic Games. The fact that no one (including me) can come up with a better title is perhaps a clue that there isn't one, though I'm open to suggestions. Recury 19:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. No real info inside. Pavel Vozenilek 22:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom and Pavel Vozenilek. Silly, misleading unencyclopedic trivia "gee whiz" article. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. There is no obvious reason why a country without marked winter seasons or in generally warmer climates can't have people expert in winter sports (you don't even have to have mountains). Skiing is huge in Iran (which is not "tropical" anyway). It rarely snows in London, does this mean that its odd to have skiers in London etc etc. Bwithh 00:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - "There is no obvious reason why a country without marked winter seasons or in generally warmer climates can't have people expert in winter sports (you don't even have to have mountains)." - yes there is. Because there's nowhere to practice outside, and creating indoor facilities is very expensive. It's like Outer Mongolia entering a team in ocean yachting. Geography and climate works against it. --MacRusgail 18:07, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep but limit to nations that are mostly or entirely within the tropics(23.5 degrees of lattitude North or South) and give information on how they ranked or what their highest ranking was in any event.--T. Anthony 03:50, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This could be an interesting encyclopedia topic, though it is disappointing as it stands.--Cúchullain ^t/c 04:52, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Better off in some other larger article. The limited focus is not deserving for Wikipedia. Ariedartin JECJY ^Talk 08:18, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I see nothing inherently wrong with "gee whiz" articles, and as for verifiability there are already four external citations given in as many paragraphs. Bryan 08:25, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

In fairness I added those and they were not there before the deletion vote.--T. Anthony 08:40, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep per BigHaz. Ergative rlt 17:38, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. It serves as a portal, linking to other articles of interest, and it deals with an interesting topic. YechielMan 23:16, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. As long as the article uses a consistent definition of "tropical", it can be turned into a good piece. Surely classifying a country as "tropical" or not is easier than classifying a band by music genre. Kla'quot ^Sound 04:02, 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 100% delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 88 percent

Appears to be original research and almost certainly non-notable - I've certainly never heard of 88% having some specific significance over other percentages. A single mention in popular culture (probably only incidental rather than a specific "hey, let's make an 88% joke" by the writers) does not indicate evidence of a widespread awareness of this idea. ~Matticus ^T_C 18:57, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, WP:NOR (or rather WP:NOT for things made up one day) Fram 20:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:00, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• 97% of all statistics are made up, and this is no exception. A once-off joke on a comedy television show is not enough to hang an encyclopaedia article from, and there are no other sources at all to back up the idea propounded in this article. Delete. Uncle G 11:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all above. Pan Dan 11:59, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom - good at maths not so good at spelling (still mine usually lets me down!) Nigel ^(Talk) 12:44, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --DrTorstenHenning 17:06, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete a one-shot joke does not an article make. Danny Lilithborne 18:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. --MaNeMeBasat 14:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per all above. Cool3 16:29, 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. If I have counted correctly, discounting assumed puppets and single-purpose accounts, the raw totals are 6-2 Delete. That does not include the nominator, who changed his position to Keep. So on to the arguments. While I might not count the "votes" of single-purpose editors, I will give account to their arguments, if cogent. In favor of deletion, the point is made that , basically, he fails WP:BIO. In reply these points are made: (1) He was, at least for a while, a regular columnist for the daily newspaper in a small-to-medium-sized American city. (2) He has a website, which apparently attracts enough attention to get him interviewed on NPR. (3) He's had a book published by Brigham Young University, which has to be considered a publisher of some note. (4) He's got some comedy records, which while apparently self-published have gotten airplay on Doctor Demento which is a nationally syndicated show. (5) His site was noted in PC Magazine as one of the best 99 undiscovered websited6

Taken together, those are reasonably strong arguments. It's true that the only one of these that might meet WP:BIO is "well known and independent award" -- one could make that case that getting on PC Magazine's "best 99 undiscovered websites" is an independent award of a sort by a notable magazine. On the hand, there were 98 other "winners", so that's questionable. Basically, I can't see that he meets WP:BIO. But WP:BIO "is not intended to be an exclusionary list".

Back to the commentors, we see a couple of editors basing their comments on verification. The article may have been partly rewritten when they made their votes, but anyway the NPR interview and the PC magazine bit seem to verify much of his story. His book is on Amazon (albeit out of print). So the no-verification arguments may be discounted, somewhat.

Still, in spite of the fact that the Keep position does make a good argument, I don't see it as enough stronger for me to discount that after all, of eight real commentors, six think the article should be deleted. Herostratus 19:19, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eric D. Snider

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}}

Who is this guy? reading the article, I can't find anything making him worth of an article.. unless you want an article for every person that has ever insulted anyone on the radio... --Lacrymology 19:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

• Who is this guy? Perhaps a perusal of his brief but thoroughly enlightening official biography, posted on his website in handy color-coded timeline form will answer your question. (bio) As you can see, he's done a lot more than insult somebody on the radio. That's not even what he does. His founding of Brigham Young University's first comedy troupe, the now-defunct Garrens (1993-2001) and his weekly humor column, "Snide Remarks," (still published weekly on his website, and read by hundreds, if not thousands, of subscribers) easily made him the most well-known--and controversial--figure on that campus in the late 1990s. He is still very well-known in certain circles. If his brother hadn't created his Wikipedia entry, I was thinking about doing it--maybe eventually, if I ever got around to it.

  Vote to Keep. Ryan Reeder 04:34, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• Perhaps not everyone needs a Wikipedia article, but someone who's a published author, performer, movie critic (with over 1700 reviews online) and singer probably deserves one.

  Vote to keep. --Jeff Bowers 05:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

  — Jeff Bowers (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Keep - Eric may not be the most celebrated celebrity on the big screen but he sure does know how to make fun of them. I feel that someone who has published as much as him and in as many mediums as him deserves an entry. His writings have appeared in publications throughout the state of Utah, California, and (I think) Oregon. His movie reviews have been published on credible websites and he has been featured fairly regularly on the radio. His columns are fantastic, his movie reviews are entertaining and informative and his music is hilarious.

  Vote to Keep. --Jason Wright 05:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

  — Jasonlesliewright (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:01, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete unsourced, unverifiable, unencyclopeadic, un cetera ... WilyD 13:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. The subject's name sounds somewhat familiar, but this article does not emphasize strongly enough the activities which would have placed Snider before a national audience. I recommend that the supporters of the article rewrite it to discuss Snider's most prominent activities only and not minor details of his biography. --Metropolitan90 14:17, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Mr. Snider is an established performer and writer with a recognizable influence. As an up-and-coming artist with an ever-growing following, the matter of his being a public figure is unquestionable. The biographic details of the article are relevant to illustrate the genesis of the artist's perspective. I find the article unbiased and encyclopedic in nature and in no violation of Wikipedia policy. Recommend to keep. A. Amini 14:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

  — Aminiamy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Delete Oh, for Chrissakes. Look, I'm sure he's a cool guy, but would he show up in Encarta? Encyclopedia Britannica? Heck, would he even show up in Who's Who in America? Where are the news articles talking about him? Where are the books in which his "recognizable influence" is discussed? Where, oh where, could the reliable sources be? I strongly recommend that the closing admin ignore the Single-Purpose Accounts and rid the encyclopedia of this... er... well, I guess you could call it an article, but "hagiography" would also work. Captainktainer * Talk 17:03, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment If Encyclopedia Britannica and Who's Who are your standards, you've got a lot more deleting to do. I agree the article could be better written and should link to the original sources rather than Eric's blog.--Jeff Bowers 18:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I'll second this - "If Encyclopedia Britannica and Who's Who are your standards, you've got a lot more deleting to do." What makes Wikipedia great is its inclusion of various miscellany including TV shows, bands and much more obscure stuff than Eric Snider. He is a prolific writer, film reviewer, parodist and humorist. Absolutely no reason he shouldn't have a page here, as long as the information provided is accurate. Wiki Nazis, F Off! dennycrane1414 18:34, 15 September 2006 (UTC)— Possible single purpose account: dennycrane1414 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.

• Note to closing admin: The SPA (and probable sockpuppet 71.115.224.209 edited the above comment to remove the phrase "Wiki Nazis, F Off!". I did an rv to retain the comment as originally posted. --Aaron 01:41, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom and Captainktainer. --Aaron 19:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, ignoring the WP:SPAs' comments which hardly seem to cite inclusion policy; fails WP:BIO, no WP:RS indicating notability. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, "he continues to work as a freelance writer and part-time Film Studies student." = non-notable. And yes, we do have a lot more deleting to do. Recury 19:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment From WP:BIO: "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events" is one factor that allows for an entry. Eric's recent article I Was a Junket Whore resulted in national attention, e.g. an NPR interview. Vote to keep.--Lady Celtic-- — Possible single purpose account: Lady Celtic (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
• Keep - Many have read his work without knowing it was his. -PelaoFeliz —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.91.214.25 (talk • contribs) 23:00, September 15, 2006 — Possible single purpose account: 158.91.214.25 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
• Comment - I don't see how people can say that he isn't a notable person yet the publications that he writes for are He currently writes movie reviews for HollywoodBitchslap.com as well as RottenTomatoes.com. Both sites are credible sources for movie reviews, both sites have entries here on the Wikipedia and Hollywood Bitchslap's entry even lists him on their page as one of their author's. He may not have attained the fame of hollywood movie stars but he does have a fairly large fan following. The great thing about the Wikipedia as was mentioned before is that you can learn about anything. I understand removing entries for people that haven't accomplished much and create their own entry but removing an entry for a writer who has accomplished so much. He has recorded CD's and yes people bought them. He has published his humor columns in books as well ane believe it or not, they sold too. Eric is a notable writer, possibly the only one that I read on a regular basis.--Jasonlesliewright 05:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Striking vote; user has already voted above. --Aaron 01:20, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Un-striking vote; while noting that user previously submitted his recommendation, he has the right to offer additional comments. However, the closing admin should make sure not to count him twice. --Metropolitan90 04:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment: Better fix: I've relabeled it a comment. But please note the entire point of striking is to allow the commentary to be read without the vote being accidentally counted twice. --Aaron 05:33, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Reconsider - For those who marked this as delete, I have updated the page with more information than just a boring old biography. I hope that other's will continue to contribute and make this page show Eric's full list of accomplishments. Please reconsider deleting this entry.--Jasonlesliewright 18:59, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - I haven't contributed a lot to Wikipedia, but I wanted to weigh in here anyway. For what it's worth, he's had several appearances on Dr. Demento, was interviewed on "On the Media" on NPR and his Web site was recommended in PC Magazine as one of the Top 98 undiscovered. If that doesn't qualify him for inclusion, so be it. Nonetheless, I vote for the site to remain. Yorenny 22:47, 16 September 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Yorenny (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
• Keep - Subject is a published author and musician, has received national attention from three different media outlets (USA Today, NPR, and PC Magazine), has a following that extends beyond friends and family, and caused enough of a stir with the "Junket Whore" article to be banned from all future press screenings by Paramount Studios. From WP:NOT, "one measure of publicity is whether someone has been featured in several external sources (on or off-line)." I think Snider passes the notability test, although as little as six months ago the case would have been harder to make. However, the article does need to be improved so the more notable aspects of Snider's career are given more prominence, and it especially needs more links to external sources other than Snider's websites. Disclaimer: I am an occasional contributor to the message board at Snider's site, but my edit history will show that this is not a SPA (although I have been on wikibreak for the past few months). Alanyst 23:45, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• Note - User's first edit in six months. --Aaron 01:20, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - The article won't be featured anytime soon, but it's sufficiently well organized and formatted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by YechielMan (talk • contribs) 19:18, September 20, 2006
• Delete as WP:VSCA to sell his records. --72.75.117.73 18:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

• Note - No where in the entry is there a link to where the records can be purchased. Every artist listed on wikipedia lists their albums and track listings and this is no different. --Jasonlesliewright 20:52, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep but rewrite I presented this for deletion. I see that he's bigger than the article makes him look... make it show. I expect wikipedia to be better than Encyclopaedia Britannica, and think he should be kept.. but really, the article doesn't (or didn't) show anything that makes him worthy. The new article is better, but has too many pictures, but that is another subject. And not having written for 6 months doesn't mean he doesn't have the right to give his opinion. --Lacrymology 19:39, 22 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. I won't object to recreation if evidence is brough towards meeting WP:BIO and avoding WP:AUTO. Yanksox 03:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jago (Illustrator) and Jago Silver

This is a vanity page written by the subject Klacquement 19:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

• I object to the deletion notice because I don't see what criteria my article meets that would warrant it being deleted. I am an illustrator with several published books, awards and reviews. This is in common with most of the other illustrators on the List_of_illustrators page. Are they all going to be deleted?

  I understand that it would be better if someone else had written the article, but all the information on it is simple fact, I'm not making any claims I can't back up, so the information would be the same if someone else typed it.

  My article will only be found by people browsing the List of illustrators page, who would, presumably be looking for examples of illustrators, unless that page too is to be deleted?. I myself found several interesting illustrator pages with information I hadn't seen before. Is it impossible to believe other might do the same and find my page interesting and informative.

  This was my first foray into Wikipedia and I had thought I would continue to help it expand, sadly I'm not so sure now.

  Jagosilver 19:13, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

• Thank you for replying, I have removed the Biography and Methods sections from the article as I can see they are not encyclopedic enough, or appropriate for Wikipedia.

  However, the information that is left in the article is almost identical in terms of content to Bob Staake's page for example. If my article is still deleted it would seem that the only reason for this would be the name of the user who creates the page. This seems like a very weak basis for a decision to be based on. Presumably the user who created the Bob Staake page could well be Bob himself, or his aunty, as the user in question has not used their real name for a username.

  Therefore is seems that possibly my biggest mistake was creating an honest username that identified me, had I been called "Frodo92" or something, would the article still have been flagged as a vanity project? If this is the case, surely it encourages people to set up anonymous accounts in order to post information about themselves or others which may not be true.

  I look forward to reading your reply, especially on why Bob_Staake's page is viewed differently to mine. Jagosilver 06:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• Bob's article has links to pages that aren't written by himself. Klacquement 12:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• Although to be fair, out of the six links on his page, three link to other Wikipedia articles, two to his own sites and only one is a secondary source. Jagosilver 19:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• Also, how can you be sure that Bob's article wasn't written by Bob? Jagosilver 10:32, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:02, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• In fairness, then, should the AfD process be extended by a day to account for the delay in discussion? I thought I did all 3 steps, which one did I miss? Klacquement 12:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - not one but two vanity / spam pages on the same day. BTLizard 11:17, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

BT Lizard, please clarify what pages you're referring to? Jagosilver 11:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

My guess would be the two in the header - Jago (Illustrator) and Jago Silver Klacquement 12:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. BTLizard 10:15, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

My apologies BTLizard I hadn't noticed that the header had changed when I asked the question. I have agreed that the Jago Silver page should be deleted. Jagosilver 10:25, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Klacquement, I've requested that the Jago_Silver page be deleted. I've added sources and references for all parts of the article that I can. By the way, should this discussion be here, or on the talk page of the article in question? (or both??)

• Strong Delete per WP:AUTO. Danny Lilithborne 18:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete both - per above. If an artist has to link to his stuff on Flickr, he's not notable yet. And once he becomes notable, he won't have to write his own article, because someone will do it for him. Just saying. -IceCreamAntisocial 04:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Where's the link to Flickr? Jagosilver 06:28, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. He appears to qualify under "Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work". The article lists several awards and reviews. In children's books, the illustrations can be as important as the text. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 07:06, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - All the information in this article is verifiable fact and backed up by sources and references, I don't see what's wrong with this? Teapotgeorge 09:24, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• When will a decision be made regarding whether this page will be deleted? Jagosilver 20:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
• It's been 10 days now since this page was marked for deletion, I was under the impression that someone was supposed to have made a decision after 5 days? When can I remove the deletion notice if this page is not being deleted? Jagosilver 11:13, 25 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 21:21, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] King Cobra Special Forces

Unverifiable article (so fails WP:V): title gives no Google hits at all (and so does the "new name"). Even if verified somehow, it would still be a non notable organisation (not one important event cited in the article). I have not checked their website (my virusscanner isn't that good, and I don't want to take the risk) Fram 19:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:02, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete make-believe. Their website http://www.kingcobraspecialforces.piczo.com is, surprisingly, slightly elaborate. Click on "Can you help us?" in the menu and the following message appears: "If you have knowledge of a crime or a crime that has been committed email us kingcobaspecialforces@hotmail.co.uk If you think you have what it takes to be a operative email us using the addresses above." I wish the young feller the best of luck in finding recruits. Pan Dan 11:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• The article cites no sources. Like Fram I can find no sources. I don't know what web page Pan Dan is referring to. The web site given in the article yields a simple message from the hosting service, Piczo, that no such page exists, for me. The posturing about signing the Official Secrets Act is a bad sign, also. Too secret for Wikipedia. Delete. Uncle G 11:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • (have added website above) Pan Dan 11:47, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Thank you. I just copied and pasted the domain name in the article, which is slightly different. (Apparently, Pizco hasn't heard of RFC 2396.) Uncle G 12:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per nom, WP:RS, WP:NOT, WP:ADVERT, WP:OR and, of course WP:STUPID. NeoFreak 07:08, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete complete nonsense from start to finish. Official secrets act - yeah right! --Charlesknight 09:11, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
• SPEEDY DELETE at first I thought this had something to do with G.I.Joe or something, but after looking at it...it smacks of either patent nonsense or something someone invented in school one day. Either way, it must really be boring in North Kent. —ExplorerCDT 22:05, 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. Yanksox 03:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Enemies and former friends of Opie and Anthony

Enemies and former friends of Opie and Anthony was nominated for deletion on 2006-08-04. The result of the discussion was "keep". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Enemies and former friends of Opie and Anthony.

Re-listing article for deletion. Other articles related to the Opie & Anthony show such as Friends of Opie and Anthony (AfD discussion) have gone through Afd with a concensus of delete. While again I do feel the show is notable, a list of "on-air enemies" for a radio is unneccesary list/fancruft. Wildthing61476 11:47, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. If anything, it should be a section in Opie and Anthony. PJM 11:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - Once again, no one source is cited as Fancruft, nor has there been any effort made to make it better by those who will undoubtedly call it as such. Please keep in mind this has already survived one deletion attempt. Payneos 15:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and per WP:HOLE. ergot 19:34, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete for the same reason that Friends of O&A got deleted.--XMBRIAN 21:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Burn down and salt the earth. This is not and cannot be an encyclopedic article. It's just a list of anecdotes. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information or a fan community website. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 01:25, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom and Pablo-flores Bwithh 02:24, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete per nom and Pablo-flores, WP:NOT indiscriminate collection of information (which this is) --JStalk 05:04, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Joining Pablo-flores in going all Carthage on this article...delete this shit. —ExplorerCDT 22:07, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep It may seem trivial to some, but O&A take their relationships with rivals and former friends very seriously, and they often require so much explanation and detail that would take too much space on O&A's wiki page. O&A themselves have stated that their show is like a soap opera with relationships budding, growing, souring, falling apart, and so on. This page helps explain and inform these relationships to new listeners unfamiliar with O&A's show, old listeners who have lost track of these relationships (many still don't know why Dice is no longer a friend of the show because his falling-out is a very recent event), and other inquisitive minds. Considering O&A's recent return to terrestrial radio and the fact that their show is being syndicated to new cities just about every month now, there are more and more people just discovering their show who will want to know the background of the show, including these relationships. —GLENN THE TOOL 22:27, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete This is an encylopedia, not a diary of who people aren't friends with today. 161.185.1.100 02:09, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
• Move anything encyclopedic to Opie and Anthony and then delete. ^BlankVerse 02:17, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Legit fork of already-lengthy article. Punching out. --Aaron 21:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. An encyclopedia is defined as a book or set of books containing articles on various topics, usually in alphabetical arrangement, covering ALL branches of knowledge or, less commonly, ALL aspects of one subject. These aspects of the Opie and Anthony show which you are dismissing as indiscriminate, trivial, etc., are an important branch of the show as it helps define the very essence of what Opie and Anthony are. --Pure Waves 01:50, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Aren't these discussions supposed to be closed after 5 days?--XMBRIAN 03:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• Strong delete per Pablo flores. There is no encyclopedic merit to an article like this. 205.157.110.11 09:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. No sources, a list of various people of various ties to the show isn't an article. Arbusto 21:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. This is an embarrassment to 2 professional radio personalities. Articles of this nature confuse fans. It blurs entertainment into reality. Remember the Whoopi Goldberg "conflict". Contrived conflict = press = exposure = ratings. This article has no place in Wikipedia.Bodaman 04:48, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Remember, should it be deleted, it will re-bloat an already overstuffed Opie & Anthony main page, which is why this offshoot came to fruition in the first place. It has citation and sources, and describes various important aspects of the show itself. Payneos 18:47, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. That's why nobody's voting to merge. You can't delete an article and merge its contents; history has to be preserved for GFDL reasons, so merged articles get turned into redirects rather than deleted. ergot 14:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Per nominator. —Encephalon 15:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. It's been 10 days already. Twice the normal time.--XMBRIAN 21:07, 25 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 22:04, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Boil over

Not notable. Protologism or neologism at the very best. Storkk 11:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. The term "boil over" is used in cooking (i.e. when a pot of water boils over the rim, etc), so google results are deceiving. However, from what I can discern, this term is rarely used in this context. At best, this could be merged into the WRIF article. Srose (talk) 12:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Rename and Keep. Something like 'Boil over (sexual connotation)' would make it clear that the article was NOT about when water at 212°F over-flows a pot. The term is well known in the Detroit area. It should be mentioned that there are other such terms like rim-job, handjob, and blow job that are in the encyclopedia. MJCdetroit 12:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually, what is in the encyclopaedia is not dictionary articles on "terms", but encyclopaedia articles on the subjects of anal-oral contact and oral sex. Apart from the etymology of a slang phrase, contrary to our Wikipedia is not a dictionary (of slang or otherwise) policy, there is nothing in this article that cannot be said at the proper title of ejaculation. At best, assuming that you cite sources to prove that this is indeed an alternative name that is in use, this would be a redirect. Uncle G 13:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. With no reliable sources attesting to the notability of this...icky thing... there's no grounds to keep. Seriously, I like to think of myself as an inclusionist (but realy I am uptight and stuffy)... but this article tests my patience because I am so above this sort of thing. Captainktainer * Talk 17:04, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

"Keep article" Not only is the term widely known in the Metro-Detroit area, but if you google it you will find many references to the term Boil Over

Keep the article, after reading the article most should be able to decern that this has nothing to do with boiling water or cooking. It is a slang term that may only be regional but like it or not it is used.

• Delete - This is a local neologism failing WP:NEO and also as a dictionary definition it fails WP:WINAD.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 01:25, 23 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 22:07, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Timshel

Non-notable album / musician. A Google search for "Mike Rennee" and "Timshel" returned exactly two hits. Dsreyn 12:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• Hmm... I seem to recall we had a page for "Mike Rennee" that was deleted several years ago, but I can't find anything about it. At any rate, if he's not notable, his albums aren't either. Delete.--Cúchullain ^t/c 04:40, 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. - Bobet 22:07, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Guilt Is for Free

Non-notable album / musician. A Google search for "Mike Rennee" and "Guilt Is for Free" returned only five hits. Dsreyn 12:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. As I said over at the Timshel AfD, I think the article for "Mike Rennee" was deleted several years ago. If he's not notable, neither are his albums.--Cúchullain ^t/c 04:45, 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. Mangojuice^talk 13:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blackrunners

Slang which according to the article is believed to have been first used in 2005. Delete as a neologism and because Wikipeida is not a dictionary.--Fuhghettaboutit 13:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. No reliable sources attesting to the notability of this neologism. Wholly unverified. Captainktainer * Talk 17:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I have been skiing for 10 years and was called a "blackrunner" by my ski coach back in 1999. At that time is was a term given by the instructors to pupils who thought they were better than they actually were. …Ben

• Delete - this entry is basically a dictionary definition, failing WP:WINAD and also failing WP:NEO.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 01:22, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Transwiki - Let wiktionary decide whether it's worth keeping. The cultural notability is not established let alone referenced. JASpencer 08:46, 23 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 22:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Investalist

Non-notable company, no claim per WP:CORP. Deprodded. Weregerbil 13:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as a failure to met any criteria of WP:CORP.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 01:26, 23 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 Taco. Whispering^(talk/c) 00:06, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TACOS

This article is an article defining a community neologism without any reliable secondary sources. It is also non-notable, as it has little to no use outside of Ars Technica. Per WP:NEO:

• "An editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs and books that use the term) are insufficient to support use of (or articles on) neologisms because this is analysis and synthesis of primary source material (which is explicitly prohibited by the original research policy)."

That's entirely what the article is based upon. - Debuskjt 13:33, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• REDIRECT to Taco --Poeds 15:26, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Taco per Poeds. Danny Lilithborne 18:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Taco per Poeds. RFerreira 19:58, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect. --MaNeMeBasat 08:46, 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, repeatedly recreated hoax. NawlinWiki 13:56, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jonathan Nguyen

Autobio for 15-year-old, repeatedly created and speedied, but there are claims to notability. Despite repeated warnings, and after a 24-hour ban, he chose to recreate it with this stuff. According to him, he had a hit single, he was best new artist in 2005 at the Australian Video Music Awards (actually Missy Higgins won), he's making a record with Hilary Duff, and he costarred on the Australian soap, Neighbours. Of course, none of this information is Verifiable. Let's delete this and make the ban permanent. -- Fan-1967 13:52, 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 deleted by User:UtherSRG due to being prodded for 5 days. --ais523 08:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Podma Pettit

This is not an encylopedia article -- it might count as a contribution towards Talk:Foot fetishism Aleph-4 13:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. I believe it is normal procedure to not list an article for AfD when it is already prodded. Anyway, this is clearly Original research, like the author states, and is thus a violation of WP:NOR and a clear candidate for deletion, no matter if it is viaprod or AfD. Fram 14:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Concerning procedure: you are right. But I had writted this afd2 page before I noticed the prod on the article, so I thought I should complete the nomination anyway.Aleph-4 14:17, 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 no consensus. - Bobet 12:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Samuel Green (rapper)

Fails notability test as musician or as University radio programme presenter. Fails google test. Springnuts 13:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 18:41, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, fails the everything test. RFerreira 19:58, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• DO NOT DELETE This article clearly demonstrates that Samuel Green has been and will continue to be an influential personality both in the field of rap music and in the domain of Zionist activism. Green's popularity is wide and expanding: his web presence is substantial, his radio show is widely popular, and he has received the assistance and endorsement of many very notable musicians and Jewish leaders. Clearly, the Wikipedia-reading public deserves to know about Samuel Green, his music, and his politics as presented in this article. --66.65.185.70 13:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
• DON'T DELETE In addition to Samuel Green's many high-profile radio guests, note Samuel Green's significant coverage in the popular press: (list from his website)

'Hebe hop's where it's at' - The Metro, 14.03.06

'The Rapper From Cambridge' - Ma'ariv, 10.04.05

'Hip-Hop's Jew Crew Takes Centre Stage' - Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles, 10.12.04

'Antithesis - His Story From the Beginning' - Frenzy, February 2004

'Rapping For Israel' - London Jewish News, 27.02.04

'Seven Days in Arts' - Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles, 23.01.04

'Israel Rapper Sets the Record Straight' - Jewish Chronicle, 23.01.04

'Sam Raps Out Israel Questions' - Jewish Telegraph, 09.01.04

'Rapping For Our Rights' - London Jewish News, 18.01.02

'Hip Hop Home' - Ha'aretz, 04.01.02

Also, Samuel Green passes the notability test for musicians in multiple ways: First, he has a weekly two hour radio program (thus, he receives more than the required media exposure time.) In this vein, his radio program's podcast is quite popular as per Apple subscription rankings. Furthermore, he has been the subject of a BBC biography program. Additionally, Green has created something of a new genre with his politically charged rap music; "The Zionist Rapper" is a novel phenomenon.

Green's poor performance in the "Google test" is simply the result of the commonality of his name (as any "John Smith" would fail this test as well).

Keep it: The article is generally interesting and thought-provoking, well-written in an encyclopedic style, and of potential relevance to a fairly large number of Wikipedia readers. --Andrew Goldsweig 16:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per Goldsweig. Coverage by newspapers on three continents adds up to a fair bit of notability. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 21:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per failing WP:MUSIC and clearly failing the Google test. Prolog 15:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

• In multiple ways, article subject clearly PASSES WP:MUSIC: sufficient exposure in radio/podcast, profiled in BBC special, and new genre of "political rap." Google problem due to name commonality; better results with name "antithesis rapper." --216.165.126.107 18:54, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. I don't think the press mentions of him are sufficient to pass WP:BIO. Mangojuice^talk 13:43, 26 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 amount of google hits by itself isn't that relevant about a person from Bangladesh, but in its current state the article is unverifiable. Since it's likely autobiographical too (started by Tanvirkamal there wouldn't be any way to keep it NPOV either. - Bobet 22:20, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tanvir Ibne Kamal

Fails the tests of WP:BIO. --Marwatt 14:04, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete — Has 19 whole hits on google. I would have thought that someone more notable (in the modern era) would have more hits on google. Plus 12 hits on Yahoo. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 00:00, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BIO unless someone can find credible, third-party sources to verify sufficient notability. --Satori Son 17:19, 25 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 18:49, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Interpromotional Organization Wrestling Federation (IOWF)

Contested prod. This entirely non-notable local wrestling club fails WP:ORG, WP:V, and WP:NOR. It's long and well written, but simply does not merit inclusion here. alphaChimp^(talk) 14:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. No notability whatsoever. Dsreyn 15:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable wrestling organization. TJ Spyke 20:09, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kostas Pi

Aparently fails the Tests of WP:BIO. --Marwatt 14:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Non-notable. Dsreyn 15:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete — Fails WP:BIO. I got 4 ghits and 0 hits on Yahoo. I think that this demonstrates that this singer does not belong in wikipedia. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 00:07, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable. As the original creator of this article, I believe (after re-reading Wikipedia's associated guidelines) that although the individual has slight import on a local level with a small, localised cult following, the article by no means harbours any merit on a wider, global stage and until such time as this changes I concede that it would be in Wikipedia's best interests that the article and associated picture be removed. My sincerest apologies to those I have troubled and to the individual himself. 11:20, 16 September 2006
• Speedy Delete per the original author, Ld317's request. Yomangani^talk 02:03, 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 that I hereby acknowledge in spite of the sock-ridden votes, Dave and Aaron's opinons are duly noted, but there is a consensus to delete the article. (2/6/0) - Mailer Diablo 16:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Donal Blaney

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}}

Former Chairpersons of a politcal party's youth organisation and local councillors are not inherently notable in themselves. Timrollpickering 10:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. He can come back when he's an MP. BTLizard 10:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as he's not merely a former chairman of the YCs and a former local council, he currently heads an influential youth training foundation and is a regular media commentator. People don't have to be MPs to be important. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.86.203.89 (talk • contribs) .
  • Note: Above comment added by anonymous user. Timrollpickering 17:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Other executives of YBF were VfDed a while ago - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ben Pickering and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greg Smith (politician). The article does not cover these claims to be a media commentator (or established just to what extent) or why YBF is important that its executives count as notable in their own right. I agree one doesn't have to be an MP or devolved assembly member to be notable in politics but that does not in itself make everyone notable. Timrollpickering 09:55, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Won't someone PLEASE think of the children he has helped train. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.45.113.212 (talk • contribs) .
  • Note: Above comment added by anonymous user. Timrollpickering 17:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: Timrollpickering is a big girls blouse who needs to get a life. Just because someone posts anonymously does not mean their point is invalid, it isn't everybody who wants to share their views with the world to show what a learned and intelligent person they are. Address the point not your vanity. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.86.203.89 (talk • contribs) .
    • The anonymous user should look at other AfDs to see that both this is standard practice and contributers are strongly encouraged to log in to prevent sock puppetry, especially from ISPs that have made only three contributions, all on AfDs. As for vanity, I note that these objections were posted on the same day that I received an email from the subject themselves. Timrollpickering 09:55, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Note: This exposure of a private email, if true and not a figment of your imagination, is a gross invasion of privacy and you ought to be ashamed of yourself. User:Hannibal_s
    • Correct. Anonymity doesn't make the rationale invalid. What makes it invalid is that "please think of the children!" has no connection whatsoever with our Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. Uncle G 16:47, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - these days the extra-Parliamentary coalition of conservative groups is becoming more important in preparing the Tory Party for government, much as happened in the 1970s. The YBF is a part of this and as such the people behind it are of note, not least when they are former national youth leaders and elected officials with links to figures such as Anthony Seldon. SarkisZeronian
  • Note: User is a new login whose only contributions so far are on this page. Timrollpickering 09:55, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Note: I don't understand why that means you can't answer his point? It's a fair one after all. User:Hannibal_s
      • It is standard when watching an Article for Deletion page to note when votes are made either by anonymous ISPs or by logins that have either just been created or have made fewer than 50 non-minor contributions. This should be kept separate from the actual issues involved. Timrollpickering 11:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: Does BTLizard not count as anonymous too? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SarkisZeronian (talk • contribs) .
    • No because they have a registered login that they post from and have made a significant number of contributions. I take it from your questions that you are not familiar with the policies and processes of Wikipedia. Try WP:VFD for more info. Timrollpickering 09:55, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Note: So in Timrollpickering Land how many contributions must an individual make before you decide they are valid?User:Hannibal_s
        • It is not "Timrollpickering Land" and I find it telling you feel a need to resort to personal abuse. It has always been standard practice in Wikipedia when seeking a consensus to note when votes one way or the other come from users with little history, given the problems there have been with sockpuppets. Timrollpickering 11:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The failure of the delete lobby to address the valid and strong points made by the keep lobby and instead to indulge in attempts to silence it suggest a personal vendetta. Anyone might think Timrollpickering and Blaney had a history, or that Timmy's thwarted ambition colours his contributions. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hannibal s (talk • contribs) .
  • Note: Again comment is unsigned.
  • Comment Again a resort to personal abuse. To my knowledge I have never spoken to Blaney in person and probably never been in the same room as him, unless we were both at a gathering. I am merely following standard Wikipedia practice that has been followed on numerous pages seeking consensus in the past. Timrollpickering 11:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment trying to separate the debate on the AfD itself from all the personal abuse and lack of understanding of Wikipedia practices. For a page to exist in Wikipedia it must prove inherent notability in itself. Claims about being "a media commentator" on an AfD page are not enough - if this is relevant information and makes the subject notable, be bold and add the information to the page. In regards the role of YBF you need to prove not that the organisation is notable (that's a case for any AfD on it, for the record I would support keeping that article) but that being the executive of it confers notability on the individual. As I note above other executives have had pages created on Wikipedia and AfDed (with considerably less fuss). Timrollpickering 11:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I am interested who is behind activist and policy groups that feed the Conservative Party, the more full disclosure of these things the better. The repeated failure of those who want to keep these things secret and delete this entry are an affront to democracy. Their insistence on playing the man and not the ball exposes the deficiency of their arguments. User:Hannibal_s
• Note This is second vote by the same login. Mea culpa - the confusion arose from an edit conflict making it difficult to check the full page. Timrollpickering 11:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Correction The confusion arose because Hannibal_s did not sign his first vote. Vote 1 and Vote 2. Timrollpickering 11:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment First off you are repeatedly attacking me for following the Wikipedia conventions. If you want to "play the ball and not the man" then redirect your criticism of those conventions to the discussion pages on deletion policy. Secondly this is not about keeping "activist and policy groups" secret - this discussion is in no way about whether or not to delete the Young Britons' Foundation page. I have addressed the arguments for keeping aboce. Timrollpickering 11:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Donal Blaney has gotten virtually no press coverage, as one would expect if he were an activist worth covering in Wikipedia. WP:BIO has fairly clear guidelines on the inclusion of political bios and this one doesn't pass. Mangojuice^talk 14:36, 15 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, Mangojuice^talk 14:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete for a lack of both notability and reliable sources. All I could find was a Guardian article mentioning an accusation of racism. That's not WP:BIO for me. --Huon 16:03, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per comments already made above. -- Roleplayer 17:33, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep (and from a non sockpuppet too!). Being head of Conservative Future is notable enough for me. Dave 17:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Blaney is not the first chairperson of Conservative Future to be listed for deletion. Paul Bristow was deleted last year, whilst Nick Vaughan did not generate consensus. Nor do there appear to be pages on chairs of Labour Students (except those who've subsequently become notable) or for that matter leaders of the Young Republicans or the Young Democrats of America. Timrollpickering 10:16, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Donal was a chairMAN not a chairperson, and he's not listed here because he happened to be a former head of CF, that's just a part of his CV, he's listed here because he is Chief Executive of the Young Britons' Foundation. You seem to be missing this fundamental point, Timmy-boy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.86.203.89 (talk • contribs) .
      • Comment First off chairperson, chair, chairman all mean the same thing colloqually. Secondly the comment was made in direct response to the suggestion that heads of political parties' youth wings are inherently notable and that is the point to address there. As for being chief executive of YBF, I repeat that there is nothing to show why being chief executive of the organisation is inherently notable. See the deletions of other executives at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ben Pickering and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greg Smith (politician) Timrollpickering 16:23, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Seems to pass WP:BIO, though just barely. --Aaron 19:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. --Charlesknight 11:05, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per no. --MaNeMeBasat 14:30, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - as far as I can tell arguments to keep are based on three factors.

Young Britons Foundation. I'd say that's notable as an organisation but not notable enough for its officers to merit separate articles.

Conservative Future. Certainly notable, and serving officers may derive notability from it. Not former ones, however.

London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham. Former opposition councillors in London boroughs do not on those grounds merit articles in Wikipedia.

I therefore see no reason to change my original position, which was Delete. BTLizard 11:45, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per comments already made above. Refer to guidelines: this is a vanity article. Keep if it includes allegations of racism levelled at Blaney. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.66.226.95 (talk • contribs) .
  • Note: Above comment added by anonymous user. Timrollpickering 16:59, 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. - Bobet 22:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nexus: A Neo Novel

Book that hasn't been published yet; no indication that it is hugely anticipated. No objection to this being recreated should the book attain notability following publication. Nothing links here other than a dab page. ergot 15:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, as nom. ergot 15:33, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Contrary to Ergot's comments, the book has been published and is available for pre-order from Amazon, Barnes & Noble and Chapters-Indigo. Please consult book's blog for more info. It is published by Manor House Publishing Inc. My apologies that my orginal article was unclear on its publication status. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Al192 (talk • contribs)

• Comment. I did search Amazon prior to AfDing; I just searched again and got the same result--"No results match your search for "Nexus: A Neo Novel" in Books.". [24] Even if this has been published (which I can't confirm), I'm not seeing any indication of notability per reliable sources. ergot 18:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Please go to http://nexusnovel.wordpress.com/purchase-books/ you will find hyperlinks there to purchase "Nexus" from major book chains previously mentioned. The subtitle has not been entered on the sites except for chapters.indigo.ca, which is probably why you had difficulty locating it in your search. If you do a search of books by KW "Nexus Deborah Morrison," it will also come up. The book can be pre-ordered from any of these sites until its distribution date in October.

In terms of notability this term is of course subjective but note that Deborah Morrison has previously published "Mytical Poetry." "Nexus" will also be distributed throughout Canada, US, UK, Australia and in other English speaking countries. The novel is notable due to its themes and connection with other novels in mind-body-spirit genre stated in my article. I hope this info helps you and please post if I can help with anything else.

Thank you for your comments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Al192 (talk • contribs)

• And thank you for the information and the link. However, Amazon's page seems to be describing the book as unreleased, and it has no sales rank. While notabilty may seem subjective, we do have established standards for it here; notability and notability (fiction) seem the most relevant. And this book does not appear to meet them yet. Like I said above, I have no objection to this article being recreated should the book become notable in the future. ergot 22:35, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Note that there is also a proposed guideline for books WP:BK which this book would probably fail since there is a specific note on books yet to be published. I invite anyone interested in participating in the discussion about this proposal by the way. Pascal.Tesson 20:47, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I understand your reasoning. If you wish to delete the article, I will recreate it once the book is out and some sales figures are available. Until then, instead of a separate article is it okay to reference the novel under Nexus under == In literature == section?{{unsigned|Al192}

• Delete per crystalballism and spam. If the best references one can come up with include a promotional blog, we can safely assume that this is not respecting the WP:NOT principles. Pascal.Tesson 20:47, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

As I said if you wish to delete this article, go ahead. When I wrote the article, I did it out of enthusiasm after having read a pre-publication copy of the book. I wouldn't expect individuals unfamiliar with the book to share in that enthusiasm. The novel will do well on its own merits and once it is successful, then I will resubmit a more extensive article with better references. Thank you for your comments. They have hepled me to better understand the requirements of Wikipedia, which I will incorporate into future submissions.

• Delete per nom. The novel may well meet the expectations of the article's creator, but as the book hasn't yet been published, including the article is crystal ball. Victoriagirl 16:52, 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. Mangojuice^talk 13:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pablar

Original research about the semantical subtleties associated to the Spanish verb pablar. Strikes me as not encyclopedic but I'd rather not prod this as I'm sure others might think otherwise. Pascal.Tesson 15:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - WP:OR,WP:NEO at best. Although it is not listed at WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not an etymological dictionary of Spanish regional dialect. Yomangani^talk 15:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Huon 16:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Yomangani and WP:OR. --Satori Son 16:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Wiktionary. Danny Lilithborne 18:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment but this seems like an awful lot of content for a dictionary. I don't think Wiktionarians would be too happy with us dumping this on their pages. Pascal.Tesson 18:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Oh... well, what are their policies regarding slang? 'Cuz this is Spanish slang. :) Danny Lilithborne 18:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Wiktionary is no different to other dictionaries when it comes to slang. It takes slang words as long as they are attested. Uncle G 19:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

What I guess I meant to say is that if we transwiki it, we have to transwiki a much shortened version of it and drop all the OR. Pascal.Tesson 20:04, 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. Yanksox 04:40, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bvt robotics

A school team building robots for FIRST Robotics Competition. No victories on a national level to date. No reliable sources given; the best I could find was this article in a local newspaper. Google results are extremely scarce, including no hits for "Bvt robotics". Seems non-notable, probably vanity. Delete Huon 15:38, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, non-notable high school club; violates WP:V; fails WP:ORG. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:35, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as insufficiently notable and completely lacking in proper sources. --Satori Son 16:21, 23 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. Yanksox 03:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Richard's Play By Email Server

Looks like advertising, the article doesn't satisfy WP:WEB. _{J Di}^talk 15:41, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, spamvertising. --DrTorstenHenning 17:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Doesn't look like advertising to me. (It's not a very good article at present though...) --Zundark 20:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:WEB by not having any claim to notability, let alone reliable sources for such a claim. Sandstein 05:32, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Who cares???? YechielMan 23:21, 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 Speedy delete. -- Steel 18:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jeice (dragon ball)

No article. Just an infobox. -Nv8200p talk 15:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete as empty. Tagged Dave 17:40, 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 Deleted as copyvio by Lucky 6.9 - Yomangani^talk 16:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Diamond Packaging

No assertion of notability, badly written (spelling, grammar, etc.) Djcartwright 15:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete Page appears to be a copyvio of www.diamondpackaging.com. Wildthing61476 15:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • 'Tis true. Speedy deleting. - Lucky 6.9 15:55, 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. Punkmorten 18:52, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Two Step (Dave Matthews Band song)

Article makes no attempt to describe why this song is notable. Unlikely to ever be more than a stub. —Wrathchild ^(talk) 16:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Andrew Levine 17:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep It was a single and had a music video. Danny Lilithborne 18:44, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Danny Lilithborne, notable single. RFerreira 19:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - notable, at worst merge into Dave Matthews. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 00:55, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into Dave Matthews Band or Crash (Dave Matthews Band album). NN for a unique article. NeoFreak 06:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• 'Keep released singles by bands, especially ones like DMB. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:24, 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 no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 16:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Catholic Apostolic National Church in Great Britain

This article changes names every couple months, is completely unverifiable, and talks about a non-notable church. In addition, it's a vandalmagnet (not exactly sure why), and the previous AfD keep consensus was keep but leave up for about a week to collect references. Wooty 16:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. I wholeheartedly agree. I'm tired of sweeping gibbon references from an article that makes no valid claims to notability and has no sources. What is to distinguish this church from about a billion other Catholic splinter groups? Hmm... maybe it would be a good idea to go through this whole related cluster of minor Catholic splinter movement articles and nom them for deletion. I think I'm going to get on that now. Captainktainer * Talk 16:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Denominations are generally notable. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 01:23, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:OR, WP:RS and WP:NN. NeoFreak 06:54, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment AFD etiquette calls for including lings to prior AfD discussions. Here is the old one: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catholic apostolic national church, where the result was "move to" the current title. (Ie, not exactly as described by the nominator.) GRBerry 01:59, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I'd just like to point out that when I was considering nominating for AfD, I also was unaware of the previous AfD, despite making a good-faith effort to find previous AfDs. Captainktainer * Talk 17:23, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

• You aren't the nominator... GRBerry 15:23, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

• I'm aware; Wooty beat me to it while I was still working on it. Captainktainer * Talk 13:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom and NeoFreak. Prolog 12:54, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep It is really hard to tell on the evidence available, so I am unsure if this is a true denomination. It looks like it is. This page suggests at least 10-12 local congregations in Great Britain, which would be a denomination, but I'm really not certain and would prefer better sources. GRBerry 21:38, 25 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 16:10, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Schedulizer

Advert for a web service. Unencyclopedic. Taking this to AfD since prod was removed without explanation. --DrTorstenHenning 16:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Response: I do not see how this is an advertisement for a website. It is an explination of the service that a schedulizer provides college students. If you want to edit the article to make it more general (which I already did once) then you are free to. Also, there are no other articles about this type of service, which is growing rather quickly. If you deem it necessary, feel free to remove the external links from the bottom of the page; if that was done it could not be an advertisment.

• Delete. Does not appear to pass WP:SOFT; no indication of notability per reliable sources. ergot 19:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Strong delete. Even if you remove the links, it's still an advertisement. It just has no independent purpose. YechielMan 23:23, 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 Speedy delete. -- Steel 18:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dale Andreas

Doesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:V -Nv8200p talk 16:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete per WP:BIO; tagged. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dave (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'. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ron J. Bigalke Jr.

Graduate of a diploma mill, pastor at a church, teacher at Tyndale Theological Seminary-- which got sued by the state of Texas to stop issuing degrees. Person fails WP:BIO. The amazon.com sales for Progressive Dispensationalism is at 1,014,051, doesn't even crack the top million. Arbusto 16:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom and WP:BIO. Crystallina 04:36, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BIO. There are only a few hundred G-hits for this guy, as well. --Nishkid64 18:07, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Subject is well known in Christian circles and respected for his opinion on end times theology. So much so that National Geographic Channelconsulted him for their show about end times. He was invited to speak at the 2006 Conference on Faith and History at Oklahoma Baptist University. He's a bit out there on his theology and I don't at all agree with him but that is no reason to delete an article about someone, just because you disagree with their religious beliefs.Bagginator 06:07, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

The issues and policy here is WP:BIO. How does he fit the criteria? Arbusto 17:56, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom and WP:BIO. There is nothing notable about him or his work. One may as well include an article on every self-proclaimed pastor out there who has written a book and had it bound for himself. Jim Ellis 11:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --MaNeMeBasat 14:21, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The assertion made by Arbusto that this man is a graduate of a diploma mill is incorrect. To put it properly Arbustoo should have written that it is his opinion that Tyndal is a diploma mill. However, a reading of the Wikipedia article (Specially the parts not written by Arbustoo, which is rather convenient) will show that Tyndale is a highly respected school in Christian Theology. Further, Tyndale paid its fine and is still a school in Texas which is "issuing" degrees. If it were a diploma mill, Texas would shut the school down. Next, Arbustoo writes doesn't even crack the top million and in another of his AfD's he wrotes doesn't even crack the top two million. One supposes if it was ranked 101,000 he'd write, doesn't even crack the top 100k. Finally, he asks, How does he fit the criteria of WP:BIO after I wrote how he fit the criteria of WP:BIO. A quick reading of that section is all one needs to see that he easily fits WP:BIO. He is a published author, well respected in Christian circles and asked to speak at Christian colleges/universities, and even outside Christian circles (As noted above with the link to National Georgraphic) is considered notable. How one can read my first comment and then ask seriously, How does he fit the criteria? is beyond my ability to comprehend. I urge those who do not have a knee jerk negative reaction to Christians or Christianity to look into this further and reconsider their positions.Bagginator 14:39, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Where on the nom. did I call Tyndale Theological Seminary a diploma mill (Your misreading and false claims are linked to your other votes in AfDs relating to me)? Also cite the outcome of the Tyndale court case, please. Secondly, you must establish notability with sources. Your list of video credits which list Ron Bigalke under "special thanks" does not meet any of the requirements(note: how some people in that list have a PhD by their name, well Bigalke claims to have one, but it is absent from that list). Speaking at a conference does not make one notable. Once again I refer you to read WP:BIO. Arbusto 15:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Also I take offense, as the other voters probably do, here to Bagginator's statement "I urge those who do not have a knee jerk negative reaction to Christians or Christianity to look into this further and reconsider their positions". This claim violates WP:AGF. Arbusto 15:23, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

You're right, I misread the above to read that you were accusing him of graduating from Tyndale and that in connection Tyndale was a diploma mill. As a matter of fact, you don't bother to mention where he graduated from or what evidence you have that it is a diploma mill. So until you provide evidence that he graduated from a diploma mill we are left with assuming it is merely your opinion.

Also, I find this statement offensive, "Your misreading and false claims" and to be a violation of WP:AGF. Bagginator 23:49, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Was your claim (calling Tyndale Theological Seminary a diploma mill) false or not? Arbusto 00:45, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment It was an error. It goes to intention don't you think? Do you have any evidence that the school he graduated from is a diploma mill? Perhaps you should correct your error as I did mine. He earned his BS from Moody Bible Institute. Is Moody Bible institue a degree mill?Bagginator 04:29, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

He got degree from Faraston. Arbusto 23:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

He obtained his BS from Moody Bible Institute. Your assertion that he is a graduate of a diploma mill is misleading.Bagginator 05:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Nope not all. Perhaps you should look into before making claims that I am wrong. Arbusto 15:53, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom and WP:BIO. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:19, 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 keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hidden Lake Academy

Article violates most of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, most especially by using weasel words to make NPOV attacks against people and institutions. Possibly legally-actionable. Please note that I've never seen this page before today, have never heard of any person or institution mentioned, and have no axe whatsoever to grind in this discussion. Writtenonsand 16:51, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• Needs cleaning, but seems sourced enough that a cleaning won't obliterate the article. WilyD 17:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Or not, I dunno - I tried to excise most of the worst of it, anyhow. WilyD 17:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep the newly edited version by WilyD, meets standards for inclusion. RFerreira 19:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep edit as necessary...I've tried to be neutral (my bad about the weasel words) and nobody's really put much input into this article. --Yodamace1 17:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per the above comments. Yamaguchi先生 23:41, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

• Looks like people are beating this into keepable condition - Thanks, guys -- Writtenonsand 15:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, this article seems to be shaping up nicely. --Myles Long 22:17, 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 21:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Wold Newton Universe characters

Firstly, the article information is unverifiable. It cites a few unreliable sources (most unofficial, speculative fan sites) to somehow claim that Napoléon Bonaparte, Pippi Longstocking, James Bond, Scooby Doo, Jack the Ripper, Veronica Mars, and thousands of other characters who have appeared in disparate fiction, as well as a lot of real historical figures, are all somehow related. To that end, it confuses the fiction of Phillip Jose Farmer, the fiction of countless other authors, and the unsourced speculations of many Farmer fans, and as a result is useless as a source of factual information (second reason to delete). I have checked some of the websites used as "sources" and found that they base their character associations on speculations that have no basis in any of the original published fiction these characters appear in. For example, is stating that Sam Malone is descended from an 18th century meteorite survivor something that is supported by anything in an episode of Cheers? I've seen every episode of The Sopranos more than once and there's no indication that Tony Soprano is a cousin to the Corleone family, which is nonsense because the Godfather films are fictional within The Sopranos. Some of the statements made on the page are patently ridiculous (Frank Black from Millennium is the nephew of Edith Keeler from Star Trek?). I see some books are mentioned as sources, but are they anything more than speculation either? Thirdly, though being fancruft isn't an official deletion guideline, this article is pretty much 300 kb of fancruft.

I know that users Bookworm857158367 and Piecraft have put a lot of work into this and might even vote to keep it. I suggest that another non-Wikipedia website might be best to host it, as it fails to meet both WP:V and WP:NOT. Andrew Levine 16:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC). Andrew Levine 16:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• Regretfully delete - as much as I am an enthusiast of the Wold Newton universe, this has no real place on Wikipedia for the simple reason that the entire foundation of Wold Newton is speculative geneaology, emphasis on the speculative. At best, the list should be limited to what Farmer has published in Doc Savage: His Apocalyptic Life and Tarzan Alive, although that's also just Farmer's own speculation, so I hesitate at even that. Keywords are original research, non-notability (especially the fan-produced stuff) and verifiability. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 17:08, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Additional comment: Has anyone considered doing a Wold Newton wiki on Wikicities? That may be the best place and/or depository for profiles of this kind. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 17:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
    • A wiki would be an excellent venue for this sort of information. It could import Wikipedia's GFDL-licensed pages on all of these characters, and maybe add to each one the speculation that links them to the WNU. I would even be willing to host this page in my userspace for a short time after it is deleted so it could be copied to the appropriate Wikicity. Andrew Levine 17:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Though I guess there's a certain innate ballsiness of trying to connect Hercules, Tony Soprano, Star Trek, The Little Mermaid, and Lord Peter Wimsey into one big story, this is neither encyclopedic nor verifiable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete All apologies to fans, but this is seriously dumb. Danny Lilithborne 18:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• DeleteYes, it should be deleted. Only the geneology from Farmer's two books should be included here.

Go ahead and delete it if the majority opinion is that it's not suited to an encyclopedia. I can certainly move it to my own web site at Wetpaint if that's considered appropriate. I don't think it's any more "dumb" than any other type of pastiche fiction or more frivolous than many of the other articles already on Wikipedia, but it's not worth fighting over. My web page is at woldnewton.wetpaint.com --Bookworm857158367 23:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. I'm not sure that you could do that, since your website seems to be licensed under Creative Commons. I could be wrong here, but I think that you need to have GFDL to be able to have content from Wikipedia. I agree with several editors above in that I think that creating a Wold Newton wiki on Wikicities would probably be the best solution, in which case you could just transwiki this article to it. ergot 15:31, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• Bookworm can legally re-use the information. All he has to do, if he wants to copy Wikipedia's content onto his site, is follow the instructions laid out in Wikipedia:Copyrights#Reusers' rights and obligations. But he has to make it clear that the CC-BY-NC license does not apply to any sections on his site that re-use Wikipedia's content, GFDL applies to them instead. This is similar to the practice of other lawful Wikipedia mirrors. For example, Answers.com claims "All rights reserved" on their content, but specifically points out in their terms of use that the Wikipedia content they use is GFDL, and this notice also occurs on every page on their site which includes Wikipedia content. Andrew Levine 17:47, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks! In that case, I vote userfy until Bookworm gets around to doing that or moving it to a fan wiki. ergot 18:38, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - I really think there's a place for this somewhere, but its really not encyclopedic, so Wikipedia isn't a good home for it. A fan wiki would be great for this type of content! Closing admin, please make sure that major contributors to the article have the opertunity to download a copy of the article's content and history for use elsewhere. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 18:29, 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 16:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Camp Encore-Coda

Advertisement -Nv8200p talk 16:58, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Neither an assertion of notability nor links to independent reliable sources to back it up. I think WP:CORP is the right standard for this one, but if also fails WP:ORG if that is instead. GRBerry 02:02, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as WP:ADVERT for insufficiently notable business per WP:CORP. --Satori Son 04:22, 26 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. Punkmorten 18:54, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wet floor effect

Neologism. For a popular graphics effects technique there are far to few hits. --Pjacobi 17:08, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep Seems to be the standard term, even though most of us (me included) wouldn't know what to call it, we would certainly know of its existance - I've certainly learnt something from that article. Dave 17:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Notability seems established within the article. --Aaron 19:17, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Looks notable to me. YechielMan 23:25, 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. - Mailer Diablo 16:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gable Carr

Does not meet WP:BIO. Minor role in two films. No significant press coverage -Nv8200p talk 17:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. --RMHED 18:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Does not yet meet the notability requirements of WP:BIO. No sources of any kind in the article, much less credible, third-party ones as required by WP:V. I found around 40 unique G-Hits, most of them just credit listings for Dorm Daze 2, in which she had a bit part. One might actually expect many more GHits on an actress in a movie that has a tag line of "College Sophmores. Salty Sea Men." Ugh. --Satori Son 00:50, 26 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 18:56, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Isisvoice

This is a recreation of "ISIS VOICE" an article deleted under the {{prod}} process (thus can't be speedied). This article was tagged with a prod by another editor with the reason, "Vanity page, author mentions herself eleven times, no ghits at all". Given that this is a recreation of a vanity page, I am bringing it to the AfD process. This author who created this article has only created or edited articles about herself or her projects. Agent 86 17:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Delete nnbio, also fails WP:VAIN and WP:AUTO. Danny Lilithborne 18:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as a very bad article and not worth fighting for. There seem to be claims of notability, though. I'll keep this on my watchlist and I'm prepared to reconsider my vote if some decent sources are added, and the article gets a passable rewrite before it closes. AndyJones 15:13, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete for reasons already given. YechielMan 23:26, 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.