The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 06:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fatima Rainey

Previously marked for speedy deletion; Google search yields 552 unique hits, most of which seem to indicate that she has had a couple of hit songs -- but I can find no biographical articles or news coverage. I'm hesitant to speedy the article so I'm bringing it here. NawlinWiki 15:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

• Strong delete I've been unable to find anything showing notability for this artist. It appears that she only has the one album, and I'm unable to find anything thgat shows the album or songs have reached a level of notability to meet WP:MUSIC Wildthing61476 15:22, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Wildthing, and suggest deleting Hey (Fatima Rainey song) along with it. -->So sayeth Methnor^{Sayeth back}|_{Other sayethings}
• Delete both this and the song per Wildthing. --Storkk 16:38, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Not-notable. Fails WP:BIO. --Nishkid64 23:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, 2 albums on Warner Japan [8] [9]. Kappa 06:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
• keep please per WP:BIAS meets music guideline since signed with warner japan Yuckfoo 01:17, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 15:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per above. Eusebeus 15:57, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• weak delete - article does not assert notability or provide any reliable sources. I might switch to keep pending a rewrite. --mathewguiver 21:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This link: http://www.wmg.jp/fatimarainey/ asserts notability. ファティマ・レイニー is not a super-star, but certainly just as notable as the average professional athlete. She is signed to a major label, that should be sufficient and satisfied criteria #4 of WP:MUSIC guidelines with two or more releases. [10] Yamaguchi先生 22:53, 29 September 2006
• Keep per all above. Not very famous, but still good enough for Wikipedia.UberCryxic 23:25, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, two albums on Warner Japan should be enough. It's hard for most of us to know how notable a person is in Japan, she is probably more than we realize. bbx 23:32, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:MUSIC, two major label albums makes her pass our guidelines.  ALKIVAR™ 02:23, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per the above comments. RFerreira 22:43, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:42, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Colleen AF Venable

Contested prod. To quote the prod reason: "No evidence from WP:RS that individual meets WP:BIO." MER-C 12:29, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

• The article had been up on Wikipedia for months created by someone else before I tried to add to it. I have deleted most of what I added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.225.219.230 (talk • contribs)
• Delete per my original PROD. --Kinu ^t/_c 13:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 15:45, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per Prod. Eusebeus 15:57, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable --Maelnuneb (Talk) 17:52, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, no evidence of notability. — Saxifrage ✎ 19:46, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. Possible merge/redirect. W.marsh 21:44, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pantomath

• delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Senordingdong 13:29, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I am aware of that; and if you consider this a dictionary definition there is nothing I can do about that. I thought an article was necessary as there was a red link from "polymath". Excuse my error, if it is an error; I have little experience of writing encyclopedia articles. The entire article in the Encyclopedia Britannica for "a posteriori knowledge" reads "knowledge derived from experience, as opposed to a priori knowledge (q.v.)." I take it Britannica's editorial team don't think they are writing a dictionary. This attempt is not a complete product. How I am to begin an article other than with a definition I do not know. DJMitch 13:38, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

"Wikipedia is not a dictionary

Wikipedia is not a dictionary or a usage or jargon guide. Wikipedia articles are not:

1. Dictionary definitions. Because Wikipedia is not a dictionary, please do not create an entry merely to define a term. An article should usually begin with a good definition; if you come across an article that is nothing more than a definition, see if there is information you can add that would be appropriate for an encyclopedia. An exception to this rule is for articles about the cultural meanings of individual numbers." DJMitch 13:40

• OK, the article is not purely a definition. But I am unable to find any definition in any dictionary or encyclopedia that I own that refers to pantomath in this context. Even a search of google returns no relevant results for pantomath within any related context to polymath. In brief, I am not even convinced that the word or concept has any wide existence. Please try to convince me otherwise.Senordingdong 13:46, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Neither do I think that the word has any wide existence, any more than the concept it represents. "famous pantomaths" and "notable pantomaths" give 0 results on Google; "pantomaths" nothing relevant. However, before questioning this, or even whether the word ought to exist, perhaps one ought to question some of the statements in the article "polymath".

(I'm rather enjoying this. I've never had a threat of deletion before.) DJMitch 13:52, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

• I fully agree, it would be wise to check the polymath article first. Senordingdong 13:57, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

• I have done some research, and I think the reference to "pantomath" in the polymath article was both redundant and unnecessary. The word has never been in any wide usage (if at all) amongst speakers of English, so I deleted the sentence. It detracts nothing from the article, so I feel that this was justified. But if you disagree, feel free to revert. Senordingdong 14:10, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with your adjustment of that article. (I would not have written this one without what was said in that article before.) I will not be hurt if this article is in the end deleted. DJMitch 14:28, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, but preserve the term pantomath in the article (I am inserting it again). These webpages show that it is actually used in the context of polymath:

"In the words of a modern Australian poet, he appears to be "only interested in everything" - thus, less a polymath than a pantomath);" "the essays of W H R Rivers (another pantomathic doctor)" Kevin Jackson, 2004, The Independent on Sunday, [11]

"Well, I forget the rest. But I'd hate you to get the impression that I had nothing of substance to contribute to this stream of "bouncing, heady talk", as Empson once characterised the dazzling conversation of another English pantomath, Humphrey Jennings." Kevin Jackson, 2001, The (London) Independent [12]

"he is not a polymath but a pantomath" Rupert Hart-Davis, 1956 [13]

I do agree that the word is utterly obscure, and I could not find it in several dictionaries of obscure words. But two different authors, in two different eras have used them. Another Wikipedian 00:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep I don't see any difference between this entry and Polyhistor.Tstrobaugh

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 15:45, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, How about we start with the definitons of "Dictionary" and "Encyclopedia" so that we can see what the differences are:

• Dictionary

Main Entry: dic·tio·nary Pronunciation: 'dik-sh&-"ner-E, -"ne-rE Function: noun Inflected Form(s): plural -nar·ies Etymology: Medieval Latin dictionarium, from Late Latin diction-, dictio word, from Latin, speaking 1 : a reference source in print or electronic form containing words usually alphabetically arranged along with information about their forms, pronunciations, functions, etymologies, meanings, and syntactical and idiomatic uses 2 : a reference book listing alphabetically terms or names important to a particular subject or activity along with discussion of their meanings and applications 3 : a reference book giving for words of one language equivalents in another 4 : a computerized list (as of items of data or words) used for reference (as for information retrieval or word processing)

• Encyclopedia

Main Entry: en·cy·clo·pe·dia Pronunciation: in-"sI-kl&-'pE-dE-& Function: noun Etymology: Medieval Latin encyclopaedia course of general education, from Greek enkyklios + paideia education, child rearing, from paid-, pais child -- more at FEW

a work that contains information on all branches of knowledge or treats comprehensively a particular branch of knowledge usually in articles arranged alphabetically often by subject

I think we can see by these definitons that the main difference is in the objective. That an encyclopedia links branches of knowledge. Obvously they both use words, it is in how the knowledge is organized. The Dictionary is discrete, has nothing to do with branches of knowledge. It is the linking of the term that raises it above mere dictionary status.

Keep So in conclusion I think we should keep the article and make it a stub until it can be further expanded per wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary as I see it now it violates no wiki rules and there is no merit to deletionTstrobaugh 17:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, non-notable term. Unless we get some referenced material (remember, Wikipedia is not for original research!) discussing pantomaths, or articles which are likely to link to pantomath, there's no use in an article. Sockatume 18:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• • What does "non-notable" term mean? Since when do "terms" have to be notable? Cite some policy that this derives from.Tstrobaugh 19:12, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• • • I in this context, where I've probably used the term "non-notable" scruffily, I mean that the term is pretty much unused. For example a search of the Wikipedia shows it's only referred to as a derivative of Polymath. We have plenty of illustrative articles and scholarly discussion of polymaths (much-referenced), but if you look out there, almost nobody uses the word "pantomath". It's practically a neologism. There's nothing to build an article around. Sockatume 02:36, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

• • • • It's not so much a neologism, in fact it's ancient, it's greek. I see it as an alternative prefix to ..math, sort of like neoconservative, ultraconservative etc. It's a qualifier that creates a more distinguished subset of polymanths, the pantomaths. I mean that's what the word polymath does, distinguishes the highly gifted people from the ordinary, pantomath is simply the logical endpoint beyond which there can be none higher.Tstrobaugh 16:09, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm having a lot of trouble picking appropriate words lately. My point is that it's a term which is very seldom used, as it refers to something essentially hypothetical. I'm strugging to think how we can build an encyclopedic article of any real length around it, so I think it should be left as a note in the polymath article. Sockatume 18:07, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep possibly as Merge and redirect Rich Farmbrough, 12:05 4 October 2006 (GMT).

Keep possibly as Merge and redirect or as a stub seems like a good option to me, I'm reversing my old vote to keep. However, the current article would have to be changed, as some of its lines seem to convey the personal opinion of the editor, and not cross-referenced knowledge. Another Wikipedian 06:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. -- Steel 20:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Porch Song Anthology

No proof of notability per WP:MUSIC -Nv8200p talk 20:00, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - 3 of the four members were formerly in Telstar Ponies, might help if the author popped that in. Ac@osr 21:14, 17 September 2006 (UTC) Changed my mind, Merge to Telstar Ponies - 3 of the four members were in that band and I don't think PSA have done enough to merit their own article as yet.Ac@osr 21:19, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge or keep. Kappa 04:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep They are touring England and Scotland, meets WP:MUSICGuyanakoolaid 08:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  • England and Scotland are part of the same country: the United Kingdom (calling them seperate countries is like saying New York and California are different countries). TJ Spyke 06:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, —Centrx→talk • 00:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete no assertion of notability. Not every band should have an article here simply to document its existence. MySpace exists for a reason. --Fsotrain₀₉ 04:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or Merge, they don't seem to meet WP:MUSIC on their own. TJ Spyke 06:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn, fails Band guideline. Eusebeus 15:59, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete doesn't assert notability. It shouldn't probably be mentioned in the other band's article, but there isn't really enough to call it a merge.--Tango 16:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Seems to fail WP:MUSIC and the band has only 3 listeners (lowest count I've ever seen) on Last.fm. Prolog 16:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:14, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
• delete as a failure of WP:BAND.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 01:32, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Dakota 00:05, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Space Mercenary

Not yet released game, nono-notable if it was released. Does not meet WP:SOFTWARE, also crystal balling Wildthing61476 00:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. While I applaud the article creator's honesty (by not using a sockpupput to create the article), its clear that it is intended as an advertisment for the allegedly upcoming program. It is also not note-worthy: why don't all developing programs get articles? No, I'm for delete on this one. LeyteWolfer 03:54, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MER-C 08:37, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, and recreate it after the game being released. --V. Szabolcs 13:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I would recommend recreating the article only after it meets WP:SOFTWARE. Just because it is released does not make it notable. Wildthing61476 13:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, You've stated that this program isn't note-worthy however it is one of the very, very few Visual Basic classic programs using DirectX to produce commercial looking quality without relying on another engine such as TrueVision. That in itself is note-worthy. As obviously this is prerelease I cannot release any screenshots publically though if you believe that this project isn't actually real I can send some screenshots to Wildthing on the understanding that they are not forwarded. If you still believe this article should be deleted you might as well go ahead. --BarnabySmith 15:37, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment You can't verify any of this using third party reliable sources. If third party reliable sources (gaming magazines, newspapers) do write about this game, then we can recreate this article. ColourBurst 19:28, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per above comments. Re-create if / when the game is released. Prolog 16:18, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. If after release it is determined that this game does meet WP:SOFTWARE, then a recreate would be warranted. --Maelnuneb (Talk) 17:57, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• delete per ColourBurst. --mathewguiver 21:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep. --Nishkid64 00:27, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thomas Henley

Does not meet WP:V. Not enough information to be certain who he is referring to. -Nv8200p talk 00:32, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - I'd guess it is him unless there any other Thomas Henleys that fit the description. Yomangani^talk 00:44, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Meets WP:BIO as a member of the NSW Parliament for 30 years and the Australian Dictionary of Biography article cited above by Yomangani provides verifiability. Needs to be expanded to at least a stub but notable enough for inclusion. Capitalistroadster 04:10, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 04:10, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and expand, per above. SquidSK ^(1MC--log) 08:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep -- stubs are articles too. Requires expansion, not deletion. - Longhair\^talk 11:12, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. --Maelnuneb (Talk) 17:59, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• keep and expand per above. --mathewguiver 21:12, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Seems to easily meet WP:BIO to me. Lankiveil 21:36, 29 September 2006 (UTC).
• Keep per all above.UberCryxic 23:26, 29 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. Dakota 00:09, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Infinite Sarcasm

Non-notable, lots of unverifiable info Subwayguy 00:13, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - WP:OR (not saved by the continual use of "quite"). Yomangani^talk 00:39, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - 525 hits on google, most of which aren't related, no alexa ranking. Ultra-Loser ^{Talk | BT sites} 02:05, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Ultra-Loser's ghits and alexa rank. Clearly fails WP:WEB. -- IslaySolomon 03:52, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MER-C 08:44, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. JIP | Talk 09:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator and WP:WEB or WP:OR. --Charlesknight 14:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Maelnuneb (Talk) 18:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -- Rglovejoy 23:20, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all above.UberCryxic 23:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep it as a nonexistent article For those who are unwilling to rack your brains (if any) in order to understand the forementioned paradox, it means delete. Reason: per all above. -- physicq210 03:49, 30 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. Dakota 03:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blyth Inc.

Non-notable company per WP:CORP, when I asked the author to establish notability the response was this. Sandy 00:14, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Weak delete - I can't see anything other than company press releases after a quick search, but I'll change my opinion if reliable sources can be provided. Yomangani^talk 00:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• From Talk:Blyth Inc.:

  I've removed the proposed deletion tag. The article explains why the company deserves an entry, even in its stubbed state. --Duk 23:18, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Please establish notability per WP:CORP. Nothing currently on the page does that. Sandy 23:19, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Fuck WP:CORP. I needed to know about sterno's parent company a while back, it took some time to unravel - so I wrote this article after figuring it out. That's why I know the article worthwhile, in addition to the other facts about the company in the article. --Duk 23:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately WP:CORP is what the article will be judged on here. Yomangani^talk 00:57, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

CORP's introduction notes its purpose as removing spam/advertising. This isn't the case here. Following the letter of CORP when there is no violation of the spirit of CORP is just mind numbingly stupid. In this case a company is stealthy and flies under the radar, but is the parent company of various famous brand names. At least one of the brand names is famous enough to have its own article - but the parent company (allegedly) fails CORP. In a case like this CORP should be ignored. Also, any "Guideline" that proclaims that a company with ~5,000 employees not notable is fundamentally flawed and should be immediately deleted (assuming that Blyth actually fails CORP).--Duk 02:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Some sources are here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. That last article confirms as stated in WP that Blyth is "the nation's largest candlemaker." Pan Dan 01:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - highly notable for a candlemaker (although I agree that his comment was unwarranted and immature). Pan Dan has procured some reliable sources. Ultra-Loser ^{Talk | BT sites} 02:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - per nation's largest candlemaker --Rehcsif 02:28, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment, it would be helpful if someone added the plethora of sources that Pan Dan provided to the article.--Isotope23 13:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and try to expand. This company is notable enough for an article and I cannot fathom that there is no more information about this company out there. --Maelnuneb (Talk) 18:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep per commentary. --Dennisthe2 18:28, 29 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 kept. Please don't make spurious AfD nominations in order to prove a point. Zetawoof^(ζ) 08:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FN P90 in popular culture

According to A Man In Black, is nothing but trivia -- Y|yukichigai 00:38, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

As I am not the one who has the biggest problem with the article, I cannot properly elaborate on the reasons. I will leave that up to A Man In Black. -- Y|yukichigai 00:59, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• see also Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/FIM-92_Stinger_in_popular_culture - Yomangani^talk 00:48, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• I don't see why this is at AFD. I merged the encyclopedic prose (which is useful) and redirected it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:02, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Reply - Because the bulk of the existing data in the article was deleted in the process of that merge. As the article has been reverted numerous times prior to my intervention, I found it evident that the article's merging/deletion was of sufficient controversy to warrant an AfD discussion. -- Y|yukichigai 01:12, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
    • It was replaced with (already-extant) summary prose. This happens all the time, and doesn't need to go to AFD. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - suggest a speedy close - nomination seems to be WP:POINT after a disputed merge. AFD is not for content disputes. Yomangani^talk 01:05, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Reply - this is not an instance of WP:POINT. Frankly I have very little interest in the outcome one way or the other, as AMIB's merge seems to be, for the most part anyway, justified. I simply wish to, well, "do this the right way", rather than cutting people out of the process and pissing them off. -- Y|yukichigai 01:12, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
    • In that case, tag it with merge tags and have the discussion on the article's talk page. This isn't "the right way". Yomangani^talk 01:14, 29 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. Luna Santin 09:39, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Corpus Christi af2

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Article also fails WP:NOTABLE. --Sivius ^T-C 00:39, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Yomangani^talk 00:45, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Recreate when team actually exists and is worth mentioning. ---- physicq210 01:32, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete it's a no brainer. 129.98.212.164 02:21, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Check the af2 article (had to look it up, since I didn't know what it was). There are two other cities with similar articles. I don't object to the rumors, per se, since they may be well substantiated, but they shouldn't be seperate articles either. FrozenPurpleCube 03:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:V. A one-line article that says that something might happen has zero verifiable content. Fan-1967 04:14, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and delete the other two as well if the nominator adds them since they are all the same. TJ Spyke 06:13, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  • They are at Cincinnati af2 and Lubbock af2. TJ Spyke 06:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete - no context. Tagged as such. MER-C 08:48, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all as crystal ballism and no context. Contrary to popular belief, not everyone in the world watches "Arena Football" every day and can thus recognise insider acronyms off-hand. JIP | Talk 09:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete as non-notable band. JDoorjam Talk 05:21, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dirty South Revolutionaries

Fails WP:MUSIC. Non-notable myspace band. ghits: [14] NMChico24 00:54, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• delete - 50 unique google hits, 3 of which have the band name in the title (not including Wikipedia). I haven't yet found anything that would constitute "non-trivial published works in reliable and reputable media" (fails WP:MUSIC). ~a (user • talk • contribs) 01:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I called for the speedy delete in the first place, but grudgingly supported allowing the creator to improve the article and show notability. Obviously, he has completely failed in this endeavor. ---Charles 02:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all above. SquidSK ^(1MC--log) 08:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MER-C 08:50, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom --Maelnuneb (Talk) 18:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per the nominator, does not yet meet WP:MUSIC guidelines, perhaps later. Yamaguchi先生 03:18, 30 September 2006

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

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

The result was delete. Dakota 02:52, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fanart Central

Not-notable, does not seem to meet WP:WEB guideline. Thanks/wangi 00:53, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep. Technically you're right, but there does seem to be a sufficient relevance to an online art community that it will become technically notable in the future. I have not checked the site or article carefully, but this is not an open-and-shut case. 129.98.212.164 02:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment If it will become notable in the future, we can take a look at it again and recreate it. Right now, no. None of the content is verifiable through third party sources. Delete. ColourBurst 04:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. The site itself is filled with the sort of run-of-the-mill anime that every 10th grader is tossing off these days, and it isn't even that busy of a site (2 years, and the top message forum only has 48K posts). Johnbrownsbody 02:55, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete. 54,600 google hits, an alexa rank of 26,570, but fails WP:WEB. Ultra-Loser ^{Talk | BT sites} 05:31, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete I've heard of it, and it's reasonably popular. The article also avoids many of the common problems with online-community articles, such as thankfully not listing every admin, banned user, forum drama, every time the servers went down, etc. But the only reference is a thread on its own forum, so verification with reliable sources would be a problem. Delete unless some strong reliable sources are found. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete, per Starblind. I've contributed much to that article (and as a user of said site, am well aware of NPOV policy), and agree on the reasons given. My vote probably does not constitute a WP:CSD A7 though. --Stratadrake 00:49, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: AFD consensus on this matter should probably be extended to the redirect page Fanart Cenral as well. --Stratadrake 00:49, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete per failure of WP:WEB and vanity. --Nishkid64 00:29, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Skatedomination.com

Delete. Does not meet criteria of WP:WEB. No Alexa data. First few pages of Google results are directory entries. Prod tag removed. ... discospinster _talk 00:59, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as stated above Sosobra 01:06, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nomination; also seems to be a vanity article.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 01:53, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per everything above. 129.98.212.164 02:25, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. —Khoikhoi 04:12, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MER-C 08:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Prolog 16:58, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Maelnuneb (Talk) 18:10, 29 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. Dakota 00:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rob Smith (musician)

Seems strange that the article was deleted considering the person is known here in Dublin as a musician and was in Irish download charts 21.45, 24 October 2006

Article primarily uses name-dropping as pretext for notability. Folajimi 12 June 2008

• Delete Article fails WP:BIO and it could have been deleted under CSD A7. Tarret 01:18, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep He appears to have toured Ireland with the Irish band Aslan, appeared in Glasgow and at the Cavern Club in Liverpool, and is appearing in France soon. He has an EP that has gotten radio play in Ireland. Someone needs to find some better pix of him; the ones with the article make him look like some college student pulling a prank. See his profile on the Cavern Club site --Brianyoumans 01:35, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. There are millions of these guys in the world. Yandman 15:25, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per BIO. Eusebeus 16:02, 29 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. Dakota 00:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No Turn On Red (band)

Delete. Independent band does not meet WP:MUSIC. "No Turn on Red"+"Cupcakes And Power-chords" gets 1 Google result - a MySpace page. "Cupcakes And Power-chords" alone gets the same result. Prod tag removed. ... discospinster _talk 01:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Punkmorten 08:38, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. MER-C 08:53, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Yandman 15:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and 7 listeners on Last.fm. Prolog 16:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom --Maelnuneb (Talk) 18:12, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.UberCryxic 23:27, 29 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 13:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Project Xenocide

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Has not received any major press coverage that I could find -Nv8200p talk 01:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Keep and Rewrite - The developers have been interviewed about this project already, and they've been referenced at XCom Strategy Planet. The article definitely needs to be rewritten to remove the VSCA feeling I got when looking at it. If it can't be redone, then nuke it. Torinir _{( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options )} 02:58, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I've been following the project intermittently for quite some time, but it certainly doesn't qualify under WP:SOFTWARE. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 03:35, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per pd_THOR. Just a "fan game", well outside the scope of WP:SOFTWARE. SubSeven 03:55, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Not just a fan game, but one that isn't even complete yet (and not too far along, either, apparently). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:38, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as crystalballing since the game doesn't seem that notable. Re-create if/when appropriate. Prolog 16:10, 29 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. --Nishkid64 00:44, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Actuarial and Insurance Management Solutions

Not even a non-notable corporation -- a DIVISION of a larger company (PwC, that is, PriceWaterhouseCoopers). Was prodded, but tag removed by VivianDarkbloom (talk · contribs) with the summary "because I don't trust the prodder or his judgement" -- one of a series of prod tag removals with the same summary. Note: if you're disrupting Wikipedia to make a point about judgment, you ought to be exercising a bit yourself by actually reading the article and tags. Calton | Talk 01:12, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. No claim to encyclopedic notability. Appears to have been created on a verrrrry slow day at the office. Vivian - boooo. etc Bwithh 01:57, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete -- does CSD A7 apply? Duja 11:01, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete. May indeed be speedyable for lack of context and informative content: Very little is known about what they do, but it is believed to involve many triangles. Companies with the words "management" or "solutions" in their names are hardly ever notable. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete as per nom and Smerdis of Tlön. Valrith 20:45, 29 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 by User:Sarah Ewart. ColourBurst 04:42, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] John William Chandler III

Yet Another Blogger (a student writing on boxing) "who is quickly gaining notoriety". No particular actual fame, as yet. Scores the Magic Google Goose Egg: NO hits in Google or Google Blog, and the site he writes for gets 11 Google Blog hits. Was prodded, but tag removed by VivianDarkbloom (talk · contribs) with the summary "because I don't trust the prodder or his judgement" -- one of a series of prod tag removals with the same summary in an some sort of disruption to make a point. Calton | Talk 01:17, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete non-notable blogger. Vivian Darkbloom blahblahblah WP:POINT etc. Bwithh 01:55, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete It's tough to get less notable than this. It's |_| that close to a speedy deletion candidate. The kid barely graduated high school, for pete's sake. It's hard to make yourself known as a journalist when you're 18. -- Kicking222 01:56, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as A7. "quickly gaining notoriety" is not the same as "notable". eaolson 02:45, 29 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 13:25, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] UNILETS

A financial scheme supposed promoted by the UN -- with only 290 Google hits (many of which actually refer to some piece of electrical equipment), NONE at un.org (which is allegedly promoting it) or through Google Books or Google Scholar, which might be expected to take note of such an important initiative. Was prodded, but tag removed by VivianDarkbloom (talk · contribs) with the summary "because I don't trust the prodder or his judgement" -- one of a series of prod tag removals with the same summary in an some sort of disruption to make a point. Calton | Talk 01:20, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. Running a WHOIS search on www.pir.org shows that the UNILETS website www.unilets.org is registered to some random Canadian IT guy, not any United Nations organization or anything like that. Nabakov fan should stop hassling Calton etc. etc. Bwithh 01:49, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above --Maelnuneb (Talk) 18:14, 29 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 13:25, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Razor GoMojo

Obvious advert for non-notable software. Fails Wikipedia:Notability (software). Gets four (4) Google hits, total, with not the slightest sign that world at large has taken notice of this product. Was prodded, but tag removed by VivianDarkbloom (talk · contribs) with the summary "because I don't trust the prodder or his judgement" -- one of a series of prod tag removals with the same summary in an some sort of disruption to make a point. Calton | Talk 01:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. The Nabokov fan should make their judgments in these situations on a case by case basis and not be so personal with Calton in the prof/afd process. Bwithh 01:42, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. MER-C 08:54, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. 4 Google hits. Prolog 16:56, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I would like to comment as the author of this article. Having studied the rules on Wikipedia:Notability (software), I cannot claim that the article meets the requirements. I had not realised this when I wrote it and apologise for that. There may have been magazine reviews of this product, but as I am not aware of them at this time, I cannot make a case. What I do strongly object to is the claim that the article is an "obvious advert". The article makes no recommendations and does not make statements about how this product is better than any other product. It objectively describes what the product does, no more. It is not an advert and I am a technologist, not an advertiser (this product is free by the way). What I want to get across is that merely bringing to the attention the Wikipedia:Notability (software) rules and mentioning that the person nominating the article for deletion is not aware of any published reviews would have been sufficient and appropriate. I would have studied the rules closer and realised that there was a point - end of story. Accusing me of writing an "obvious advert" is completely unnecessary. Similarly, the comments about Google hits: where exactly is number of Google hits mentioned as a Wikipedia metric for notability? I suppose I could now accuse you of writing an obvious advert for Google. By the way, whenever the likes of Google or Yahoo launch a new product, there will for sure be a large number of hits for this product on Google in no time. Does this mean that the "world at large" has recognised the product as being significant? I think not. This is why the Wikipedia rules for notability use metrics such as independent magazine reviews, not Google hits. In conclusion: I accept that the article does not meet the requirements for notability. I do not accept that I wrote an advert and I do not understand the need for making such an accusation against me. CoffeeBreak 08:18, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:24, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chuck Ryor

A local pastor in Tallahassee, Florida. That's it. Was prodded, but tag removed by VivianDarkbloom (talk · contribs) with the somewhat paranoid edit summary "because I don't trust the prodder or his judgement -- and when he says "that's it", you should expect there's more he's not telling" -- one of a series of prod tag removals with essentially the same summary in an some sort of disruption to make a point. Calton | Talk 01:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. The Nabokov fan should make their judgments in these situations on a case by case basis and not be so personal with Calton in the prof/afd process. Bwithh 01:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Fails WP:BIO. Prolog 16:54, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete No evidence or assertion of meeting WP:BIO. GRBerry 15:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:24, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mad vortex

An article about Yet Another Blog (which features the work of "M. Edwards C," "I.M. Tremblay," and "Celia Pleete") written in a mostly nonsensical style by User:Celiapleete. "Mad vortex" gets 117 unique Google hits and 20 mentions total in Goog Blogs, not all of them about this site. Send this to Encyclopedia Dramatica, not here. Calton | Talk 02:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. I get an Alexa traffic ranking of "no data"[15] and a google link search of 4 sites[16] to YouTube and blogger.com.--Fuhghettaboutit 03:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - fails to assert notability. Feel free to speedy it after CSD A7 is expanded. MER-C 08:55, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete yes another blog that needs deleting... --Charlesknight 09:44, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep: because the Wikipedia nazis aren't making the internet a better place to research online, by ITS VERY NATURE OF DEMOCRATIC EDITING. I bet you all think you're high and mighty research teams, but the reality is, Wikipedia is a bloody joke. I refuse to let my students use it, and it took you months and months to find this article "unworthy", so how many others lurk in the dark? I'm off to better horizons, like ENCYCLOPEDIA DRAMATICA, home of the people with actual senses of humour! When I wiki your names, I'm filing you under THE NERD PATROL!—The preceding unsigned collective personal attack was added by 146.186.124.143 (talk • contribs) .

...home of the people with actual senses of humour! And no actual standards. Good luck, you'll probably find a fitting home, there. --Calton | Talk 01:52, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 13:25, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Henry J. Freede

Non-notable doctor. Only a handful of Google hits. No sources given to verify any notability. Only claim to fame seems to be having an arena named after him at a small school. Metros232 02:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete might be a generous guy, but definitely not notable. Opabinia regalis 04:09, 29 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. W.marsh 16:29, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Henry J. Freede Wellness and Activities Center

Non-notable college sports arena. It is home to Oklahoma City University's athletics programs. This is a small school, non-NCAA program. Not enough context or notability. No sources offered as well. Metros232 02:10, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete along with the donor. Opabinia regalis 04:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect and 'merge into Oklahoma City University. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:56, 29 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. W.marsh 16:31, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lloyd Levitin

This page fails WP:PROF and WP:N and therefore should be removed from Wikipedia. Being a somewhat notable person's relative does not make the person notable. --Ineffable3000 20:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

1. The person is not regarded as a significant expert in their area by independent sources
2. The person is not regarded as an important figure by those in the same field.
3. The person has not published a significant and well-known academic work.
4. The person's collective body of work is not very significant and well-known.
5. The person is not known for originating an important new concept, theory or idea.
6. The person is not known for being the advisor of an especially notable student, even though he was the father of a barely notable scientist, Daniel Levitin.
7. The person has never received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them.

Lloyd Levitin only has 4 Google Scholar hits, [17] and only 125 Google hits [18]. Having a certification or a certain job position does not give someone notibility.

• Strong Delete as nom --Ineffable3000 20:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete guy with a job and some marginally notable relatives. Don't forget to delink him in the other articles. Opabinia regalis 04:14, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Evaluate him as a corporate executive, not as an academic. Being chief financial officer of the United States's "largest natural gas distribution utility, serving 19.5 million people through 5.5 million gas meters in more than 530 communities" is a major accomplishment. Besides, his analysis of the financial health of Southern Pacific Rail Corporation persuaded the United States Department of Justice to permit the merger of Southern Pacific with Union Pacific in 1996. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 05:49, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Eusebeus 16:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Doesn't quite meet the notability requirements of WP:BIO. --Satori Son 20:31, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per TT. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:15, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I am persuaded by the arguments of TT. Cedars 01:12, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - TruthbringerToronto made a good point. However, Sempra Energy had many CFOs and none of them have their own Wikipedia articles. The current CFO, Mark Snell does not have his own Wikipedia article. Sempra Energy has numerous officers, and they frequently change. Lloyd Levitin is not even the CFO anymore, and he did not have any notable accomplishments while he was a CEO. I think that he should be mentioned in a page listing all past officers of Sempra Energy. Also, if you read the source about Lloyd Levitin persuading the US Departement of Justice, you will find that it was not intepreted correctly. [19] Lloyd Levitin was one of the many people involved in the case, and his name should be included in a related article. In conclusion, Lloyd Levitin does not meet WP:BIO and does not deserve to have his own article. --Ineffable3000 02:18, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • WP:BIO does not seem to talk about businesspeople in any great depth. We have lots of articles on minor celebrities, politicians and jurists, but we seem to lack articles on engineers and businesspeople despite the impact these people have on our everyday life. Maybe the best solution is to work towards a guideline on businesspeople. Until we have that judging whether articles on businesspeople should be kept or deleted is a very difficult task. Cedars 05:21, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
    • This guy is not a very notable businessman. He only has 125 Google Hits, and he is not featured on any news article. I couldn't even find much about him on his company's website. A local band would have more notability than he does. --Ineffable3000 17:09, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment. This is more a criticism of how some people measure notability than of actual notability. Once somebody retires from a company, the company will normally remove his or her biography from the company's web site. And someone who makes multi-million dollar decisions (which seems like a good definition for notability) won't necessarily show up with lots of hits on Google. We should try to measure notability, not fame, because a business executive could well be notable (as I argue here) but not famous. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 07:11, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
        • Lloyd Levitin was one of the many people working on the merger case. If we would consider every single person who somehow participated in making an important decision, every single jury member from notable cases would have his own page. --Ineffable3000 08:06, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. The argument by Ineffable3000, that he doesn't have a lot of "Google" hits is unconvicing; people shouldn't be evaluated solely on the basis of their Google tally. Having a large number of Google hits is a positive argument for inclusion, but having a low number is not a positive argument for deletion or non-inclusion; there are many well-respected sources for information that pre-date the internet era, and a trip to a brick-and-mortar library can clear up any doubts. This guy was listed in "Who's Who in Finance and Industry," "Who's Who in the West" and "Who's Who in America" for many years. These sources indicate he was the President of the American Gas Association, and of the Financial Executives Institute. Taken together, this looks to me like a significant person whose influence cut across industry, lobbying groups, and public policy. His relatives have nothing to do with it. --User:ClydeC 07:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I do not believe that any of the various Marquis Who's Who vanity publications would qualify as "credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" under WP:V. In fact, an exposé by Forbes magazine found them to be just the opposite: "The Hall of Lame". I really think we should insist on better sources than that to substantiate notability. --Satori Son 15:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: Despite whatever was wrong with Marquis Who's Who when Forbes published its article in 1999, librarians and journalists still use Marquis titles to look people up. The Canadian Who's Who from the University of Toronto Press is also useful, as is the original Who's Who from A.&C. Black. -- TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 22:52, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Your assertion that journalists use Marquis titles to "look people up" is highly questionable at best. Can you provide an example? I do not believe any reputable journalist would use a vanity pub to establish the significance of a person, and nor should we. --Satori Son 20:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
        • Journalists use Marquis titles with all their faults because, on balance, Who's Who in America and its related titles are a reliable source of information about notable people. Granted, there is a vanity aspect to these directories, but most of the people listed in them are notable within their field. Ask a librarian or journalist you trust whether they would use Who's Who in America to get background about a notable person. And if you don't know any journalists, phone the city desk of your local newspaper and ask. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 20:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
      • The question is not "whether they would use Who's Who in America to get background about a notable person", the question is "whether someone being listed in Who's Who in America confirms that person is notable absent any other reliable, reputable sources". Don't obfuscate the issue to support your inclusionist agenda. --Satori Son 22:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
        • The issue debated is not whether Who's Who is notable but rather whether Lloyd Levitin is not notable. --Ineffable3000 22:31, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
      • You are correct, of course, but a component of that issue we are debating is whether Marquis Who's Who is a credible, third-party source with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy, and thus whether it can be used as a source to establish the notability of Mr. Leviten. And the answer is no. --Satori Son 23:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
      • There is a wonderful irony here, because Who's Who is being accused of being just as much a vanity publication as Wikipedia has often been (and that is what we're here to fix)! The reference librarian at our university library said that although there are questions about the extent to which the Marquis editors go to verify a person's own account of their biography, the inclusion criteria are still somewhat strict. He told me that some professors at our University tried to be included in Who's Who and were rebuffed by editors, or cases of others who wanted to be in "Who's Who In America" and didn't meet the notability criteria for that, but did for the smaller, regional, "Who's Who in the East." This suggests that there is something to being listed by them. As to the issue of whether Lloyd Levitan should be listed, I would think that listing the officers of the Top 100 corporations in the U.S. (and his was one of them in the 1970s and 1980s) makes sense for WP. And not everyone testifies before congress...do you consider that notable? --User:ClydeC 14:22, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete per failure of WP:RS and WP:NOR. --Nishkid64 00:46, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oklahoma City bombing conspiracy theories

First deletion reason: Fails to assert notability by reference to any reliable source – not one reliable source cited, and the article has been up for over a year! Undue weight. Entirely original research. Conspiracy cruft failing WP:RS, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV#Undue weight. Morton devonshire 02:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - Per nom. Of 20 bullet points, only one is cited and that one cites a source of <= Blog caliber. --Dual Freq 03:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Per nomination. Crockspot 03:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable Alex Jones conspiracy cruft. --Aude (talk) 03:13, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. alphaChimp^(talk) 04:17, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Conspiracy theory articles should cover conspiracy theories as phenomena, not advocate for them, and this one isn't much of a phenomenon. Gazpacho 05:49, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails both WP:NPOV & WP:NOR Jpe|ob 15:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Per Nom. Englishnerd 15:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Can be recreated later if reliable sources exist, none of which do now (but doubtful, as I can't even recall ever having heard of such for this). · XP · 19:18, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Arbusto 00:09, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Cruft. PEr nom--Tbeatty 01:58, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Just too poorly cited, and probably can't be fixed. No objection to re-creation of a proper article though with notable cites. Derex 02:37, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Derex. CWC(talk) 13:47, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 07:32, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
• The following was added by Freedomspeechman (talk · contribs) at the top of this page and has been moved and partially wikified by CWC(talk) 07:51, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Who are you people to delete all these items ! NO Censorship! you haven't made your case just by quoting codes what are the specifics? How does it fail to met the standards ?

Do not delete!

Keep- It contains 3 items refrenced as well as a book and you have made no attempt to add to the content. Quit with your deletist agender!

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Oklahoma_City_bombing_conspiracy_theories"

• Deleteper nom--Peephole 08:01, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:24, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
• Let’s let the grand jury from the Fed’s help us here: This grand jury's report says that there is no credible evidence that anyone other than McVeigh and Nichols was involved, that there is no credible evidence that the government or the ATF or any government agencies had prior knowledge that a bombing would occur; that was one of the popular conspiracy theories. [20] Delete per nom. JungleCat talk/contrib 14:35, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, mystifying that it's survived this long without NPoV editing and improvement.--Rosicrucian 15:11, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kemurshel

Non-notable art project. Not encyclopedic by a long shot. Contested prod, by the author. eaolson 02:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Strong delete. Unreferenced article that by its text is ostensibly about a student art project with no assertion of importance. If that's not enough, it appears to be a surruptitious advertisement for the author's website design online business and the name of the author is also the name of the article. So, delete per WP:NN, WP:SPAM, WP:AUTO, WP:V, WP:RS, etc.--Fuhghettaboutit 03:12, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Fuhghettaboutit. Prolog 16:51, 29 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 per CSD A8. Xoloz 04:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Margaret Barr

This page seems just to be a dump from another page, and Wikipedia is not a repository for web content. Splintercellguy 03:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete per A8 as text unquestionably copied from [21] along with other subpages of that site, and the article was posted within the past 48 hours.--Fuhghettaboutit 04:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT soapbox. All the article's content is taking from the website http://barr4mayor.com, Barr's pro election website. Perhaps she is notable, but this article, as is, isn't suitable for the wikipedia. Mitaphane _talk 04:20, 29 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. --Nishkid64 00:47, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brainfuck++

This article was part of the mass AfD of "Esoteric Programming languages" overturned by DRV here. It is being relisted for individual consideration. All these languages will be relisted, at five/day to prevent congestion. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 04:18, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - There's no evidence of notability. The language is a joke upon a joke. - Richardcavell 04:39, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. This should have been deleted long ago. JIP | Talk 09:28, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Ugh delete! Looks a lot like an advertisement, and per Richard above. --Alex (Talk) 18:52, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn brainfuck-clone. —Ruud 12:24, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] John J. Palmer

This would have been an A7 candidate if it'd been caught when it was added. It's been around for 9 months or so, however, so rather than speedying it, I'm taking it to AFD. The subject is non-notable. His claim to fame is that, via a vanity press, he's self-published a single book about homebrewing beer. He also has a website with the text of his book on it. Pretty much a bog-standard non-notable bio. Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 04:21, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Keep My first instinct would have been to agree with the deletion, until I checked the book. A how-to-book on brewing beer at home that has an Amazon rank around 11,000 seems pretty good (surprising actually), and there seem to be multiple reviews of it. I'd say he qualifies as a notable author. Fan-1967 04:28, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Week keep per above. 9,280 ghits and an alexa rank (albiet not very good). Ultra-Loser ^{Talk | BT sites} 05:37, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:BIO. Eusebeus 16:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• weak keep per Fan-1967 and Ultra-Loser. --mathewguiver 21:40, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I'm the original author of the page so obviously I'm biased, but I'll argue against two points above. 1) Fails WP:BIO: Mr. Palmer is a published author with multiple independent reviews of his work. You may not know who he is, but he certainly is respected and very well known in the homebrewing community. I met him this weekend at the Great American Beer Festival. He was a featured author and was signing books with many other authors, including Charlie Papazian. Again, you may not have heard of him, but he is obviously important enough that they put him on show for 25,000+ people. 2) Brewer's Publications is a vanity press? They publish all of Mr. Papazian's books. --Stangbat 01:47, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The book is respected and widely used, the author is notable. MattHucke^(t) 13:54, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Emoticon (programming language)

This article was part of the mass AfD of "Esoteric Programming languages" overturned by DRV here. It is being relisted for individual consideration. All these languages will be relisted, at five/day to prevent congestion. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 04:21, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, non-notable programming language. JIP | Talk 09:29, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per my rationale at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Esoteric programming languages. —Ruud 12:29, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. W.marsh 16:27, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sylvia Ceyer

nn professor, only 114 unique google hits [22], awards do not seem notable for scope of a notable professor, publications are just academic journals Giant onehead 04:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Associate head of department & named Chair in the MIT Chemistry department, multiple papers in Science and high-profile chemistry journals. Espresso Addict 05:32, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Being a fellow of the National Academy of Science is a sign of notability. Besides, she is doing some really cool science. http://www.foresight.org/updates/Update10/Update10.4.html puts it this way: "atoms and molecules can indeed be added to a workpiece by hammering them against it, and they can be pre-processed to enhance their reactivity." --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 05:56, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Because the National Academy of Science and its counterparts in other fields and in other countries (such as the Académie française) exist to recognize notability, it would be a worthwhile project to create articles on current and former members of those academies who do not already have an article. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 05:56, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps WP:PROF could do with expanding to state which learned society memberships constitute notable awards or honours. Espresso Addict 06:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete I don't think being a member of the NAS automatically confers notability and the academic record does not make it clear that she has it otherwise. Eusebeus 16:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Being elected to the NAS recognizes notabiility rather than conferring it. The article states: "Election to membership is one of the highest honors that can be accorded to a scientist and recognizes scientists who have made distinguished and continuing achievements in original research." Arguing otherwise is not a productive use of anyone's time. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 17:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep She is not merely a member of the NAS, she is also chair of its chemistry section. One does not achieve that position without being notable in his or her field. -- Rglovejoy 17:19, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• keep - per Rglovejoy. --mathewguiver 21:47, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment So do we have a consensus for a keep? -- Rglovejoy 03:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:17, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nil (programming language)

This article was part of the mass AfD of "Esoteric Programming languages" overturned by DRV here. It is being relisted for individual consideration. All these languages will be relisted, at five/day to prevent congestion. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 04:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Nullify. This "language" is entirely a joke. Zetawoof^(ζ) 06:49, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete. This isn't even a programming language, it's a bad joke. JIP | Talk 09:29, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per JIP. —Ruud 12:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep but disambiguate. NIL was a implementation of LISP at MIT [23] 84.66.4.15 22:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. --Nishkid64 00:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TRUE (programming language)

This article was part of the mass AfD of "Esoteric Programming languages" overturned by DRV here. It is being relisted for individual consideration. All these languages will be relisted, at five/day to prevent congestion. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 04:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - There's no evidence of notability. The language exists only to prove a point. - Richardcavell 04:40, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• article.isDeletable() == true // not notable. MER-C 08:58, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable programming language. JIP | Talk 09:30, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per my rationale at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Esoteric programming languages. —Ruud 08:31, 30 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. W.marsh 16:19, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kvikkalkul

This article was part of the mass AfD of "Esoteric Programming languages" overturned by DRV here. It is being relisted for individual consideration. All these languages will be relisted, at five/day to prevent congestion. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 04:28, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - its fame seems to rest on a single humorous Usenet post. 4450 Google hits. — QuantumEleven 08:48, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. JIP | Talk 09:31, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - its origin is from a single humorous Usenet post (actually, two posts), but is fame goes far past that. I get over 1300 google hits, omitting trivials. It has also been discussed in print. See for example http://www.amazon.com/Radio-UserLand-Kick-Start/dp/0672325632/ this book, which contains at least one Kvikkalkul joke, and it has an article at FOLDOC. Uucp 13:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Eusebeus 16:12, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - is in Jargon File, thus probably quite widely known. (Doesn't appear to be in The New Hacker's Dictionary though.) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 12:12, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Not particularly interesting as a language, but has become notable since the original anonymous Usenet post; according to commentors above, it's in FOLDOC and the Jargon File and in print, so there are multiple secondary sources available. The original nomination was only based on notability (which seems to be established by the above and is an essay, not policy), and the language was kept in the overturned AfD (unlike most which were deleted). --ais523 14:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep but consider "merge and redirect" Rich Farmbrough, 12:06 4 October 2006 (GMT).
• Keep —Ruud 21:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment about who the nominator is User:R. Koot (who signs as Ruud) was the nominator in the AfD that is being relisted here, but the Kvikkalkul part of that AfD was added by Kingboyk. --ais523 16:11, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete as article recreation/db-band. Regarding comments below: that the deletion of an article is recreated by individuals who contested its deletion is not a criterion for avoiding immediate deletion; on the contrary, it is an explicit reason to skip the AfD process. JDoorjam Talk 05:28, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sky taxi

Notability asserted by claiming it has a gold record however searching for the band or the album has been fruitless, let alone sales numbers. –– Lid^(Talk) 04:29, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete, just realised this has previously been speedied twice under A7. The assertion of reaching gold is probably just to claim it meets the grounds of WP:MUSIC. –– Lid^(Talk) 04:40, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - the fact that it's been recreated twice is evidence that speedy deletion is being contested here. I'm tempted to say that the claim of 35,000 albums is uncited. If someone can find any evidence of them at ARIA (which awards the Gold status), I'll change to keep. - Richardcavell 04:53, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete "Sky Taxi" + "Liam Gibson" yields zero Google hits. Nothing on Amazon or Allmusic. No evidence of notability has been presented. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 08:20, 29 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 06:21, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scholarpedia

With all the decent, informative articles such as GetWiki and Wikinfo that I've seen being put up for deletion as of late, I'd like to see what editors think about this one. It's notability is questionable and the article lacks any actual content, unlike say Citizendium. I suggest deletion. Metaspheres 04:36, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. The 19,000 hits looks good until you see the 1,220,000 citizendium gets - and citizendium it hasn't even launched yet. The alexa rank is abysmal and it shows barely any hits per day. Ultra-Loser ^{Talk | BT sites} 05:45, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. With 391 articles as of right now - the majority of which are effectively empty - this looks like a project that hasn't quite gotten off the ground yet. Many of these articles simply read "this article to be written by Prof. XYZ". A check of their deadendpages tells me that all but 53 of the project's articles are dead-ends (i.e, lacking links), and are likely to have not been created properly yet. Zetawoof^(ζ) 08:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Zetawoof. MER-C 08:59, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: I'm going to throw a spanner in the works here. This is a borderline case, but my philosophy is, when in doubt, keep. David Cannon 10:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I don't see anything borderline about it. If and when it takes off, then it should get an article, obviously, but now it's not even close. --Calton | Talk 00:29, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedily deleted per [[WP:CSD|CSD A7}}. JDoorjam Talk 05:31, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fire Escape the Band

Completely non notable band, with members much later appearing in another non notable band (11 distinct Google hits). No evidence for minor claims to fame found. Fails WP:MUSIC Fram 05:02, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. It's nothing but a defunct teenage church band, probably vanity. Ultra-Loser ^{Talk | BT sites} 05:40, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MER-C 09:01, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. No sources provided. ... discospinster _talk 13:13, 29 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, disregarding anons and SPAs. Punkmorten 22:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk RadioX

ATTENTION! If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether an article is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting heads (or socks). You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing! Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}.

Not notable Thanks/wangi 05:15, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, 998 Ghits--Jusjih 07:40, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MER-C 09:02, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Don't delete. — Possible single purpose account: 64.231.137.99 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
• Why would this be deleted? Many people are interested in RadioX, including myself —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.70.46.43 (talk • contribs) 2006-09-30T00:11:00

• There's a wiki page for a song by Chester Bennington (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morning_After) and people want to delete this page? — Possible single purpose account: Badseed333 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.

• Do Not Delete - This is new technology for internet radio. Streamerp2p is an awesome creation .. live radio broadcasts have been going on since July 2006 and are continually adding new shows!! Don't stop something that is "working" and "growing" ... people contribute to this from all over the world. /Jackie Jack - Listener and Participant Talk RadioX — Possible single purpose account: 67.70.46.43 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.

• I would strongly advise against deletion since the article has given me information I was looking for, and that is what I expect from an encyclopedia. Dr. von Wangenheim —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.104.55.8 (talk • contribs) 2006-09-30T02:26:25

• The outcry against the deletion of this page is a result of the many people involved with Radio X and Streamer P2P discusted with the idea that this article should be deleted. While they are not 'official members'of Wikipedia, they are passionate about the Radio X network. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Badseed333 (talk • contribs) 2006-09-30T02:58:58

• Keep MnementhVII (Streamerp2p coder) How do new things get posted on Wikipedia?, sometimes it's going to be by somebody connected to the topic, as is the case here. How long is the 'grace period' for such a post to exist, without somebody not somehow connected to it posting, before it gets declared 'from a single purpose account' and nuked?. The current contributors to the article are admittedly all listeners to the stream and not completely independent. (but are not sock puppets). RadioX/streamerp2p is creating something that could be a new internet meme, that of 'live podcasting', and especially that of broadcasting live skype conferences to do chat shows. This has not previously been possible without bandwidth for streaming servers, and the accompanying constant donation begging they require. It currently seems to be a popular thing to do and is rapidy attracting new contributors. RadioX now has a full live schedule every evening, and some currently established shows from elsewhere are also appearing on their own channels, Chaos theory radio being one. I say it is worthy of having an article here. On the other hand, 'TalkRadioX - banned from Wikipedia' is a cool parting gift ;-) If it is deleted, can it be re-added at some later date when it has grown more? — Possible single purpose account: MnementhVII (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.

  Comment - this article isn't deleted with extreme prejudice. If it does become notable, then we would more than happily accept an article on it. But now it isn't. (By the way, why are there all these single purpose accounts?) MER-C 11:13, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. —Khoikhoi 03:47, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Reads as advertising. No assertion of notability. And yes, if Talk RadioX becomes notable in the future, a new article will likely be created for it. Resolute 04:56, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: "Though Streamer is a relatively unknown program the advantage of broadcasting there is the possibilty of unlimited listeners. Talk RadioX is looking to fill it's schedule up with original content 24 hours a day and is currently looking for shows. Also the station is adding RIAA safe music as well.". Not yet notable. Sockatume 13:18, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep: Okay, I have read all the comments on the "main page" and on the "delete" page ... some of which are my own. I guess I should be noted as a Wikipedia virgin "trying" to understand what is going on here. Obviously, many view Talk RadioX and the streamerp2p as "not notable" and "single purpose" ... well as for not notable, if everything "new" was "not notable", how would technology ever advance??? .. AND as for "single purpose", what else is it supposed to be? Maybe I'm wrong, but I consider the Wikipedia like a dictionary and when i'm looking in the dictionary for "one word" .. thats ALL I want to see. Could someone that knows the ins and outs of Wikipedia please explain what exactly it is that needs to be done, changed or ammended to "keep" this post. May I also add, on the Radio Dan and Intern Jessica show, they have made MANY references to "Wikipedia" and use this as a valuable "search tool" for many of their discussions! If it wasn't for the broadcasters of Talk RadioX, I still wouldn't know that Wikipedia exists. For all those that wish to "delete", I encourage you to tune in for the shows and if you wish to verbally discuss your point of view and give some valuable tips to help save this post, call Radio Dan at 8pm EST, we will all be listening as we are all concerned about the "delete" discussion and process. /I personally would appreciate any assistance that you could give. / Jackie Jack —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.22.148 (talk • contribs) 2006-09-30T17:59:59

  Comment: Wikipedia is not here to promote new technology - it is an encyclopedia. We have a number of notability guidelines which can be used to determine if a subject is notable enough to warrant an article, see Wikipedia:Notability (web) for a relevant one. Also worth a read is Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, Wikipedia:Five pillars, Wikipedia:About and finally Wikipedia:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Thanks/wangi 17:17, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

• MnememthVII Mine is definitely a single purpose account. I opened it to post in this discussion, rather than being an anonymous IP. I see it earned a 'single purpose account' tag, which actually appears worse than an anonymous posting. I think people outside of Wikipedia perceive it to be a 'peoples encyclopedia', where anybody can post things they think may be of interest to others. But that isn't really how it works, there is a heirarchy of sorts operating here. Correct? How would an article about the Streamerp2p app/network/community itself be accepted?. After several years of it's existence, nobody else has created an article, so it's likely to be me and my 'single purpose account' that does it. I see the other p2p radio system 'peercast' is on here, the article also having been created by it's developer, and that is marked as biased (but not pending delete) even though it contains factual innacuracies that are detremental to peercast.—Preceding unsigned comment added by MnementhVII (talk • contribs) 2006-09-30T18:52:31

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

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

The result was snowball-deleted as a hoax.' JDoorjam Talk 05:36, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ivan Von Noshrilgram, Sr.

Hoax biography, of a name that gets seven (7) Google hits, of blogs and Flickr. Telling detail: this guy supposedly died in 1999, yet had a "tribute, written by novelist and playwright Yukio Mishima" -- who died in 1970.

• Also nominating The Ivan Von Noshrilgram Foundation, part of the same nonsense. Calton | Talk 05:30, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Hoax article that reminds me of a false person on Seinfeld (Ivan van Nostrom). --Daniel Olsen 06:05, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Fails WP:BIO; WP:FICT Jpe|ob 15:13, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nonsense, though I do love "extinguished firewalker".  :) User:Zoe|(talk) 21:52, 29 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 unsourced bio and very likely hoax. JDoorjam Talk 05:38, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alistair Vogan

From the creator of Ivan Von Noshrilgram, Sr. & The Ivan Von Noshrilgram Foundation comes this bio (which I'm suspecting is AUTObiographical, a screenwriter with no produced screenplays, 18 Google hits, and whose only credits on IMDB (which isn't always the most reliable of sources to begin with) are as "story editor", "grip", and "second assistant director". Calton | Talk 05:42, 29 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 06:52, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Children in immigration detention

This is a POV duplicate of information added by the same user to Mandatory detention in Australia, Immigration to Australia and also contained in the article ChilOut. Delete --Peta 05:47, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• This matter is resolved now, as you have deleted most of the ChilOut article and I have summarised the information in Mandatory detention in Australia, Immigration to Australia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.12.148 (talk • contribs) 06:11, 29 September 2006
  • No there is still the problem that this article has no context and the information is covered elsewhere.--Peta 08:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete article (it should be "children in immigration detention in Australia") moving any useful references or comments to other articles as appropriate. Sockatume 18:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Longhair\^talk 23:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Parts of this article are either POV, or covered elsewhere. Plus Sockatume's point above. Lankiveil 00:01, 30 September 2006 (UTC).
• Speedy Delete Blatantly not in compliance with NPOV. MojoTas 03:18, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
• I have removed any emotive words, and every POV point made is footnoted with a source (as per Wikipedia policy). I am currently searching for people and arguments which agree with the detention of children. If you know of any please feel free to add them. Children have specific problems as associated with detention, and should be treated separately from adults or from a general mandatory detention article. Children are specifically dealt with under CROC. The HREOC report that I refer to throughout the article was commissioned by the government itself. I have reported the government response, a two line statement, denying the report's 900 page findings. I came to Wikipedia because what has happened to these children is being systematically deleted from national memory. I thought perhaps here they might have a chance here.[[User:DabooksterDabookster 9.41, 2 October 2006. Please re-read the article and let me know what else I can do.
  • I understand the points you are making, and will make a few suggestions on the Discussion page for the article itself. However, a lot of this information would be better placed in one of the existing two articles suggested by Peta above. This isn't an indictment on your ability to write on this topic, merely a matter of housekeeping in the pedia. MojoTas 00:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to any relevant articles as determined by the closing moderator. (JROBBO 09:23, 3 October 2006 (UTC))
• Delete. Just a soap box article. Even the first sentence is incorrect - Lombok is an Indonesian island showing that whoever wrote it has no idea on the topic. Do they really think that Indonesia would take AUstralian asylum seekers? lol --Merbabu 11:49, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Luna Santin 09:38, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cincinnati af2

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Article also fails WP:NOTABLE and is unverifiable. Sivius ^T-C 06:19, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete for the same reasons states in Corpus Christi af2. TJ Spyke 06:40, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete - no context. Tagged as such. MER-C 08:49, 29 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. Luna Santin 09:35, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lubbock af2

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Article also fails WP:NOTABLE and is unverifiable. Sivius ^T-C 06:19, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete for the reasons stated in Corpus Christi af2. TJ Spyke 06:40, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete - no context. Tagged as such. MER-C 08:49, 29 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. W.marsh 16:06, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nick Shane

Non-notable "dating expert". The pattern of edits by the author suggest authobiography / vanity. Note the comment in Talk:Nick Shane that whilst he may be notable enough for the German Wikipedia, he may fall below the threshold here. -- RHaworth 06:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Searching "Nick Shane" gets about 6750 Ghits.--Jusjih 07:39, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Of course! Both "Nick" and "Shane" are extremely common names. So is "Nick Shane". None of the results on at least the first few pages refer to the Nick Shane in question, except for this wikipedia article. In fact, I couldn't find this particular Nick Shane referenced in the google hits I looked at period. --SecondSight 07:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete. Searching "Nick Shane" "dating expert" returns only the article in question, and, not that it matters very much, the image of him looks like it was taken from the sims. Ultra-Loser ^{Talk | BT sites} 10:56, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Nick belongs to the seduction community and appeared at cliffslist.com the worlds greatest seduction PUA in montreal. If you search for the term "Playboyskool" you will get over 31,000 hits. If you go here, you can see all the PUAs that attended the cliffs convention and he is only mentioned as "Nick" under "Playboyskool". So let's sum this up real quick: He has media coverage, both in europe (TV, magazine articles) and in the states (cliffslist DVDs). He is a notable member of the seduction community. There are over 30k results for "Playboyskool" (that's why I redirected the page). Playboyskool is even listed on amazon.

• If you delete this page, you would also have to delete david deangelo, Badboy Lifestyle, pickup 101 since they have even less media coverage. The argument that "just because some articles are in german", he should be deleted from the english wikipedia and put into the german wikipedia is nonsense anyway. Therefore I will remove the template from this page within 3 days. 86.140.57.90 23:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: The existence of other non-notable pages on wikipedia (which should also be deleted) doesn't justify sparing this page from deletion. Yet David DeAngelo, Badboy Lifestyle, and PickUp 101 actually are notable. David DeAngelo is notable because he and his techniques are mentioned in The Game, and so is PickUp 101. If you look at the Badboy Lifestyle and PickUp 101 articles, you will notice that they both cite a couple English-language news sources. You say that the argument that "just because some articles are in german" is nonsense. Yet it's not just "some" articles that are in German or another non-English language, it is all of them. If you can add to the page one English news article on Nick Shane, I will change my opinion. As for the 31k google hits, the vast majority of these are not in English. I strongly suggest that you do not remove the template from the page, because that is a violation of wikipedia policy. Once an article is put on articles for deletion, the process must run its course, and the fate of the page is decided by a vote. If you remove the template, you will be shooting yourself in the foot, because someone will put it back up, and an admin might block you (and the page will probably be more likely to get deleted).--SecondSight 00:47, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: I know of one english reference: The british daily record (October 19, 2005). Since it isn't available online, and only offline, you will have to go check out the archives by yourself. What I do know though is that he IS featured in the motion picture The Last Blast (2007) and he is on cliffslist DVDs 2006. If we delete the page now, the page will simply reappear in a couple of months time when the new cliffslist DVDs are out, and when we know more about official press releases from the motion picture. Given the media coverage he already has from europe (which can be reviewed online) and the fact he is american and will be featured on the worlds greatest PUAs by cliffslist, he deserves a page on wikipedia.86.140.57.90 02:25, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: To prove a point I finally found the article again from the british magazine daily record, to be seen here *"How To Pull!", RowZ Daily Record (UK), October 15, 2005. The template for deletion can be removed Johnny Rocketfingers 13:16, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

• Weak delete. Seems NN, and it's written like a vanity page. Maybe after extensive rewrite, and better justification, keep it. THE KING 00:44, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

• Weak delete. As per THE KING. A German Wikipedia article may be justified, but his notability within the English-speaking seduction community is questionable. Furthermore, with the current media frenzy on seduction, anyone claiming to be a 'Dating Guru' is given coverage. As stated above by SecondSight, what makes David DeAngelo and Lance Mason (of Pick-Up 101) notable is their mention within the community. Even a search of Thundercat's blog reveals three hits for 'Playboyskool'; two mentioning his presence at Cliff's List '06, another being a passing slate of the material on the site. Searching Fastseduction.com with Google turned up nothing for either Playboyskool or Nick Shane. -- Sasuke Sarutobi 11:44, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: There seem to be two different arguments floating about. 1. If Nick should have an english page at all, and 2. if he is a notable member of the seduction community. So far we have come to a conclusion that he has media coverage in the english speaking world, which justifies him to an article on wikipedia. Now according to wikipedia rules, if coverage exists in the media and you can prove the references, you can add the page. So in my humble opinion and as I understand wikipedia rules, the page about Nick Shane on the english wikipedia can stay and should not be deleted. The next debate would be his connection to the seduction community but that's another debate and shouldn't coincide with whether this article should be deleted anyway or not. Therefore we should add to the article page: "His connection to the seduction community itself has not been as established as other members may have". Johnny Rocketfingers 19:15, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: I have been a user of so suave, fast seduction, thundercats lair, and mysterys forums for years now and have no idea who Nick Shane is. I was stunned to see his name alongside the likes of Ross, Neil, Mystery, Badboy and Tyler. This article appears to be an adervtisement for a little known dating coach, not a notable member of the seduction community itself. Donny Whiteman 05:36, 3 october 2006(UTC)

• Keep: Allright, here's what I would suggest we do: Apparently, he hasn't made his full mark inside the "seduction community" yet so we should add that either to criticism or under the part seduction community in the article. However, since he does have media coverage in europe and the united states, he should have a page on wikipedia but it needs some cleanup. Johnny Rocketfingers 23:35, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep: He has a movie credit on the official movie website of "The Last Blast" (www.thelastblast.com) on the front page. I will therefore remove the template by myself in 24hrs and consider this topic closed. Johnny Rocketfingers 19:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: If you remove the template yourself, it's vandalism. You need to wait for an admin to close this AFD. --SecondSight 20:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Ok cool, thanks for the advice I'm not that familiar with wikipedia rules just yet. Don't I need to notify no admins or will they have a look by themselves? Johnny Rocketfingers 20:51, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
• Note: Appearance of second vote by Johnny Rocketfingers struck through. Postdlf 03:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. --Nishkid64 00:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ikkicon

hardly notable Ishuta 07:28, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom 11500 Ghits--Jusjih 07:37, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - it's a future convention which has gotten very little exposure or press. Maybe after it's happened the article can be recreated, but for now, delete it. — QuantumEleven 08:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. MER-C 09:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, not a crystal ball. Come back when you've actually had an Ikkicon. JIP | Talk 09:32, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and WP:NOT. Jpe|ob 15:11, 29 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 06:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Opština

WP:NOT a dictionary. Op*ina means "municipality" and that's it—it's just another article of no practical value except to distract the reader who clicks the link out of curiosity. Successfully prod-ded once before, recreated by User:Tobias Conradi. Duja 07:36, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as nominator. Duja 07:36, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete collection of links, some of which do not even apply. SquidSK ^(1MC--log) 08:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as disambiguation page. Useful. Punkmorten 08:31, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki - dictdefs. MER-C 09:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Yes, it's a definition, but it's an irrelevant cross-language definition that belongs in an english-serbian dictionary - not in any of the wikimedia projects. Ultra-Loser ^{Talk | BT sites} 11:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

  You do realize that one of the Wikimedia projects IS an English to Serbian dictionary? Amongst other things. See wikt:opština. --CBD 11:50, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - It can mean 'municipality' / 'township' or 'city hall', it appears untranslated in thousands of English language news reports, and there is an existing article on another meaning of this same term at Obshchina (which has exactly the same spelling in Cyrillic - it is just transliterated differently). A term found in English language texts with several possible meanings... standard practice says we have a disambiguation page to direct people to the one they were actually looking for. --CBD 11:50, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Punkmorten. A useful disambiguation page. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - it's an official term, belongs to WikiProject Country subdivisions, and is valid like hundreds others in Category:Subnational entities. Translation is only an approximation. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 20:39, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. A useful disambiguation page.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:50, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• keep per above. --mathewguiver 21:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Tobias Conradi. —dima/s-ko/ 00:36, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Tobias Conradi. Carlossuarez46 03:20, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Tobias Conradi. --MaNeMeBasat 07:54, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. David Kernow (talk) 08:22, 30 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 Naconkantari 01:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zaki, Israel

Non-notable Israeli MySpace "celebrity". Fails WP:BIO guidelines. NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 07:39, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. MER-C 09:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Shmila 17:50, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment This isn't just a vote, you have to explain why you want to keep or delete an article. NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 00:14, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
• Shmila 11:27, 30 September 2006 (UTC) Known enough. Intersting article about something that starts to be common in Tel Aviv-jaffa.
• Delete. Ad. I asked Israeli notice board two days ago, no reaction so far. Pavel Vozenilek 18:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Arbusto 00:06, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep He is definitely identifiable and known. See the external links. Allot of MySpace based characters has a place in wikipedia (see - Lily Allen) so has he. Marina T. 00:14, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep a gay icon for straight guys. Mirnamirna 15:07, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. -- Shuki 18:40, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Nothing whatsoever to do with Judaism. - CrazyRussian talk/email 01:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete notable to only a very small group of people. I don't like the idea of adding new fantasy people to WP. Either merge it to a 'list of myspace characters' or retract the article until this character stands the test of a lot more time. --Shuki 18:40, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - CrazyRussian talk/email 01:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - not notable. --Daniel575 | (talk) 08:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kresky

This appears to be part of an elaborate hoax with a rather convincing web site. TV Newser 07:46, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Add Wade Cantrell, an alleged character with an alleged spin-off series. --Calton | Talk 07:49, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Ha ha. --Calton | Talk 07:49, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Verifiable, see Entertainment Weekly, July 16, 1999, The Weekly Alibi (Albequerque, NM) December 16, 1999, etc. Aster Placed 08:01, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Bull. Google "Kresky". Look at the first entry on the list.
• Also, IMDB does not seem to have heard of this. Nor of its alleged stars, "Terrence Michael Matterly" & "Ronald Whitney". --Calton | Talk 08:21, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• First Google hit I get is a New York City lawyer named Harry Kresky followed by Kresky Signs Incorporated in Petaluma. The the fake TV show related articles are further down the page. I also confirm there is no IMDB entry. TV Newser 08:44, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep This was a great cop show. It was transmitted on ITV in the 1970s. Not The Sweeney, but good. Get your trousers on - you're nicked! 08:53, 29 September 2006 (UTC) User's first edit. You're surprised, aren't you?
• Delete googling "kresky" returns a large amount of hits, but look at this one: Kresky "tv show" cops (21 hits). Also, look at their guestbook and note the number of people that recognise it as a hoax. Ultra-Loser ^{Talk | BT sites} 11:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Delete Googling kresky + hoax is informative here -- it's in the "museum of hoaxes". Good one, but no dice. Dina 13:52, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as a hoax and nice one on the nomination... This is the kind of hoax that can be a bit tricky to root out.--Isotope23 14:42, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as hoax, and give serious consideration to a permanent block on the author. Fan-1967 15:14, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Already done: see User:Lost Knob --Calton | Talk 02:15, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Site got a great deal of national media coveage apparently. Avani 1968 15:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC) — Avani 1968 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Delete per above. Obvious hoax. Resolute 05:01, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Sorry, but it looks like I was taken in by a hoax. Aster Placed 01:33, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

• Oh yes, of course, I understand. And the sources of your bogus references above were what, exactly? --Calton | Talk 02:15, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Battlemaster tank

Non-notable unit in a computer game. This can never be expanded to an encyclopedic article, in my opinion. Nothing interesting enough to merge into the game's Wikipedia entry, either. — QuantumEleven 08:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, for reasons stated above. oTHErONE _(Contribs) 08:17, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per clear precedent. Punkmorten 08:28, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above precedent. SquidSK ^(1MC--log) 08:32, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki if a gaming wiki wants it, else delete per above. MER-C 09:05, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. JIP | Talk 09:33, 29 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/redirect. W.marsh 16:02, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Series I 80

The article refers to the Land Rover Series I. This is covered in much more detail in Land Rover (Series/Defender) Malcolma 08:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Merge into Land Rover (Series/Defender) - the article doesn't establish the notability of this particular model for deserving its own article. — QuantumEleven 08:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge + redirect. This really isn't AfD material. Michael Kinyon 15:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Toni Weisskopf

Vanity entry. Most of the edits from one user Stuart Strahl (talk · contribs), who may have some connection with the woman. TV Newser 08:21, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - asserts notability strongly, e.g. "she won the Phoenix Award in 1994 for excellence in Science Fiction". MER-C 09:25, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep notable publisher, author, and editor. Vanity accusation is vague at best, and the article is decent enough. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Notable science fiction author and editor. V. Joe 18:05, 30 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: nomination withdrawn. Silensor 04:32, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sidney Stringer School

This article is subject to constant vandalism. It has been marked for cleanup since June with no improvement. Also, may not meet WP:SCHOOL guidelines. SquidSK ^(1MC--log) 08:19, 29 September 2006 (UTC) Keep Withdraw nom due to significant cleanup and expansion in the last 24 hours. SquidSK ^(1MC•log) 03:56, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

• It truly was rubbish, and a prime example of the semi-libellous non-article, full of things that happened in school one day and no real information, that school articles written solely by pupils all-too-often become, at the time of nomination. That could have been deleted with no loss to the encyclopaedia. It has, however, since been entirely rewritten. That this school satisfies the WP:SCHOOL criteria is demonstrated by the references section of the article itself, as rewritten. Keep. Uncle G 12:36, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep — Looks good now. I don't believe vandalism is a suitable justification for deletion. — RJH (talk) 19:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep since the article looks good now with multiple references, plus vandalism alone is never a reason for deletion. Yamaguchi先生 03:16, 30 September 2006

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Service car rental

Fails WP:CORP. ghits: [24] NMChico24 09:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. Pan Dan 23:54, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, no evidence from WP:RS that subject of article meets criteria outlined in WP:CORP. --Kinu ^t/_c 17:52, 30 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 13:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Earthartist

Non notable - a word User:Earthartist coined and uses as the name of his business [25]. Se also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Salisbury. // habj 09:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nomination. Andy Saunders 12:52, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Delete, as above. Sockatume 17:44, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Delete Neologism. —dustmite 22:12, 29 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. W.marsh 16:01, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bixee.com

Indian job search engine, founded this year in January, Alexa rank 54,496. The article was twice proposed for deletion (with the reason of not meeting WP:CORP or WP:WEB guidelines), and the notice was twice removed by an unregistered user (making this a contested proposed deletion). Procedural nomination - no vote. - Mike Rosoft 10:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - fails to assert notability. Feel free to speedy this when CSD A7 is expanded. MER-C 10:10, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - Let me just mention here that Alexa numbers aren't representative enough for a country like India. Although I don't know what is the actual usage nos for this site, I don't think they have published any numbers yet. As far as I know Bixee is the first Web 2.0 startup of India and the first vertical search engine for India and thereby does deserve a mention here. They have been covered in Business Today and Business India, the two popular business magazines of India. Bixee is serving a good need as a job search engine product and India job seekers like me do use it on a regular basis.
  • Unsigned vote/comment from Rajaryanmalhotra, who has no other edits outside this page. - Mike Rosoft 16:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Delete - If anyone believes that this site is notable, please, provide a reference. It's not enough to say something is famous, you have to provide proof. Someone said it was covered in Business Today. Okay, please provide a link to an actual dated article? Did the magazine cover it as a formal profile, or just include a mention of the site in a list? If the latter, that's what's called a "trivial mention", not real press. But if someone can provide proof that this site is notable enough to have non-trivial coverage in third-party sources, I might change my mind. Please read these links for more information: Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Notability, WP:WEB, and WP:CORP. Also, if you believe that it's a startup that will be famous someday, that's fine, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. In other words, Wikipedia is not here to help a startup get noticed -- Wikipedia is here to cover a company after it's been noticed. In order to stay on Wikipedia, this article needs to provide proof of that status, that the company is already famous. --Elonka 17:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  • - Business Today is a print media publication. They don't have articles online. But luckily I found a copy of the same, which i've scanned and uploaded here (The article appeared in September 2005). Bixee on Webyantra (Webyantra is equivalent of Techcrunch for India), Gautam Ghosh's Blog (Prominent business blogger). There are many more bloggers writing about Bixee on a regular basis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajaryanmalhotra (talk • contribs) 12:56, September 29, 2006
    • Switching my vote to Keep. The new references convinced me of notability. I've gone ahead and added them to the article, thank you. Please be sure to always include references in the future!  :) --Elonka 19:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Commentary

There seems to be a fair amount of sockpuppet voting here. See WP:SOCK. Using sockpuppets to vote in deletion discussions is very bad form on Wikipedia, and can result in being entirely blocked from the service. Please stop it. For best results, please remove votes by additional accounts, and only use your one primary username. --Elonka 19:59, 29 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 to delete both. Merge possible. W.marsh 21:46, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Linda Moulton Howe

I have also nominated the related article

• Delete Linda's article. Being a guest on a AM radio show fails WP:BIO. --Arbusto 00:16, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Earthfiles

This individual and website do not appear to be notable, there is also a woeful lack of verification. There may be a case for an article on the movie, although a google search shows very few related hits, most of them from poor sources. Jefffire 10:13, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Neutral but the article is in dire need of strong references. For instance, I can find no trace of that Emmy for "A Strange Harvest". In particular, no trace of it from the Emmys' search engine. [26] Of course you'll find tons of Ghits talking about the Emmy award-winning Ms. Howe but no one seems to be able to say what that Emmy was... I'm tempted to think this might be one of those things that becomes true once it's been repeated often enough. Nonetheless I'm also inclined to think that Ms. Howe is notable in her nutcase of a field. Pascal.Tesson 14:25, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually I think I will change my opinion to reluctant keep. But it really badly needs some references. In particular, unverified info (about the Emmys for instance) should be deleted with extreme prejudice. It's really bad practice for Wikipedia to repeat and give credit to an unverified fact that only is cited by her fans. Pascal.Tesson 19:55, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, my bad, Jefffire originally put it in and it was deleted somewhere along the line and I restored it thinking that Jefffire wouldn't have mentioned it without a WP:RS to back it up. Apparently she has three regional emmies for writting and editing, but I don't have a WP:V for them so I'm not going ot be the user to bring them up. perfectblue 13:49, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep I vote that LMH be cleaned up and expanded, rather than deleted. She is more 'notorious' than 'notable' and is big among people who believe 'in that kind of thing' and follow 'that kind of site' even if she does lack credibility in some areas (hey, even non-credibly people can have wiki articles, sanity isn't a prerequisite for inclusion).

• LMH deserves a biography at the very least due to her prolific spewings of things written and filmed.

perfectblue 17:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Linda Moulton Howe and merge any important Earthfiles stuff there. I'm not a fan – I think she's naive and sensationalistic – but she's very well-known among enthusiasts of the paranormal because of her frequent appearances on Coast to Coast AM and her books. There are plenty of Lexis-Nexis and Factiva results for her, too. It appears that her documentary won a regional Emmy for sound [27], which wouldn't show up on the Emmy databse (but I think she's notable enough without it). Zagalejo 23:48, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete NN. Having a book listed at amazon.com is not difficult, they sell self-published material. Being a guest on an AM radio show does not meet WP:BIO. --Arbusto 00:18, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

• Well, Coast to Coast AM is very widley broadcast (apparently "America's most listened to late night talk show"), and she's appeared on the show dozens of times. She's just as notable as Richard C. Hoagland, a show regular, and she gets more Google hits. As for her books and other works, they are carried at many libraries, including some university libraries. She's basically the "queen" of cattle mutilation and crop circle studies, and she's actually pretty influential in the paranormal community. Zagalejo 01:09, 30 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. W.marsh 15:59, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Starchild skull

Basically this page is complete bollocks. Originally I planned to simply delete everything that was unverified and inncorrect, but found that was virtually the entire article. Jefffire 10:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete I agree, this article is wp:bollocks Pervect 11:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. While the skull has a relatively substantial number of google hits, virtually none of them count as acceptable sources in a Wikipedia article. Given it is of borderline notability I'd say the door should be open to recreation in the event of verifiable sources being created, but until then it is probably beyond being salvaged. --Davril2020 16:35, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep It's disappointing to see an article with so many facts and figures and no references, but unfortunately that is also true for the majority of article on wikipedia. This article is not bollocks, there actuallly is a skull that has excited some debate among fringe scientists and people with an interest in such things. I know I have at least a couple of issues of Fortean Times with articles about this, so give me a couple of days to add references and delete the crap. --Joelmills 21:46, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Cleanup and keep It's received plenty of attention. It might be a headache to find good sources, but Fortean Times would be a decent start (they're usually objective). Zagalejo 00:03, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep the skull itself is real(though it could easily be a fake, it'd still be real), discussion on it is real. I might be inclined to consider it a Piltdown Man, but that's yet to be determined. FrozenPurpleCube 02:51, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - Does such an interesting article have to be deleted because of the lack of internet references to it? The skull does exist, and although it hasn't recieved as much attention as other archeological finds. This article is valid, and should be kept. - XX55XX 21:29, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I went ahead and rewrote the article (thanks to Jefffire for the vigorous cleanup). --Joelmills 17:02, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I'm happy with the clean-up now. The unverified material has been erased, and Joel has verified the new information. Jefffire 09:27, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per the clean up. Arbusto 05:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:21, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ModTheSims2

Was listed before with no consensus. Prod'd again, so relisting it for AfD. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - very little change in the article between the last AFD and this one [28]. Yomangani^talk 11:21, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Week keep - alexa ~ 4000: [29]. MER-C 11:33, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Same as before. High ranked, notable in every way, could use some clean up. Havok (T/C/c) 23:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Havok (T/C/c) 23:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• keep; alexa rank is high and has media attention. — brighterorange (talk) 00:30, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Media attention...where? Can you point to me where this article has been mentioned in a magazine or something? As far as I can tell this is just a generic mod site - popular, but nothing to differentiate it from the hordes of other mod sites i.e. The Sims Resource, another high-profile site (ModTheSims2 is 3K and TSR is 9K, but the cutoff isn't at 5K or anything). Hbdragon88 07:11, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Read the article? It has two references, which are both from reliable sources. Havok (T/C/c) 08:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment Those are NOT references. They are trivial media mentions. The actual nature of the sources are mentioned in the previous AFD. One is actually is a one sentence blurb that refers to a Brokeback Mountain sim that was listed as featured content. The other was a mention on a cable tv teach program. Neither are "multiple non-trivial published works" that are required in the notability guidelines for web content. --Kunzite 21:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment And yet from all The Sims 2 sites out there, they chose to feature a links to this site not some other The Sims 2 site. Havok (T/C/c) 11:11, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
          • Comment What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? They're still trivial media mentions. --Kunzite 04:14, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per everyone above me. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 10:46, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:WEB and the above reasons from the previous AFD. I'll add more on this later. --Kunzite 21:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I've invited several people who have commented upon the merit of this article on the talk page and on the edit summaries to participate in this discussion. --Kunzite 21:50, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The shear size and scope of this website makes it rather notable. Its spawned 2 sites, and in a very short time has taken a very large part of The Sims fanbase. While Alexa rank isn't a criteria for inclusion, it does indicate that the website is popular and the information should be present. WP:WEB is only a guideline and not an a binding policy. It certainly doesn't seem to be written to address websites or other internet based things that would garner massive attention on the internet, but not the attention of mass media. Mass media isn't our litmus test anymore than google or Alexa are.--Crossmr 00:09, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Regardless of what Alexa ranks and the Google test indicate, this still fails WP:WEB. Since it's a gaming site (and has a very narrow focus at that) it is unlikely that nontrivial sources for its right to remain will be found any time soon. Garrett^Talk 01:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I've stated my opinion earlier, and I'm standing by it. ModTheSims2 fails WP:WEB and WP:VAIN, and the information provided in the article in question is far too trivial for Wikipedia. Yes, there may be other website-related articles on Wikipedia which are trivial in nature, and they deserve to be deleted just as much as ModTheSims2. But I only contribute to websites that fall within my scope of interest, and seeing as The Sims 2 is one of my interests. ModTheSims2 may be a notable website in the Sims community, and can perhaps be mentioned in a blurb as a significant website to the modding community. But articles such as these will eventually be rendered obsolete and useless to both the Sims community, and the mainstream community at large, and therefore, in my opinion, has no place in Wikipedia as this article has no historical value, and the article provides absolutely nothing to those wanting to learn more about the Sims modding community. Sillygostly 03:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • What part of the article fails WP:VAIN?--Crossmr 22:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Most of the content was written by the site owner. Which in itself, may not be a problem, but there are things like the mentioning that the adult sites were split off, but the reason was likely because paypal threatened to drop them. (Or at least that's the story of what happened at another sims download site.) It's not neutral but adding an assumption that the reason was because of paypal is original research--pulling the reason off of an internet forum doesn't jive with reliable sources documentation. The article also reads like an advertisment... but wait, there's more "...it too is powered by vBulletin"! --Kunzite 04:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as failing WP:V/WP:RS, WP:WEB. Wickethewok 16:10, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was merge/redirect. W.marsh 15:54, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Internet affiliate marketing

I honestly don't know what to do with this page. It looks spam-esk to me and I'm not sure it's really encyclopedic. It's certainly not NPOV at present. Thoughts? MidgleyDJ 11:13, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Neutral. I'm probably not supposed to vote neutral, but I have to add that I had the same reaction. It probably just needs an advertisement tag. -Patstuart 11:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Perhaps a merge with Affiliate marketing might be in order. While that article isn't exactly perfect either, getting them both in one place would make it easier to sort out. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:46, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

In what advertising is expressed? I tried to give strategy of internet affiliate marketing dealing. XPiero 12:01, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• I wouldn't go so far as to call the article advertising, but it does have an unencyclopedic tone in places (such as "You'll want to watch for great products and services..." and "It's a win-win situation for everyone that way."). It's also the same essential topic as Affiliate marketing, which is better-referenced and more comprehensive. That's why I think a merge there makes sense, so the good parts aren't sacrificed. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Do that want XPiero 12:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I can remove unencyclopaedic parts from this article. But article will be removed probably. XPiero 12:47, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Merge anything from the very little here that is worth saving into affiliate marketing. I would commend the latter article as an unusually lucid and informative article on the sort of subject that is badly handled too often here. There seems to be very little worth merging, and anything merged will have to be rewritten for tone, but someone who knows the field should check. - Smerdis of Tlön 13:55, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - may be better to consider the Internet aspect in association with other internet advertising methods. Affiliate schemes are characterized mainly by a relatively large payment per completion, instead of small payments per click or even smaller ones per view. Ace of Risk 12:51, 30 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. W.marsh 15:53, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anurag kumar

No direspect to Anurag Kumar, but I dont think this person is (yet) notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. Notability is not asserted. MidgleyDJ 12:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Weakish keep - his website seems to list a number of awards he's won as well as one book he's written solo and another co-authored one. It's not an area I'm remotely familiar with, though, so I'm not totally sure any or all of this gets him over the proposed WP:PROF. BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 12:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - "Currently Professor and Chairman at Department of Electrical Communication at Indian Institute of Science" is an assertion of notability. MER-C 12:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - Is it? I work in a university full of professors. I certainly hope I dont have to add them all to Wikipedia? Many of these professors are chairs in various departments within the University of Sydney and on academic panels advising the government. Most professors have many (hundreds, often) scientific publications. Adding every scientist with a decent publication record seems unreasonable to me and I'm not sure this does qualify for notability (in the wikipedia sense of the word). MidgleyDJ 13:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - What about IEEE fellowship? It is a recognition of life long achievements. And he is one of the 15 or so fellows in India. And the book as well. Just try running a google search on his name... Ameerblore 13:31, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment -And apart from his academic contributions; he has contributed to the development of India by heading project ERNET, which was one of the first (I believe the first; though not sure) digital networks in India and interconnected major academic and research institutes across the country.Ameerblore 17:54, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment -MER-C, I am a new wikipedian. Could you suggest a better wording? Ameerblore 17:56, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Not my area, but appears to meet WP:PROF per IEEE fellowship, editorial board of international journals and departmental chair in an institute that the wiki-article considers prestigious. I don't know anything about ERNET (is there an article on it?), but if it's the Indian equivalent of the UK's JANET, then I think that would also be of note. Capitalisation should be fixed. Espresso Addict 18:33, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. Bakaman _Bakatalk 23:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• • Delete An IEEE fellowship is not enough to be notable. Has this proffessor won a Padma Shri or a state award. What thesis or theories has he proposed. He may be brilliant but can he compared to Kaushik Basu or Shreeram Shankar Abhyankar in terms of media attention or academic notability--203.109.224.204 02:05, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - I am sorry; he was the co-ordinator, not the head of ERNET from 1989 to 2001. The director positions are usually held by political people. He was the primary technical person involved. ERNET seems to be equivalent to JANET in UK; though India had been 7-8 years behind UK in its development. We should write a wiki-article on this too. Ameerblore 02:50, 30 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 22:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A Place In Between

Fails WP:WEB notablity standards. -Patstuart 01:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - fails to assert notability. Feel free to speedy it when CSD A7 is expanded. MER-C 12:29, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. From WP:CSD A7, "An article about a real person, group of people, band, club, company, or website that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject." (emphasis added). Certainly this is covered by A7 now. Cool3 20:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete per lack of verifiability. W.marsh 15:48, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Andres Useche

Non-notability, autobiography Chien-A 01:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Conditional weak keep if the assertion of notability, "a short film entitled “Vana Espuma” (Idle Mist), won the Cesar award for Best Fiction Film at the 1998 Cesares (a South American Awards for students)" can be verified. MER-C 12:28, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Conditional delete Keep. IMDb confirms the awards for the short film, which has also received 220 votes. Bad faith nomination by WP:SPA? See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vana Espuma. Changed my "vote" per Metropolitan90's observations. The one short film and its supposed awards are the only claims of notability, besides the "Recently, he was hired to direct a feature film with a multimillion-dollar budget.", which also fails WP:V and also seems crystal-balling. Prolog 16:48, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Conditional delete because I wonder if the IMDb was hoaxed as to the film's awards. Note that the César Awards are the main French film awards, which confer obvious notability on a movie, yet the film in question is supposed to have won the "Cesar Awards, South America" as opposed to the Cesar Awards of France. I have not found evidence of the South American Cesars outside IMDb ... and Vana Espuma is the only film listed in IMDb as ever having won any South American Cesars. I will reconsider if we find a non-IMDb source. --Metropolitan90 17:39, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I am the person who nominated the article and I was not registered in english wikipedia because I'm not enough good in english lenguage as you can see, but I find this article here cause I work in spanish articles about cinema specially colombian cinema and I've never heared about him before or his short movie and the "Premios Cesares" actually exist in Colombia but is a small local ceremony for visual arts and comunication. This article looks like was made by the author and have exagerating things, If you check previus revisions there are one where said that the cesares are the equivalent to Academy Awards in South America that is totally false, in Colombia there are two big cinema Festivals Cartagena International film festival and Bogota International film festival. I don't have anything against this person but I think is just promoting himself. Chien-A 04:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. WP:V issues. Eusebeus 13:37, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. W.marsh 15:50, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BostonDirtDogs.com

A failure of WP:WEB. Mike 17:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - fails to assert notability. Feel free to speedy it when CSD A7 is expanded. MER-C 12:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep per criteria #3 of WP:WEB. The content is distributed via Boston.com, the online site for the Boston Globe. (that transaction received enough press coverage alone to indicate notability) It is still an independent site, however. --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 17:56, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment "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." So says WP:WEB, which is not a formal policy to begin with. SliceNYC 22:20, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - Notability is in its distribution by the Globe. SirFozzie 19:33, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete There is no assertion made of notability other than its affiliation with Boston.com and that some minor, nn online sportswriter contributes to it. NoMaas is its Yankees equivalent and it would probably get speedied -- the only difference is team and publisher. It's also worth noting that Boston.com is not the same thing as the Boston Globe, and neither are involved in the production of what Boston.com calls a fansite. [30] Basically, Boston.com acts more like Geocities than a newspaper's site in this case. SliceNYC 22:20, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment Vastly incorrect. Boston.com actually acquired BostonDirtDogs, and pays the maintainer. And Boston.Com is the Boston Globe. [Here's a story about the acquisition] In fact, if you take a look at the Boston Globe entry here on Wiki, down at the bottom is says: "Official Site: Boston.com". I assumes your WP:N concerns, SliceNYC? SirFozzie 23:50, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment As a daily visitor to Boston.com I've always been under the impression that the site and the Globe are separate entities with the same ownership -- that Boston.com has the exclusive rights to publish online Globe content, but it's not the Globe website like nytimes.com is for the Times. Boston.com's slogan is "your connection to the Boston Globe" (as in, Boston.com is a third party) and there is a distinct difference between the sections that appear in the newspaper and general content (travel, real estate, some A&E). Either way, we're probably getting off-topic in hashing out trivial details. My question stands: is the site notable beyond its connections (whatever they may be)? Remember the guidelines on WP:WEB -- even if BDD is distributed by a major site, that does not automatically confer notability on it (otherwise, we'd have a page for every Boston.com message board.) SliceNYC 01:57, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment if you go to bostonglobe.com, it takes you right to boston.com and the paper's logo is right there. Apparently, breaking news and updated stories are available on that site.. I did remark on how the parent company of the Globe (the NY Times) is the 2nd largest shareholder in the Sox, which led to some interesting discussion about the site's editorial independence. You're right that we're quibbling over small details, but I still strongly believe that it satisfies WP:N and WP:WEB as the article now stands SirFozzie 02:17, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, WP:WEB #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.[7]" BDD has, for the most part, complete autonomy from the Globe/Boston.com, meets it easily. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:38, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, and if unable to expand past stub size, merge to Boston.com or Boston Globe. It's real and notable, but may not merit an independent article. Alba 00:52, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per expansion. It's now a Start-class article. Alba 02:18, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment Please check the article. I greatly expanded it with the history, and some notable controversies ((You should hear the sports writers around here when this guy is mentioned.. You can hear their teeth grind about how he got successful, cuz he doesn't do things the way the sports writers consider the "Traditional" way. Makes for some fun talk radio sometimes. SirFozzie 02:12, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment Well-done. Putting aside the whole Globe/Boston.com issue for now, the article sufficiently asserts a surprising amount of notability for a fansite. There are proably a wealth of WP:RS commenting on the site and the business dealings, so some more sourcing might be in order, but that's a cleanup issue, not a deletion issue. I'm willing to stand down on this one. (Although maybe it's just a Yankee fan feeling sympathetic for fans of a 3rd-place team.) SliceNYC 02:51, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

((makes note that WP:AGF doesn't apply to Yankee fans. (kidding, good luck in the playoffs) SirFozzie 03:09, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep. Peter Gammons called it a daily read in one of his MLB.com chats ([31]), it's distributed by the Boston Globe, the lead character wore a Dirt Dogs shirt in Fever Pitch, etc etc etc. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:16, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Did this slip through without consensus, can it be closed as a keep? SirFozzie 15:18, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:18, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Charles Alexander

Charles Alexander appears to be an autobiographical vanity article that should be on the user's page rather than the encyclopædia proper. The page's creator has been notified that verification of notability is needed and that it is being listed for deletion.

• Delete — Sampo Torgo ^[talk] @ 14:57, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:BIO and userfy. —dustmite 22:09, 29 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. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 05:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Darren Fernando

Delete No need for this chap to have his own page.

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete A7. —dustmite 22:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn. Punkmorten 22:09, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep - sufficiently notable, nomination withdrawn. I slapped a cleanup tag on it though. Ew. David Gerard 14:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Directline holidays

This page, as it stands, appears to be little more than advertising for what at least appears to be a relatively non-notable travel web site, with very little encyclopedic content. At the least this needs a major rewrite, but I would think deletion more appropriate at this stage. Plasma 10:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• It depends how you define “non-notable”, where is the line drawn?
  • Public awareness Wikipedia already has inclusions for expedia, ebookers, lastminute, kayak.com, sidestep. The last two are unknown outside of the US.
  • Google page rank Ebookers has a google page rank of just 3/10, directline-holidays.co.uk 5/10.
  • Google search results Google ranks directline-holidays.co.uk as the most important site for “cheap package holidays” in the UK.
  • Alexa Alexa measures directline-holidays.co.uk website as rank 41,144 in the world, Thomascook.co.uk as rank 2,071,783
  • Dmoz This directory (sister site of wikipedia) hand picks notable sites for inclusion and has an entry for directline-holidays.co.uk
    
• Just for the inclusion in Dmoz (where editors are chosen by their experience and understanding of a category) this entry should be allowed.-Prechto 13:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep.^{After some consideration I've decided to revoke my opinion and leave it as merely a comment. The following research on my part does not have any particular relation to WP:CORP, although that is by no mal-intent or ignorance of mine; I was doing the best I could to contribute to the discussion under the circumstances - the circumstances being that no one had offered an opinion except for Prechto.} Prechto makes some good points. The company at least seems to do some major business: it bought one of the first video advertising spots on google videos. A google search returned over 45,000 results, most of which seemed to be relevant. It certainly seems that this company is UK-based, which explains why I've never seen an advertisement. I think the article needs a MAJOR rewrite, but that can be done. Srose (talk) 20:52, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• None of those things define notability, for the reasons given in Wikipedia:Search engine test and the fact that "If article X then article Y." is a flawed argument, amongst others. The notability criteria for companies can be found at WP:CORP. None of the above actually addresses those criteria. Uncle G 13:13, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Unfortunately, Uncle G, I do not live in the U.K. and, therefore, have no means of obtaining any business periodicals or regular newspapers. The reason that my argument was labeled weak is for this exact reason. I do, however, believe that there is evidence that it must be throwing a good deal of money around to have gotten one of the first advertising spots on Google Video. Srose (talk) 22:47, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete: I'm dubious. I've never heard of this firm before, however if they primarily advertise online (which according to the article is their sole form of advertising these days) then it's not surprising. Compared to a known UK travel firm like Thomson Holidays (Alexa rank ca. 16000) they're really pushing obscurity. Sockatume 17:14, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• weak keep (from nominator) - I probably should slightly elaborate on my initial reason for listing. The initial version that I listed came off, at least in my opinion, as containing little in the way of buzzwords and what basically boiled down to light-on-content marketing blurb, without giving a particularly goo dargument for notability. Honestly lacking any expertise in the area, but rather dissatisfied with what I felt was more in-line with a marketing brochure than an encyclopedia, I made this listing (when in hindsight I probably should have raised it on the talk page first, since my problems were more about the content than the existence of the article altogether, even though I felt it met vfd criteria). Having seen the changes made by the article's author since then, I'm fairly happy in that it comes off a lot more neutral, rather than as an endorsement, and contains a lot more factual content. Plasma 14:57, 30 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 (and move). — CharlotteWebb 02:02, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Icknield High School - Luton, UK

Delete - article does not show how it is notable.Mapetite526 16:17, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:12, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep yes it does. It could do with renaming though. --Alex (Talk) 18:55, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep — the school meets my personal criteria for high school notability, although it could be expanded. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 19:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and move to Icknield High School. —dustmite 22:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per my belief that secondary schools and above are inherently notable. Yamaguchi先生 23:48, 29 September 2006
• Move as outlined above. Sockatume 13:28, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Per most other high school debates, all high schools meet notability requirements. Can we please stop having these discussions? Nlsanand 19:47, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and rename per the above comments. RFerreira 22:47, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was normal keep.  :-) Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mancs

This article was nominated for deletion yesterday, but it was made a "speedy keep" after very little discussion. I re-nominated it for deletion because it does not appear to meet Wikipedia standards. As noted on it's discussion page, the article is not sourced. The single source in the article is in Hungarian. The small section of the source that is in English makes no mention of the subject of the article.

Also, (as I noted in my comments on the discussion page) why is this dog notable?

This article would probably be wiki material if it was just improved. Real sources and some kind of evidence that the dog is notable is a must. I'm not trying to be a jerk, let's just make sure the article meets the standards. Sam1174 00:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC) — Sam1174 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Note The discussion of the first AFD nomination is here. TheronJ 18:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

AfD again?

• Again I urge a speedy keep -

• The dog is up on google (you have to dig - "Mancs" is also UK abbrev for Manchester)
• Another source can be found here [32]
• Not worthy of an article? Is saving human life around the world not quite enough merit?
• The 2nd AfD is ONCE AGAIN put up by an SPA.

...and it *is* a nice little article. A keeper. Istvan 04:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Just becouse you don't find this dog by searching for "Mancs" on google on the first page, doesn't mean anything.

• the name is just 5 characters long, so you can find a lot of other meanings
• Mancs is a common name for dogs, so search for the full name instead.
• If you don't know this dog, it doesn't mean that it is not famous. For example, lot of people in the USA don't know where Hungary, or other european states are, so we should delete those articles too?

We should have copied the previous discussion on this page to the article's talk page. To renominate it for deletion was not a fair thig to do, as I noticed nearly everybody (except the nominator) voted for keeping it. You should have mentioned your arguments for deletion on the talk page, before renominating it. You just nominated it, without asking anybody.

Keep it. --V. Szabolcs 07:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

This article should stay. That being said, additional sources would be nice. --Maelnuneb (Talk) 14:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. As I've mentioned, the dog is famous in Hungary and he saved lots of lives abroad too. – Alensha  ^talk 19:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, but improve." It is probably a worthy entry, but it needs improvement. It definitely needs sources (in English). I also disagree about the speedy keep. The article has issues that should have been addressed prior to removing it's nomination for deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.26.45.129 (talk • contribs)

• • comment: It was a speedy keep because it was on the main page and someone found a rule that those articles can be speedily kept. Now we can discuss it... – Alensha  ^talk 13:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

some sites mentioning him in English (I did not want to put all of them into the article since some of them mention him in a passing sentence only, others are from blogs etc.)

• http://www.pestiside.hu/archives/midweek_briefing_eike_vosswinkels_lucky_break000161.php
• http://sameexperience.blogspot.com/2004/12/i-wish.html
• http://www.rec.hu/tisza/emergencyplan5.doc
• http://www.ksource.it/arciragazzi/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=14&Itemid=38

– Alensha  ^talk 13:29, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

This AfD is a bad faith nomination by an SPA [33] and all votes to delete (save one) are either unsigned, SPAs or IP addresses (plural used very loosely here). Pure mischief. Someone who doesnt like dogs maybe? This is a completely noncontroversial keep. Istvan 13:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep although I was surprised to see a stub on Main Page. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 16:07, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep It's a nice article, and when the article about the Rescue Team itself will be written it might become more interesting in "context".--Dami 17:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Here's the Deal... I nominated it for deletion the second time. I don't necessarily think the article should be deleted, but it definitely did not meet Wiki standards when I read it on the main page. I saw that it had been nominated for deletion and then "speedy kept" all within an hour, without any legitimate discussion. That's simply not right. The article was UNSOURCED! It was a stub, and a poor stub at that. I've never nominated an article for deletion before, but I had one of my articles nominated, and I didn't like it. In hindsight, however, my article didn't meet the standards. I fixed it (with the help of some other people), and now the article is a good article. I didn't nominate this article because I wanted it to be deleted, I nominated it because I wanted it to be improved. Without the attention that it got by being nominated for deletion, it wouldn't have gotten the attention that it needed to be improved. Martylunsford 02:05, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Mancs was nominated for deletion the second time by user:Sam1174 on that account's first edit. You state above that you in fact made the nomination. Why then not in your own name? Why hide your identity? If you wanted Mancs to be improved and not deleted, then why not edit it or simply put some such request on the talk page? It got speedy keep because others thought it met standards (sometimes "short" equals "concise" and not "stub" and it WAS sourced). Nobody here put any of your stuff up for AfD (that I know of), so why the provocation? Istvan 04:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:12, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - notable dog. Yomangani^talk 14:02, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and possibly Speedy as a WP:SNOW situation. Though I personally don't see any notability for a dog, the nominator is basically a single purpose account (who even asserts this would be wiki material if it were improved), unless you believe Martylunsford, in which case the nomination was not to get it deleted but to get it improved... which, if true, is a blatent misuse of AfD and the editor should be warned against doing that again. Either way, there simply is no valid reason being advanced here to delete this article.--Isotope23 14:38, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. If there's a public statue of it, it can have an encyclopedia article IMO. Sockatume 17:18, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, just because I can. I object to the common practice of discounting an AfD, (or anything else for that matter) because of the nominator or editor's lack of an edit history. When I first started editing at wikipedia, I was accused of being an SPA, and told that my opinion was to be ignored several times. It is an elitist attitude, and should be reserved for cases where there is clear evidence of a conflict of interest. Does anyone really think that the nominator has a personal axe to grind against this dog? Crockspot 17:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment the nominator's lack of history isn't what is troubling... what is troubling is the fact that the nominator put forth no reason for deletion other than a vague "...does not appear to meet Wikipedia standards", a claim that a native language source isn't good enough, and then states that this could be a Wikipedia article if this was cleaned up. To me, that completely invalidates the nomination to delete. I'm not trying to WP:BITE here; I'd probably be even harsher if this was an established editor because in that case they should know better. If expecting an AfD nomination to clearly state a good reason for deletion without stating the article just needs to be improved is "elitist" than I am as bourgeoisie as they come.--Isotope23 18:37, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, but do not speedy, it doesn't appear to meet any speedy standards. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:38, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep, just because I can. I object to the practice of someone renominating an article for AfD simply because they didn't like the outcome of a prior AfD. Nothing has changed in the article since yesterday, there's no new reasoning for deletion, and, as the nominator himself states: "This article would probably be wiki material if it was just improved". So put a note in it that it needs improvement and leave it be. Sparkhead 18:12, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Mancs obviously is about as notable as a working dog can get. (For a scholarly reference to the furry guy, see my recent addition to his article[34]). Now for a bunch of thoughts:

• There's nothing wrong with either the speedy keep or the renomination. Per Wikipedia:Speedy keep#Applicability, clause 6, pages should not be nominated while on the main page. Therefore, it was perfectly appropriate to speedy keep while Mancs was a front-page item, and perfectly appropriate to re-nominate once he wasn't.
• On the other hand, I wish people would stop attacking the nom as an SPA or for having "bad faith" -- the RFD shouldn't turn on whether or not the nom sucks, and debating that issue here isn't constructive to the discussion.
• On the gripping hand, the nom is wrong -- AFD shouldn't be an accellerated clean-up request. Mancs looks reasonably notable, so at the very least, it would have been a good idea to engage in more talk page discussion asking for verifiable evidence of his notability.

Thanks, TheronJ 18:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Good doggie! *Pat on the head* up+land 18:55, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep verified sources don't have to be easy. If you can't assume good faith, learn hungarian. SchmuckyTheCat 19:50, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Bizarre.--MONGO 22:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, obviously --Guinnog 05:59, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Ignoring the fact that this is the second single-purpose account nomination, the only "delete" is a WP:POINT vote to demonstrate that SPA's can be right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel.Bryant (talk • contribs) 22:14, September 30, 2006
• Strong Keep as bad faith nom by SPA. If it wasn't for the fact that I closed the first AfD, I'd close this one. If I was an admin, I'd go ahead and close this one anyway. --Aaron 02:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Bad faith nomination? Your original speedy keep was a bad faith speed keep. I explained my reasons for the second nomination, but my primary reason was that the original article, which did not meet wiki standards, was speedy kept by you. If you had simply allowed the discussion to take place, the article would have been improved and there would have been no need for the second nomination. The people who are voting to keep it now are looking at the improved article. Of course they are going to vote to keep it. If they had looked at it a week ago, it wouldn't have been so clear-cut. Martylunsford 13:57, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: See, Marty, comments like yours are exactly why admins tend to discount the comments of SPA's, IP editors and those with low edit counts when closing AfDs: Because even when their statements are made in good faith, they usually don't have enough knowledge of AfD procedures, or procedures anywhere else on Wikipedia, to make a meaningful contribution to the discussion. In your case, I will point you to WP:SK, which explicity states the following as one of the seven scenarios under which an AfD is to be closed as a speedy keep: The article is currently linked to on the Main Page. Please wait until it is not there before starting a deletion discussion. Mancs was linked to on the front page, it was wrongly put up for an AfD, and I thus closed the AfD as a speedy keep in good faith and in full compliance with Wikipedia's AfD guidelines. Secondly, I will point out to you that it is considered out of process to nominate an article for deletion simply because you think it needs improvement, at least not before slapping some sort of {{cleanup}} tag on it and giving other editors a reasonable amount of time to take action on it (and a lot of admins would argue it's never a proper reason to nominate). --Aaron 01:26, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy keep Nothing wrong with a Hungarian source. If you doubt the source, just go over to the translation group and ask someone to read it. Kick ass dog. Derex 01:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete unclear where to transwiki this too as it's just unverified slang. W.marsh 15:49, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mannuni

This article has little or no context and appears to be no more than a dictionary entry Paulus 08:57, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:12, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Transwiki per nom. MER-C 12:24, 29 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 13:15, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Sullivan: Limerick

non notable, added by a single use account. Yandman 12:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:12, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Also completely unreferenced. MER-C 12:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unverified, unreferenced, Original research on a person who doesn't meet WP:BIO. I think this could go speedy because I don't even see an attempt to assert notability or relevance.--Isotope23 14:49, 29 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 13:15, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nycgarages.com

Someone keeps removing cleanup templates from this website's article, which has no assertion of encyclopedic value. The "ideabounce" competition which is mentioned appears to have no wikipedia article. Salad Days 04:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:12, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - alexa ~ 600,000. Won't be a speedy. MER-C 12:21, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, site does not meet WP:WEB.--Isotope23 14:50, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

this should not be deleted. this site is useful and reliable, and as for the ideabounce competetion search google, its an event at wash u. in st. louis. if this gets deleted, than so should every other article because this is just a legit. — Possible single purpose account: 66.65.64.115 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.

Comment - I have tagged the IP as a SPA because the only contributions this month have been to the article and the deletion debate. MER-C 01:14, 30 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 06:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sheep Tag

Fails verifiability and possibly original research as well. This article is about a non-notable subject. Article makes no claim for notability. Previous afd from 2005 had no consensus. See this page for similar discussion. Altair 18:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of Warcraft deletions. Altair 18:31, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Altair 18:31, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, mostly because the article doesn't make any claims of notability, but also because WP:NOT a game guide. --Alan Au 20:17, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete - As Alan Au. The Kinslayer 22:21, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:12, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Delete as per nom and WP:NOT - no value at all for the general audience. --Charlesknight 14:12, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete what's here - use name as a redirect to ear tag. Grutness...wha? 00:53, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, and Redirect to ear tag. Garrett^Talk 01:56, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as OR, failing WP:V. Wickethewok 16:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy delete A7, band, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 14:29, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Left Wings

This is pretty obviously a vanity page, no? Also, I don't see any evidence of notoriety.

wikipedia: vanity page

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:12, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete - fails to assert notability. Tagged as such. MER-C 12:14, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: it is unencyclopedic, its only link is broken, it is unverifyable. Only keep it if an official source is found to present it as a notable (or a contest-winning) band. I doubt this will happen, so delete it. --V. Szabolcs 13:25, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete per lack of verifiability. W.marsh 15:48, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vana Espuma

This is student's shortfilm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chien-A (talk • contribs) 01:00, 28 September 2006

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:13, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Conditional keep if the assertion of notability, "The short eventually went on to win in several categories at the South American César awards, including Best Leading Actress for Catalina Gallo, Best Screenplay, and Best Fiction Film.", can be verified. MER-C 12:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral Speedy keep. IMDb confirms the awards and the movie has received 220 votes. Bad faith nomination by WP:SPA? Changed my "vote" per Metropolitan90's observations here and on Andres Useche. Prolog 16:42, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Conditional delete for same reasons stated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andres Useche; I'm concerned about IMDb possibly having been hoaxed as to this film. The South American Cesar Awards listed in IMDb for this film are the only South American Cesar Awards known to IMDb as to any film. I will reconsider if we find a non-IMDb source. --Metropolitan90 17:41, 29 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 deletion. enochlau (talk) 14:30, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Watchtower Quotes

"Watchtower Quotes" article is unencyclopedic, and has no clearly defined purpose or focus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffro77 (talk • contribs) 22:24, 28 September 2006

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:13, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as copyvio. Tagged as such. MER-C 12:18, 29 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 13:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tom Maloney

I prodded this as a potential hoax, prod removed. It has also been prodded before and a speedy which was removed. I can find no references for Tom Maloney, Magloos, nor the book quoted as a reference. I have it pegged as WP:HOAX. Delete. --Richhoncho 12:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Postscript: It should be noted that Maloney's "Magloos, was invented in 1985, 9 years after the book sourced as referenced was published. LOL --Richhoncho 12:40, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. If every word of this likely hoax is true, the subject would still not meet WP:BIO.--Fuhghettaboutit 12:32, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and WP:V. —dustmite 22:00, 29 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 06:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New look for islam

Personal Essay Yandman 12:56, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. May be a copyvio. MER-C 13:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, unencyclopedic OR essay. I thought everyone knew that this year, the new look for Islam is polka dots. - Smerdis of Tlön 13:45, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. (anyone able to establish if it's a copyvio?) --Charlesknight 14:19, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as essay... originator might want to consider getting a blog.--Isotope23 14:28, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Jpe|ob 15:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, personal essay. NawlinWiki 15:57, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• I'd be tempted to move it to userspace. Baring that, delete. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 16:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

It's already in his userspace, and I explained to him the difference betwwen the two.Yandman 16:05, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Prolog 16:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. -- IslaySolomon 17:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete The first three words say it all: By Wessam Reda. Definitive original research, already in creator's userspace. The only reference, on top of all that, is the Quran, most likely considered a primary source and therefore not a reliable source in this article. Shin'ou's TTV (Futaba|Masago|Kotobuki) 21:30, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:OR. —dustmite 21:58, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete This shouldn't even have been nominated. Someone should have deleted it right away. Two seconds are all that's needed to identify this article as crap.UberCryxic 23:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• While I agree that the article's lack of value is clear, I don't believe it meets any of the CSD. —dustmite 01:35, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

• Strong delete per nom. Cedars 01:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clickwheel

Non-notable webcomic portal/service. Fails WP:WEB, WP:V, and WP:RS. Alexa ranking ~1.7 million. Delete. Wickethewok 12:56, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Won't be a speedy. MER-C 13:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Arbusto 00:13, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. While I recall it being interesting when it started up it's failed to achieve Wiki-worthy notability. Sockatume 13:26, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: Lots of notable webcomics are published on the site. Examples from the article: Dinosaur Comics, Count Your Sheep, Joe Loves Crappy Movies. Could it also be that many iPod users don't use Alexa? Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 10:18, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

• Alexa ranking is not one of the primary reasons for deletion - lack of reliable sources is, however. Wickethewok 13:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

• • An article on Comixpedia isn't reliable enough for you? Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 21:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Comixpedia is a wiki, and it isn't even a tertiary source like Wikipedia is, so the standards for inclusion are a lot more lax there. There are webcomics perfectly capable of meeting WP:V from articles in newspapers and magazines. News outlets aren't as backwards as some people think they are. ColourBurst 21:51, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 10:18, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - You've misunderstood the nature of the source. ComixPedia is primarily a magazine/news site, which also happens to host a comics wiki. - Hahnchen 02:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stephen LeDrew

Non-notable municipal election candidate. Never held political office. I don't think that being president of a political party constitutes notability. Suttungr 13:14, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. Keep. He's notable and well-known in Canada. His last-minute candidacy here in Toronto is garnering significant media attention due to his name recognition and the fact that he is a significant political player in Canada (albeit one that has not held public office). Skeezix1000 13:21, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I think his political past confers notability. And we have an entry for the current Liberal Party president - Michael Eizenga. Catchpole 13:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - LPC President by itself is notable enough for me. -Joshuapaquin 13:58, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep for LPC President, not Mayoral candidacy, should be stubbed though. -- Chabuk 16:05, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep if only for his status as past Liberal Party president. Who could ever forget the glasses and bowtie... Kirjtc2 17:32, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I think presidency of a major national political party (of any country) is notable. In addition, LeDrew is a frequent commentator on Canadian television. Agent 86 19:37, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Well-known figure. CJCurrie 20:44, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - deleting this article would be "dumb as a bag of hammers". Murphy Brown 21:47, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per the above comments, WP:OSTRICH comes into play here. Yamaguchi先生 03:15, 30 September 2006
• Keep; regardless of his status in the municipal election, he's a notable political strategist and media commentator. He's no less notable than John Tory was in 2003. Bearcat 05:50, 30 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 13:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PCschematic ELautomation

Fails to assert notability. Contested prod. MER-C 13:21, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• This program is sold in over 3000 licences, and is used in 30 countries. Why is it not relevant? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Electrical CAD Thor (talk • contribs)

Comment above is the creator of the article. MER-C 13:49, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment unless your software meets one of the conditions listed at WP:SOFTWARE, it's not notable enough for an article. --Daniel Olsen 14:49, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. non-notable, we are not an advertising service. Yandman 15:21, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Footnote 1 of WP:SOFTWARE. Michael Kinyon 09:23, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:37, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Madness-evolution

Non-notable freewebs website that fails WP:WEB in many many ways. I really hope that web speedy criteria is pushed along. –– Lid^(Talk) 14:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. NawlinWiki 14:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Wholly non-notable.--Anthony.bradbury 14:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. I agree.--Janarius 14:10, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Feel free to speedy when A7 is expanded. MER-C 14:14, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Prolog 16:32, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete This appears to be close to the recently deleted article Madness combat which was deleted via AfD a few days ago. Wildthing61476 16:33, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all of the above. —dustmite 21:57, 29 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 13:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Xls2csv

Prod removed by anon (no rationale given.) My prod read

No encyclopedic value and likely to never have any given the rudimentary nature of the task the software accomplishes. Wikipedia is not a directory, clear-cut failure of any version of WP:SOFTWARE.

which sums it up. Pascal.Tesson 14:47, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete. This looks like someone's computer science project. Yandman 15:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The program is recognized by Google and is probably used by some but fails WP:SOFTWARE. Prolog 16:32, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Michael Kinyon 09:35, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 15:29, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alpha Kappa Nu

This is an interesting case. This article was deleted at AfD here last week, given concerns over its bias regarding the "first black fraternity" controversy. A different version was then recreated. A very confused, newbie/SPA-populated DRV did nothing to elucidate the matter. Imput from experienced, impartial editors is needed here. This debate with be semi-protected to curb newbie/SPA spamming, and the full history of the article will be restored to allow diff. comparison. I undertake this nomination as editor concerned about the quality of the article. Weak delete, pending discussion. Xoloz 15:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Note to closing admin: Beware that this article draws WP:SPAs. Xoloz 15:20, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Reviewing the previous debates, esepcially the concerns over authorship and motivation as well as the nature of the sources, I am inclined to vote delete on this. Eusebeus 15:52, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• This article should be deleted based on the speculative nature (POV) of the references provided and the author’s further misquoting of these references. Alpha Kappa Nu has been out of existence for 100 years. The only authentic proof of its existence at all is the picture provided. Membership roster and bios can be deduced by this picture, if one is desirous to labor in that original research.

However, and of the utmost importance, since there’s no written documentation to be found anywhere in the form of a Constitution, preamble, or mission statement, it’s speculative to conclude whether or not Alpha Kappa Nu was a club, society, fraternity, exclusive membership based on race, gender, or social status, academic, social, or service oriented (“strengthen the Negro voice at the city and the university”? Says who?), or otherwise. Presenting any such evidence as 100% fact on this or any other site, as well as any and all journal and newspaper publications should be avoided.

I whole-heartedly support deletion in its entirety. Adisalee 16:56, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete This article should be deleted because NinjaNubian/MyKungfu is using multiple IPs to endorse keep for article and terrorising Alpha Phi Alpha and Alpha Kappa Alpha. Bearly541 02:07, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep, with some conditions, though. I don't see any reason to doubt the organization's existence, and while the article as it stood at deletion was horribly written, it's properly sourced and the core material seems to be accurate. Keeping it and semi-protecting it should allow for significant article improvements without User:Mykungfu's typical tactic of heavy editing via anonymous IPs. His misbehavior on other articles - he's violated WP:3RR, WP:SOCK, and has harassed a number of other editors - shouldn't affect our votes here. (Please note that I voted to delete in the prior debate, but after further review, would lean towards keeping it.) | Mr. Darcy talk 02:33, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

At best, the most accurate historical presentation of AKN would read as follows: Alpha Kappa Nu was a club at Indiana in 1903. Members shown in the photo are _________. This organization existed only a few years and left no information about what type of organization if was (study group, fraternity, radical militant group, honor society, Black nationalists?) its scope, purpose, aims, goals, or membership requirememnts. Why even have an article of three sentences? Adisalee 12:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Please stop using the bold tags - you're giving me eyestrain. Short articles are perfectly welcome on Wikipedia, and the fact that an article might be a stub at first doesn't mean it will never be expanded. | Mr. Darcy talk 20:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d4/Be_bold.png Adisalee 22:27, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

• I'm sympathetic, but the sparsity of reliable sources to verify the claims is troubling; the claims may be true but this is bordering on original research. I suggest this information be published in a reputable journal first. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-10-05 08:01Z

• weak delete: concur with Quarl. I don't want to beat up on this article (which is what I was accused of by its creator), but it appears all knowledge of this organization comes from the previously discussed picture. The only other original reference to it is taken from the one paragraph quote of the official history book of Kappa Alpha Psi Fraternity, Inc.:

Black-sponsored Greek letter organizations on the Indiana University campus might well have begun in 1903, but there were too few registrants to assure continuing organization. In that year, a club was formed called Alpha Kappa Nu with the purpose of strengthening the Blacks' voice at the University and in the city of Bloomington. There is no record of any similar organization at Indiana until the chartering of Kappa Alpha Nu, a forerunner of Kappa Alpha Psi Fraternity, Incorporated, in 1911. -The Story of Kappa Alpha Psi by William Crump, Copyright 1991

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 06:54, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Twenty Year Rule

Does not meet WP:V -Nv8200p talk 15:30, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete unless sourced. Possible but unlikely that one of those worthless "cultural commentators" could have coined this expression. David | Talk 16:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Ah, but they have. E.g., via Lexis-Nexis, Michael O'Rourke, "I'll love the '90s, but not just yet," San Antonio Express-News, July 17, 2004: "...It is the 20-year rule. It takes a good 20 years to get a feeling of nostalgia....When I was a kid in the 1970s everybody was nostalgic for the 1950s. "Happy Days" was the No. 1 show on television...". Or, Omaha World-Herald editorial, Nov. 18, 2005: "There's something of a 20-year rule in pop culture -- whatever was new 20 years ago is the retro fad of today." Or, Sacha Orenstein, "The secret to the music biz (the 20 year rule)". Pan Dan 16:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Notwithstanding my above comment, delete, unless more notable sources can be found. Pan Dan 16:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as this appears to be a one-off neologism.--Isotope23 16:40, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Isotope23. --Aaron 18:39, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Rule? More like an unverifiable theory. Correlation is not proof of anything. There are dozens of other trends at any given time that can harken back to a decade other than the one twenty years ago. This is the dressing up of an opinion based on coincidence that has no real encyclopedic value. Agent 86 19:48, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I would love to keep this, I've heard of the term, but I just couldn't find any reliable sources that even use it, let alone discuss the phenomenon, in either Google or Google Book searches. There is, however, a twenty year rule in law that comes up lots and lots, apparently relating to patents, so perhaps that could serve as a replacement for this once it's deleted. Oh, and by the way, there's a very natural explanation for this: young adults nostalgic for their childhoods... when you're 28, you remember being 8 fondly... Mangojuice^talk 19:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I agree with Mangojuuice, this term could be useful, but we have to be careful about neologisms. Thus, the article has to be better verified. -- danntm ^T _C 23:37, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• STRONG KEEP: It states its a theory so get off it. Have any of you heard of the term "Nostalgia". You are attacking a strong part of Pop Culture here with both the 80s retro movement and this article. Both show evidence of existance, so why delete these articles. (Tigerghost 23:24, 30 September 2006 (UTC))

A widely accepted and discussed theory is OK. This theory has a ways to go. -Nv8200p talk

Excellent idea. If the article isn't deleted (which it should be), then it should be merged into nostalgia. Agent 86 23:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

• Merge to some other article, for example, as mentioned above, nostalgia. This theory does seem to make sense; however, it shouldn't deserve its own article. --FlyingPenguins 04:14, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete per authors trying to move it out of article space and revealing they knew the article was not appropriate long ago "I realized the article was wrong as defined by Wikipedia a long time ago. I just wanted to see if I could possibly get around it in some way."[35].--Andeh 18:49, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Renegade1116

Holding my nose and submitting to AFD instead of speedy deleting (again); we need a definitive ruling on this gaming character. NawlinWiki 15:50, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete (holding my nose also). Gaming clans, unknown outside their gaming community, are not notable. Individual gamers, unknown outside their gaming community, are not notable. Their aliases or avatars, unknown outside their gaming community, are not notable. Fan-1967
• Speedy delete I originally marked this for speedy deletion. How is this individual, who is not-notable to begin with, become any more notable with this gaming character? After reviewing this article, I believe this also violates WP:VANITY Wildthing61476 16:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• He's more than just a personal avatar of a random user. He is an icon for an entire gaming generation...his name :"Renegade" sort of explains part of it. Alot of people I know know of him. Not just people I know personally, people from akll over the world. A girl in Norway, a man in Finland, tons of people in America, a chinese kid, a woman in Bangladesh...the list goes on. I have been doing some research and I actually got to talk and meet with him. He was a very interesting person who lead a troubled life. Renegade1116 is an underground icon. he isn't something that you'd find in a magazine or in print. Like an urban legend. He isn't as famous as a movie star, but people know of him. A surprisingly large amount of people. I figured it might do him a little justice to put something up about him on wikipedia. I think you guys are making a way bigger deal of this than really exists. You have multiple articles way worse than this that you let survive. I want this Renegade1116 to be recognized somewhere else than hearsay. Isn't this WIkipedia's spirit anyways? It's freedom of information. The whole point of this article is to bring something to light. It IS to MAKE it more widely known and notable. SOmething can't be notable if it has no beginnings...therefore this article was created to turn hearsay, rumors, gossip, and facts into a definitive explanation. Renegade1116 16:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Wikipedia is most definitely not for making things notable, only documenting people or things which already are notable. Fan-1967 16:35, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Fan-1967 beat me to it, if he is already not notable, then the article does not belong here. There is hearsy, rumors and gossip about me I'm sure, does that mean I need my own page here? Wildthing61476 16:37, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete; "Results 1 - 10 of about 15 for Renegade1116" csd A7. None existant attention from websites/media. Thinking this user is at all notable is absolutely absurd.--Andeh 16:39, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment he is NOT notable online. That's the entire point of this. Think of movie stars for a second, ignoring the comparison. They had their start somewhere else. They got inducted into wikipedia after they had done notable things OUTSIDE of it. They didn't appear on wikipedia all noteable online already. Someone must have seen their acting/movies and decided they belonged online in wikipedia. This is exactly what this is. Usernames have nothing to do with it. Results of "searches" don't matter. That's the whole point I am trying to create this...so there will be more informaation available. And anyways, why do you guys seem so harsh? Is one article wasting wikipedia's space so significatnly? Renegade1116 is noteable outside of online places. THIS IS THE REASON FOR THE ARTICLE!
  • You're mistaken. We don't create articles here until people are already notable elsewhere online. As for why we're so harsh, how many thousands of gamers would start adding themselves here if we let this one stay? Fan-1967 16:47, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Fine, if he truly is notable offline, give reliable sources that can back this up. As for movie stars online, they become notable because of independent, verifiable sources that can show a claim to notability. And YES they appeared as notable already before getting an article on Wikipedia, otherwise the article would be removed using this SAME CRITERIA. Wildthing61476 16:47, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• CommentYour telling me if I find any other site where this character is "noteable", then that's good enough for you? Why do you think I am creating this? Is it not apparent...he isn't noteable online...he is noteable in the real world. Isn't that WHY people get added? And also..."thousands" of gamers would start adding themselves? Haven't thousands of people just added themselves or had others add them for them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Renegade1116 (talk • contribs) 2006-09-29 16:53:43
  • Not "any other site". You need to find multiple, verifiable, references from Reliable Sources. See Wikipedia:Notability (people) for guidelines. Fan-1967 16:54, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment "This guideline is not Wikipedia policy (and indeed the whole concept of notability is contentious). However, it is the opinion of many Wikipedians that these criteria are a fair test " And why are you forcing this if it is I quote "contentious" and "not a policy of Wikipedia"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Renegade1116 (talk • contribs) 2006-09-29 16:57:48
  • Comment' Those "thousands of people" that have their articles created end up being deleted using the same criteria as well. If he is so notable in the world as you state, show WHERE this is make. Just because you say he is notable, doesn't mean he is. If he is known in multiple countries and in the real world, there HAS to be a way of proving this rather that saying "he is because I said so". Wildthing61476 17:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• COmment Another notability quote straight from wikipedia: “People who satisfy at least one of the items below may merit their own Wikipedia articles, as there is likely to be a good deal of verifiable information available about them and a good deal of public interest in them. This is not intended to be an exclusionary list; just because someone doesn't fall into one of these categories doesn't mean an article on the person should automatically be deleted” The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person.” —Preceding unsigned comment added by Renegade1116 (talk • contribs) 2006-09-29 17:01:28
  • There are some who disagree, but a minority. On the other hand, Verifiability from Reliable Sources are ironclad rules. (Oh, and just as a note, most people don't regard Runescape as "the real world.") -- Fan-1967 17:01, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment I never stated Runescape was the "real world" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Renegade1116 (talk • contribs)
• Delete as above. I'm a gamer, too. Where's my article? —Wrathchild ^(talk) 17:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Another Wikipedia quote from the "ironclad" rules: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." This basically states if Time Magazine, 15 "renowned" internet sites, and at least 3 other people all say that Hitler wore Mickey Mouse underpants then I am entitled to make a wiki about it? That is a load of steaming, crap.
  • That's why we're so careful about WP:Reliable Sources. Time magazine wouldn't say that. Some blog or forum might, so we don't consider them reliable. Fan-1967 17:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Another wikipedia quote: "3. The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it."—Preceding unsigned comment added by Renegade1116 (talk • contribs)

• ...and you've provided none. Fan-1967 17:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• COmment I'd also like to point out that Time Magazine has printed numerous untrue things/butchered statements and quotes to their own benefit. Even Time Magazine is biased in ways..—Preceding unsigned comment added by Renegade1116 (talk • contribs)
• The sources section of the article cites individal close friends of the subject. This article is original research — i.e. Renegade1116 (talk · contribs) has gone and interviewed the subject and the subject's friends directly, and then composed a new, never-before-published, biography of the subject. In other words: Xe has considered that in xyr opinion human knowledge has a gap and has created this article to fill it, to publish new knowledge. To quote xem above: "The whole point of this article is to bring something to light. It IS to MAKE it more widely known and notable. SOmething can't be notable if it has no beginnings...therefore this article was created to turn hearsay, rumors, gossip, and facts into a definitive explanation." In other words: The purpose of this article is to be primary source documentation for someone who has heretofore been undocumented.

  Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, a tertiary source. Wikipedia is not a publisher of first instance. The place for this original biography is a book, or the author's own web site. Delete. Uncle G 17:15, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• COmment Correction. It is a primary source...but an online primary source. SO that doesn't make it "the" primary source. There are other sources offline...in books, poems, stories and etc. Eyewitness accounts...
• Comment No it is not, and again as we have said time and time again, unless you have verifiable, reliable soruces to back this up. This is nothing more than hearsay. Wildthing61476 17:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• comment What about all the Urban Legends on Wikipedia? These are all hearsay and people "document" them on other sites. People make books out of this hearsay and you call this reputable and allow it to stay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Renegade1116 (talk • contribs)

• Comment People make books out of this hearsay EXACTLY, making this "hearsay" notable. Have any books been written about him, any articles in say a LOCAL paper? ANYTHING at all, or is this to ONLY place where anything has been written about him? Wildthing61476 17:28, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Non-notable,. That someone can become famous for an online pursuit, but his handle can only be found 15 times by Google, is preposterous. It's like expecting an incredibly well-known researcher to go completely uncited on Pubmed. Look at it this way: nobody on the internet is talking about him, so I doubt anybody's going to come and read an encyclopedia entry on the internet about him. Sockatume 17:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Good point. Google gives over 9 million hits for runescape. You'd think a famous runescape player would have more than 15. Fan-1967 17:29, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete as "an article about a person that does not assert the importance or significance of the subject. (CSD A7)". Wikipedia is not: a directory, an advertising service, a webhost, a publisher of original thought. It is, however, an encyclopedia, a concept that Renegade1116 should probably familiarise himself with. -- IslaySolomon 17:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• COmment Solution...anyone have a link on "userfication"?

Comment. "Userfication is usually performed because material is added in article space that is inappropriate for inclusion in an encyclopedia, but not objectionable as content in a user page or a subpage thereof. This can be a satisfactory result for new users unfamiliar with the boundaries of Wikipedia content, and for users who inadvertently create personal templates in the main template space."Sockatume 17:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment This material does not look appropriate for a user page. -- Fan-1967 17:39, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete and Protect - per SD comments above. --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 17:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Antyone want to help me with "userfication"? Or are you all just going to sit there and quote stuff?
• 'Comment You were hellbent on keeping the article, you never mentioned userifciation until now. I'm adding the userfy tag to the page as we speak. Wildthing61476 17:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC) Comment Strike that, I'm not sure what happened to the page, an admin can adjust this for you though. Wildthing61476 17:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I hope I haven't just screwed things up too badly...thank you for your help -.- and also, no matter really how "important" the article is or was...it was nice that we actually got a chance to discuss it. I am hoping I will learn from this to avoid future mistakes. I realized the article was wrong as defined by Wikipedia a long time ago. I just wanted to see if I could possibly get around it in some way. I guess userfication is the only way to do that. I hope you'll all forget me that way I can start posting decent, wiki-rule following wikis in the future. Thank you all for putting up with me, and thanks for at least discussing it instead of automatically deleting it. I love wikipedia and I apologize for any inconvenience(s) I might have caused. Thanks again guys =)

• Comment You're welcome, and good luck to you! Wildthing61476 17:49, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Mission accomplished. Hopefully an admin will be able to sort out that fairly convoluted set of redirects you've got on your userspace right now: the page-meddling capacity of the Move function is not to be taken lightly. Sockatume 17:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment APologies for the redirects...I kind of misread the userfication page 4 times in a row. Not pretty.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 under WP:CSD criterion A7. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:37, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Death of a lifetime

Band created earlier this month. Asserts 2 "number 1 hits" on a chart I don't recognize. Unsourced. NawlinWiki 15:54, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:V. Apparently a cover band. Both the songs are notable by the original artists, but fail google search combined with this band's name. Fan-1967 15:59, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• I'l vouch for them, won the east london GAN band contest.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Man man man (talk • contribs)
  

• Exactly. They have not yet reached a level of notability which warrants their inclusion here. Fan-1967 16:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• what you talkiing bout?Man man man 16:10, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Please read Wikipedia:Notability (music) for the guidelines. Fan-1967 16:15, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete - above confirms this as an A7 speedy candidate. David | Talk 16:06, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

ya what???—Preceding unsigned comment added by Man man man (talk • contribs)

On talk pages and in discussions, please sign your posts by typing four tilde's (~~~~) at the end of your entry. It will translate to your user name with the date and time.

• David is referring to Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#A7 which states: "Unremarkable people or groups/vanity pages. An article about a real person, group of people, band, or club that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject. " -- Fan-1967 16:14, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

yeah, i understand that, i meant your(fan-1967) comment that because they won the east london GAN contest, they have not yet reached a level of notability which warrants their inclusion here. And besides, they are a real band, you can go and see them play 3rd october I think it is at IG6Man man man 16:17, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Read Wikipedia:Notability (music). We have articles on bands with record deals, reviews in major music publications, national tours. Winning a local contest doesn't come close. Fan-1967 16:20, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, fan-1967, you have obviously been sleeping on your job to miss this concert.Man man man 16:21, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I live in Chicago. That's the thing. This is a worldwide encyclopedia. Fan-1967 16:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete, no assertion of notability, no related Google hits, no listeners on Last.fm. Prolog 16:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete Ozzykhan 16:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

About your(fan-1967) comment that because they won the east london GAN contest, they have not yet reached a level of notability which warrants their inclusion here. EXPLAIN please because it doesn't make sense!Man man man 16:28, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand why you're repeating the same question. Let me put it as simply as possible. Nobody outside of East London has ever heard of them. We don't do articles on unknown bands. Fan-1967 16:28, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

don't delete!usher_fan09 16:28, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Note Forged signature. Actually entered by Death of a lifetime (talk · contribs).

you know what, they should do a cover of weird al yankovic's Canadian Idiot, it would suit this discussion very well.Death of a lifetime 16:32, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Note Death of a lifetime (talk · contribs) has decided to start vandalizing this discussion. Time to close this and end the farce. Fan-1967 16:36, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

LOL can't take it can you? hehe, close this if you can't take itDeath of a lifetime 16:38, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

"don't wanna be a canadian idiot, don't want to be some beer swilling hockey nut, and do i look like a frost bitten hose head? i never learnt my alphabet from a to z" canadian idiot lyrics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.5.123.103 (talk • contribs)

DON'T DELETE!!!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.203.224.9 (talk • contribs)

• Speedy Delete as "an article about a band, singer, musician, or musical ensemble that does not assert the importance or significance of the subject. (CSD A7)". Their claim to two number 1 hits is patently untrue. -- IslaySolomon 17:13, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

That might not be the case because you haven't seen the MCSGA charts.Man man man 18:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Nor have google [36][37] and WP:BAND.-- IslaySolomon 18:21, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as above. Sockatume 17:27, 29 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 13:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC)