Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 September 4

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

The result was Speedy delete; no notability asserted.. Shell ^babelfish 23:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thulasikanth Selvagunachandran

doesnt show notablity Ian3055 21:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete unverifiable Dlyons493 Talk 21:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as patent nonsense, maybe even speedy AdamBiswanger1_{R.I.P. Steve Irwin} 21:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete My sixth sense predicts that this article will be deleted. --Ageo020 22:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete lol? Duran 22:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy A7, no assertion of notability. --Kinu ^t/_c 23:33, 4 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 05:25, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ugmo Inc

Non-notable website, doesn't meet WP:WEB, no alexa ranking, no reliable sources so doesn't meet Wikipedia:Verifiability Xyzzyplugh 23:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete completely non-notable. Akradecki 02:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable. Daniel's page ☎ 02:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete come on, they don't even have their own web address! It's a subdomain of the guy's personal website. Cynical 09:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete more like just another blog. RN 10:20, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Nigel ^(Talk) 12:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom AdamBiswanger1_{R.I.P. Steve Irwin} 21:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete A movie studio/fansite for 3D Movie Maker, and not even the biggest one at that. Relatively obscure fansite for an obscure program - definitely fails WP:WEB. -Elmer Clark 02:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• KEEP IT its cool—Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjamino (talk • contribs)

• Comment: Article appears to be a recreation of speedy-deleted material. -Elmer Clark 02:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Not quite. The deleted article was only the lead sentence. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:26, 8 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 23:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NeoPages

Non-notable website, alexa ranking of 2,500,000+, no reliable sources on this, doesn't meet WP:WEB or WP:V Xyzzyplugh 23:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per above. Akradecki 02:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Alexa rankings are BS (based on browsing habits of users of Alexa's spyware) and from my brief Googling it seems they are actually quite big. Cynical 09:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
  • "Seems quite big" is not a criterion for inclusion at Wikipedia. What section of WP:WEB does this meet? Daveydweeb (^chat/_patch) 10:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• additionally, the forum only has 864 members. Delete RN 10:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Doesn't meet WP:WEB. Some P. Erson 17:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I'm not convinced of notability, and Cynical's long-running criticism of Alexa, even if true, is not enough in itself to establish notability--only enough to negate non-notability based on the Alexa ranking system. Anyone follow that? AdamBiswanger1_{R.I.P. Steve Irwin} 21:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Does not seem very well established website. Notability not asserted, and can probably be speedied. npforums.com has an Alexa rank in the 5.26 millionsth. neopages has 101 links to it; npforums.com has 1. Excepting internal links and wiki mirrors, almost all from digitalmediafx.com, for whom they designed a website. Alexa may not be perfect, but I find it is perfectly good enough to sort the chaff from the wheat. Ohconfucius 09:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Adambiswanger1. Yes, I follow completely. Regardless of whether Alexa rankings are reliable, this aritcle fails to establish the notability of its subject. Heimstern Läufer 20:41, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Supermath 22:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was merge to Marc Garneau Collegiate Institute --- Deville (Talk) 03:54, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talented Offerings for Programs in the Sciences

not notable programmeWP:NOTABILITY 00:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Merge with Marc Garneau Collegiate Institute Flying Jazz 01:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge (and condense) per Flying Jazz AdamBiswanger1_{R.I.P. Steve Irwin} 21:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per above. --Deenoe 01:38, 5 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 23:37, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Houseoffusion

advert Yy-bo 00:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Rama's arrow 01:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as spam. --Dennis The TIger 02:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Note, retracted Speedy. Didn't know that spam is not warrantable for speedy delete. --Dennis The TIger 02:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete— Wikipedia articles are not advertisements is an official policy of long standing. And even if rewritten, it probably will not meet WP:CORP. Williamborg (Bill) 02:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete -- This article is spam vandalism, and qualifies for speedy deletion under CSD G3. John254 03:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. This is spam. It appears wriiten just to promote this business. -- 24.20.69.240 09:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, blatant advertising. Particularly note how it has about twenty categories, most of which don't exist. JIP | Talk 11:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Those, the fact that it contains contact information, the fact that it uses a non-existent {{Domain Page}} template, and the fact that it uses <WikiPages />, <graphic />, <reviews />, <vote />, and <thumbnail /> markup elements, none of which have any meaning here, make me suspect that it was meant for another project, not Wikipedia, and was submitted here as a simple mistake rather than as an attempt at advertising. I have no idea which project, though. Delete. Uncle G 14:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Can be re-created if it becomes more noteable. In this bad layout argumentation was simply advert, as sufficient for afd nomination. User:Yy-bo 15:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: Even ignoring the charges of spam, this article is poorly written and does nothing to demonstrate the notability of its subject. Heimstern Läufer 20:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. alphaChimp^(talk) 06:04, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wompem

Fails the Google test; seems non-notable and no reliable sources are given per WP:RS - there's a dead external fansite link. Crystallina 01:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, not at all notable enough to be in an encyclopedia. Akradecki 02:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - if the fans can't be bothered ... Nigel ^(Talk) 12:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I still... don't know what it is. --Optichan 14:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. alphaChimp^(talk) 06:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Big Wedding

Non-notable book available only in a handful of stores. Fails notability criteria for books. --Tbeatty 01:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as nominator --Tbeatty 01:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:NOT criteria for books. Wikipedia is not a primary source. Morton devonshire 01:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above--Peephole 02:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Fullfills notability criteria for books, "Usually, books with an ISBN-number and/or availability in a couple dozen of libraries and/or a Project Gutenberg type website, and with a notability above that of an average cookbook or programmers manual would qualify." [1] --Striver 14:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Refered to in CounterPunch [2]. That should put an end to the Notability disscution. --Striver 14:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

And 911Truth.org [3]. --Striver 14:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

More: [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]... enough? It easly fullfils criteria for book inclusion. --Striver 14:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

It easily fulfills the requirements to go in Wikibooks but not Wikipedia.--Tbeatty 15:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Notability as a book is limited. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I was just at Barnes & Noble, and they did have two copies of The New Pearl Harbor, and numerous copies of Debunking 9/11 Myths. But no copies of The Big Wedding. On Amazon, The Big Wedding is ranked #252,792 in Amazon sales, compared to 1,778 for the New Pearl Harbor, and #850 for Debunking 9/11 Myths. Based on sales rank and non-availability of The Big Wedding, I don't consider The Big Wedding to be notable enough to merit an article. --Aude (talk contribs as tagcloud) 22:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 00:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• According to Wikipedia:Notability (books), notability is not judged by wether you are in Barnes & Noble. It states:

Notability is established by meeing one of the above. This book meets multiple criteria 1, 6 & 7.

1: Sander Hicks is notable, he has his own article

6: Guerrilla News Network and the Baltimore Chronicle.

7: see the article for full list.

Thus, is the notability disscusion settled. Since that is the only motiv nom has, this afd needs to bee speedy keept or a new nom must be presented.--Striver 12:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Striver - The links provided that mention the book are not all that notable, in my opinion, nor sufficient to write a good article (with independent, reliable sources). You cited Wikipedia:Notability (books), which is only an essay or proposed policy. The only guidelines we have are on the naming conventions page [10], which states "Ask yourself if several libraries or bookshops, or a no-subscription website have a copy of the book," My local bookshop did not have the book, but did have some other more notable conspiracy theory books. Why can't we just include mention of the book in the Sander Hicks article? --Aude (talk contribs as tagcloud) 14:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Even if you were right, which i do not assert, the article still fullfills point 1. And that is all that is needed to assert notability. --Striver 15:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

That is not reasonable. Do we want articles for all 600 of Isaac Asimov's books? — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Criteria #1 is part of a proposed, not yet agreed-on policy. Take a look at Category:Writer stubs. All these writers are apparently notable enough for articles, yet only notable enough to have stub articles. Now, do we want to compound these writer stubs by creating stub articles on each of their books? For that reason, I disagree with proposed criteria #1. I highly suggest we keep details of a writer's books in the writer article, unless the book is so notable that it meets criteria #3, #4, or #5, or the article gets to be so long that (per WP:SUMMARY), sections need to be split off. That's the case with articles such as Michael Moore, but not writer-stub articles. --Aude (talk contribs as tagcloud) 15:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I did not write that, so i have no idea how much work went into creating it. But i know it is all we have to go by. Regarding point 6, it has a note to it, and by the standards of that note:

And by that standard is the GNN and Baltimore Chronicle reviews non-trivial. Both Guerrilla News Network and the Baltimore Chronicle have articles, thuse are they both notable. You want to dissregard #1? Then Are you going also to dissregard #6 and #7 ? --Striver 19:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Btw, the book also fullills #2. If you look closly, many times is the author presented as the author of this very book, and not as anything else. are we going to ignore #2? If yes, then we have ignored 4 of 7 points.--Striver 19:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I just added Publishers Weeklys review, cementing #6 and #7. --Striver 19:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

added a fourth source, this time an interview. --Striver 19:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom.--Jersey Devil 03:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom GabrielF 01:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Mmx1 02:24, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Striver's research. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Burn baby burn.--MONGO 13:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom—(Kepin)^{RING THE LIBERTY BELL} 12:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete--ChaplineRVine^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 17:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Aaron 22:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. alphaChimp^(talk) 06:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Indira gandhi's 20 point program

Although an important political set of facts, this article is entirely copyvio and a personal narrative. Looking for more opinions on what should be done. As of now, I favor deletion. Rama's arrow 01:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as copyvio, although I can see a summary being salvaged and merged into Ghandi's entry. Akradecki 02:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete "Copy/Paste". No further explanations. ResurgamII 02:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete— Merge or Keep if & only if it undergoes a major rewrite - The topic meets WP:N; a position by a major political figure is noteworthy. But it is almost assuredly a copyright violation unless released by the author or the Government of India, so needs to be summarized in an academic fashion. Attempted to rewrite it to salvage it but could NOT find independent material and was unable to confirm to my satisfaction that it is the work of Indira Ghandi. Does not meet WP:V. - Williamborg (Bill) 02:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I've nominated a similar article Innovation formulae by the same author for deletion as well. After I decided I disliked one of them it wasn't hard to conclude they all were similar. Williamborg (Bill) 03:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. May or may not be copyvio, and what I read does not at all sound like the work of any government. Reads like original research, and there were only five listed points in the version I read. - Smerdis of Tlön 04:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Moncrief 07:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Copyvio, OR, unencyclopedic, POV. About the only thing going for it is the fact that the subject matter would probably be worth an article --Aim Here 12:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. alphaChimp^(talk) 14:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Darrell glascock

Only limited notability. Very minor political player not deserving of an entry. Google finds 37 unique hits [11], a number of which are irrelevant or Wiki mirrors. Should be deleted by WP:BIO. Pascal.Tesson 01:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable Akradecki 02:25, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Nigel ^(Talk) 12:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable.--Nilfanion (talk) 23:40, 6 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 due to withdrawn nomination. Nufy8 23:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ralph Bucky Phillips

I have speedy deleted this twice now. This person is a nn criminal. Take it to Wikinews. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. This manhunt is making news beyond just Upstate New York. Even if Phillips is considered to be an obscure thug, this story has made national news. It's been the top story in western and central New York for months and it's been well-reported in neighboring regions (one of which I am writing from). To approach it from another angle, there are hundreds -- if not thousands -- of Wikipedia articles dealing with items of only regional interest (which, by the way, contributes to Wikipedia's greatness, in my opinion). If this article is deleted for lack of notoriety, there are hundreds of others that must be deleted for the same reason.
• Weak Keep. This man is the most wanted man in New York State right now, having killed one state trooper and critically wounded two others since escaping prison 5 months ago. TJ Spyke 01:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep certainly passes the verifiability test, though notability is a little fuzzier. This may be a case where we should keep for now, then re-visit the issue in a few years to see how it holds up. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I would say this is definitely notable enough to keep for now. This was a top story on www.cnn.com a few hours ago. 5 Months on the lam after breaking out of prison is a lot. The article needs some serious wikifying and clean-up, but I suspect this story is (or will be) nearly on the footing of an Eric Robert Rudolph or the like. I agree with Starblind that we should keep it and see how much more coverage it gets. Irongargoyle 02:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
  • The title should also be changed. His name is Ralph Phillips, Bucky is just his nickname. So if the article stays it should probably be re-names to Ralph "Bucky" Phillips since that is how his name is being displayed. TJ Spyke 02:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki. My suggestion : the text currently in the article should be moved to Wikinews, while a (preferably short) article on Bucky should be left here. The article should contain a sentence each of 1) who Bucky is, 2) what crime he has done that made him NY State's most wanted man, and 3) his current status as a wanted criminal. And it should cite references and further reading from Google news searches etc. Add a current event template and a link to the Wikinews entry, and that should round it up nicely. Nevertheless the text currently in the article is most definitely unencyclopedic, since it is original research IMHO. But it is a nice feature article (without a d); which belongs in Wikinews. --Lemi4 02:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Seeing as with all the cleanup already done, I'm switching my vote to Keep. The way I see it, it seems that we pretty much have a consensus that Bucky Boy's significantly encyclopedic enough. Can an Admin confirm this? What else is needed to close this case? --Lemi4 11:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete or Transwiki. Doesn't really seem to belong here, as really non-notable. Akradecki 02:25, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep* He was the top story on all the news channels today. He has been on the national news. He has shot 3 police officers and been on the lam for months. $250,000 reward is on his head. New York's most wanted criminal. Even after he is caught he will still be notable. KEEP! At least for now. Alot of people are interested in him. I live in PA, and at the state line they have a roadblock set up looking for him. This affects alot of people. --Fredtorrey 02:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This has the makings of an infamous case that will be of interest now and into the future.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Urban011 (talk • contribs) .
• Keep. This is indeed an intriguing case, I agree with the opinions expressed by the other Keep's above.Smeelgova 04:20, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep To me, this is a very relevant current event. I don't really understand why it would be deleted. This site is a place I went to for more information about the man. I'm from the area he's alleged to be hiding out in. I want the kind of info this site may be able to provide. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.61.74.96 (talk • contribs) .
• Comment— Several of the keeps are written by editors with intersting editing patterns. Williamborg (Bill) 05:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

And of course most of these look legitimate. But one hates to see a debate carried by anything but merit. Williamborg (Bill) 05:20, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep as he is notable and in the news. This article needs serious wikification though. Like, yesterday. NeoFreak 05:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This story has become national. --Bamaman 05:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Its an outrage that this article is considered for deletion. A few days ago, this article did not exist. I came tonight to make one as I heard of the news of one of the NYS Troopers deaths. The article does really need clean up, but its our duty to keep it up. Zrulli 06:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep This article really should be kept. This story has just recently made national news and should be kept on the basis of him shooting a state trooper. Also, federal agencies have now become involved. It should be kept, but should be edited and improved. Mfullererie 07:35, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, unencyclopedic. I'm sorry for the family of the trooper he shot, but Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia, not an American current-events site, and this story seems to be of interest only to a limited section of Americans. Moreover, Wikipedia is not a current-events site at all: that's why Wikinews exists.
  The inability of most of the posters above to admit that this is not what an encyclopedia is for will inevitably lead to this being kept for now, but I propose re-listing it in a couple of months, not a couple of years -- because I'm willing to bet that's how long it'll take for him to be forgotten, even by the limited section of Wikipedia's users who have ever registered his existence. — Haeleth Talk 11:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable and newsworthy. Yes, Wikipedia is an international site, but that doesn't mean we ignore things of "regional" interest otherwise half the TV show articles, and virtually all articles on politicians, philanthropists, etc. would have to go too. 23skidoo 14:39, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I really have to agree with the importance of keeping articles of regional interest; one of the greatest thingsd of wikipedia is learning about things that aren't popular or in the news anywhere near you, but still significant. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. I'm a reporter who has been following the Phillips manhunt for the last 5 months, and am surprised it's taken so long for Wikipedia to have an article on the subject. When this ends, Phillips will die among the ranks of some of the most successful fugitives in American history. The national news has already begun covering this, though I'm surprised it took them so long as well, so it's by no means just of a "regional" interest. I have not come across a single fugitive's story that has been the same as Phillips'. — Pfanelli Talk 11:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, it's started appearing in international media, even if it is a sort of silly season diversion, and his run -- and the popular reaction -- has been profiled in the NYT. Back as of here I'd agree it was very iffy, but from here it became a national story and qualified as "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events". I certainly don't see how it qualified in the first place as a speedy delete as "Non-notable subjects with their importance asserted" are not supposed to be speedied. In any case, move to Bucky Phillips per the most-common-name rule. --Dhartung | Talk 15:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Oh, and incidentally -- those earlier articles were better. --Dhartung | Talk 15:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

STRONG KEEP - This fugitive is number 1 on the New York most wanted list with current reward of $250,000 and has been on the run for months on a mission. There is enough interest in his cause to justify this entry.

• Keep per Irongargoyle. I did a quick removal of POV and unencyclopedic content, but this article needs to be completely rewritten; the text appears to be a copyvio [12]. Nufy8 18:39, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Nufy8, good catch -- I was already doing that. --Dhartung | Talk 18:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• COPYVIO, large chunks of this article are copied from the America's Most Wanted page on the case. I believe we should have an article on this guy, but the current one needs to be deleted as a copyright violation. --Edit conflict, apparently Nufy jumped on the copyvio issue too. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Apparently Nufy has excised the violating material, so I'm changing it to Keep. This guy is a most-wanted fugitive in a state with a population larger than many countries. We don't have notability guidelines for criminals, but it's obvious he's had enough media coverage to meet WP:BIO. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• KeepThere are numerous sources, the events surrounding Phillips are notable, he is quickly developing into a cultural symbol in nearby areas (an entirely seperate reason for an article). Also, this is an article about a person, so it would not fit in at Wikinews. In responce the Haeleth's comments, this version of Wikipedia is in english, intended for all english-speakers, of which America makes up a significant portion. I would non delete an article of equal importance elsewhere, but it would obviously recieve less attention if it occured in a non-english-speaking country. Urukagina
• Keep media has publicized him. In a month or two run if through AfD and see if it survives. Nickieee 19:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This is the biggest manhunt in New York State since something like 1973. This has been huge news in Upstate New York for months now, and longer he goes without being caught, the bigger it is getting. As Nickieee said, lets wait another month or so and then see whether or not this will remain wiki-worthy. At this very moment, however, it is. Skudrafan1 21:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep, though with a bit of Clean-Up. He's a nationally-publicized (via "America's Most Wanted") wanted fugitive accused of shooting three law enforcement officials (one fatally) who has (unfortunately) been perceived as some kind of rouge (anti-?) hero. Personally, I think the article here is warranted and doesn't put him in some unjustly deserved positive light, maybe it will even keep people looking for him. Plus I'd like to say (& No Offense Intended) that I think the "Wikipedia is international, not just American" & "not a current-events site" are silly, to put it mildly. RayS NY 22:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This guy is making nation headlines on CNN and MSNBC, he shot 3 state troopers and killed one.this should be kept. Waluigi300 21:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep, he is of partial Native American ancestry & has been traveling between 3 different Native Amarican territories in Western New York. This is a much different situation than if he were, say, a non-Native American just finding refuge in 3 different counties in the state. While these territories are not out-of-bounds to the rest of the public there is a pronounced difference in culture inside the territory. The most that any non-Native American usually sees is the gas station/cigarette store right inside the territory. If you are not a Native American & you go driving farther into the territory, you are going to be noticed. If this event is cast in the light of the historical events over the past 50 years (that have profoundly affected the Native American territories in this region), one can gain understanding of the reasons why he would be sheltered & befriended for most of his time on the run. Cabreet 01:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep, He's a hero and a legend in the Southern Tier of New York. He's been on the national news, he is all anybody can talk about.
• Keep notable enough and newsworthy - this is obviously the kind of information people expect to find in an encyclopedia. ReidarM 07:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above, of course. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong KeepIt may be messy right now, but Phillips' alleged actions are without precident in the history of the New York State Troopers.Grzond 13:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep per Grzond. That said, "this is the top story on CNN right now" isn't really a reason to keep an article. A historical first probably merits inclusion; a currently big news story probably doesn't, at least, not unless it's a top story for a couple of days.–♥ «Charles A. L.» 18:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Please ask for a second opinion the next time you find yourself repeatedly speedy deleting articles which make verifiable claims to notability. Thanks! RFerreira 18:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • What claims of notability does the article make? I see zero. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
    • That makes one of us then. Given the overwhelming consensus here, would you please consider withdrawing this nomination per WP:SNOW? RFerreira 20:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep FBI most wanted list entry for sure... those few hundreds of newspapers and tv stations reporting on him prove his notability.  ALKIVAR™ 23:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong KeepThis whole event documents huge problems in the criminal justice system, not to mention the fact that he was on the FBI's most wanted list, the tv show "America's Most Wanted", etc. Even without that...it's not over yet. Walmartshopper67 02:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• keep please per 23skidoo the person is notable and newsworthy too Yuckfoo 03:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, criminal that attracted a lot of media attention. bbx 05:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep, mostly for notability reasons stated above, and for the fact that it meets WP:V for the fact that it is making news around the area, especially in New York state. I mean hey, if Farris Hassan survived its AfD I can't see why this one would not survive. --Nicholas Weiner 13:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, Bucky has been on CNN,FOXnews, AMV online,and everyday on Northeastern News channels. He has killed a cop and has injured two.--Nimrod1234 20:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep. He's received national media coverage, which follows WP:BIO. It states: Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events. --Nishkid64 22:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep very notable, but I'm going to move it to Ralph Phillips. Wikibout-Talk to me! 23:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• STRONG STRONG Keep - Each representive of FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitives mostly has an article. Shane ^(talk/

^contrib) 00:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep- Bucky has been a hot topic in local and national news. But keep especially for those who might see his name in national news, and come to Wikipedia seeking more information about him and what he has done. ONA4493 02:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep being one of the FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitives makes him worth having a Wikipedia entry --Cspurrier 02:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep Current FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitives should have an atricle. – Zntrip 03:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep No reason not to get a head start on detailing what will probably be a modern day jesse james type figure of sorts. Times just had a headline article, thats a good sign this one is going national. Anyway, wayyy more mundane things get kept all the time. Thechosenone021 03:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Not super-villain level, but notable enough Mad Jack 03:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep current event, well-known. Desertsky85451 03:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep He's not an NN criminal now. I say all Ten Most Wanted Fugitives should have an article. That is an exceptional level of infamy. --Kitch 05:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep Please, may we dispense with any motion to delete this article? More than a Speedy Keep, I wish a Speedy catch for this criminal, I wish that no more State Troopers die. Just consider the terrain involved. I think that most of the world does not realize just how desolate & remote are some sections of New York State. It's not unreasonable that he could remain on the run for years. We have Vietnam Veterans that live in our state forest land. Even near my hometown are there people that live in the woods. Cabreet 09:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. He is on a most wanted list. Kingturtle 13:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: WELCOME TO THE FBI TEN MOST WANTED LIST! --Nicholas Weiner 16:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

His addition to the Ten Most Wanted List makes him notable, I withdraw the nomination. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:36, 8 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 nonsense. (I suspect that it is also an attack article, but can't confirm it.) --Nlu (talk) 09:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Senay line

Urban dictionary neologism with 3 unique google hits. De-prod by anonymous user with an assurance in the article that this terms is gaining popularity (I suppose it would be hard for it to lose something it doesn't have...) Irongargoyle 01:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Only 1 google hit outside urban dictionary, and that from a web forum. Protologism, no reliable sources, clearly doesn't meet WP:V. --Xyzzyplugh 01:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as neologism (though even that might be somewhat too generous a term) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:10, 4 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 03:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Boys First Time

Gay porn site that fails WP:WEB --- Lid 02:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - can't see how this even begins to be encyclopedic. Akradecki 02:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Same reasons as Akradecki. ResurgamII 02:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Daniel Case 03:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. TJ Spyke 04:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Pixelface 08:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. DemosDemon ^{(Talk - contrib)} 10:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Wait... this is a speedy delete candidate per A7 on WP:CSD DemosDemon ^{(Talk - contrib)} 10:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per above, but websites don't fall under category a7 for speedy deletion. NawlinWiki 11:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, and not speedy. A speedy A7 is not something I can even remotely justify, because it's not a vanity page. --Dennis The TIger 19:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete : per nom. This is an encyclopedia! Not a gay porn directory! (Clarificatino : I have nothing against gays, I'm bi myself). --Deenoe 01:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Sango123 18:39, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ES Research Group, Inc.

reads like spam, from non-notable corp Akradecki 02:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 04:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Only 71 unique Ghits by my count [13]. None I see seem to be legit third party references. Pascal.Tesson 08:12, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Sango123 18:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Epitaph Software

Non-notable software company. Prod removed without reason given. Appears also to be vanity article as arctile and author have same name. And yes that is $14.02, not $14.02 MILLION. Wildthing61476 02:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. -- Hawaiian717 02:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I hope this is just a gag. Epitath's web site is hosted on free web space, for crying out loud. SubSeven 04:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete R.I.P. Dlyons493 Talk 04:34, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• BJAODN the infobox. I like how a "company" with $14 in revenue takes itself so seriously. Delete the rest. Resolute 04:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Joe 05:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:CORP. that was really funny though... :) RN 10:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable company. Net income: $14.02. Now guys, eat your lunch carefully, you don't want the company to go bankrupt... JIP | Talk 11:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• EpitaphSoftware thank you guys for all your comments, specially the one about lunch, thats a good one. I don't care if you delete this article, my marketing guy was out looking for advertising and decided to put us on here even though I told him not too. But please, think before you talk. Because someday you will be eating your words. Anyway go ahead, do what you wish.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.63.123.218 (talk • contribs) .
• Delete. Non-notable and 66.63.123.218 says the article was created by an advertising guy. --Optichan 14:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• BJAODN. Looks like a load of good free publicity or a surprisingly funny joke. --Cloth Ears 14:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Based out of a basement... alphaChimp^(talk) 23:20, 8 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. alphaChimp^(talk) 05:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Primal therapy

I see no real assertion of notability here. While it's not itself original research, it is report of research of little confirmed validity and importance. Delete Nlu (talk) 02:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. This is a well-known concept in psychotherapy and is even known to pop culture thanks to musicians such as John Lennon and Tears for Fears. Whether it is currently considered a valid therapy among psychologists is a matter to be discussed in the article itself, rather than a reason to delete it. --Metropolitan90 03:34, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. While possibly being completely out now, this was a big fad back in the 1970s. A Google Books search gets 1420 hits. up+l+and 03:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
  • P.S.: WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHH!! WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!! WOOOOOOOOOOAAAAAAAA! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!! up+l+and 16:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC) (Restoring my primal scream, which was deleted by Nlu. Possibly a silly joke, but not vandalism, and I see no reason to tolerate it being "reverted" as if it were. up+l+and 21:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC))
    • Comment That's a great line, and since it's on GDFL I'll probably use it. It seems appropriate for many other AfD discussions I've been involved in :-) Dlyons493 Talk 21:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep was a big fad once Dlyons493 Talk 04:35, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep— You youngsters might not have heard of it, but Primal therapy was in college textbooks when I was a pup. Always suspected Primal therapy was to psychotherapy as chiropractics is to medicine. But we do have article on chiropractic health care. Williamborg (Bill) 05:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. On the issue raised in the intro to this article about lack of independant peer-reviewed outcome studies, I recently emailed Arthur Janov for any web links or biographical references he could give me. He granted me a telephone interview a couple of days ago in which he assured me that his upcoming book "Primal Healing..." will contain such references and the book is due for release shortly (4 to 6 weeks in the USA, I believe, and late in the year in other English speaking countries). --GrahameKing 11:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. SweetP112 14:25, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Primal Therapy is not dead. And Arthur Janov is still living. And Primal Therapy works. Not even the antagonists of the old doctor deny that. 172.173.59.242 16:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Sorry. I thought the English WIKIPEDIA is not so strange like the German WIKIPEDIA. But probably I m wrong ... 172.173.59.242 19:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

PS Maybe I m not wrong. 172.173.59.242 22:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Whether it works or not, or still used or not, it's clearly a genuine psychological concept, and notable. --Shirahadasha 23:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Without offering any opinions on the validity of the theory (which is irrelevant) this was extremely hot back in the 70's and remains somewhat active today, even if no longer trendy and endorsed by every other Hollywood celebrity, as it was then. Fan-1967 00:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Well-known (at least in the U.S.) part of the history of pop psychology. Michael Kinyon 07:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I Think the whole argu is just a personal defence of Nlu tho prevent him from feeling his own primale pains. But how ever I do'nt think that 93% is a minority. By the way Grahame. You did a good job. May be we can work together on a translation of the articles of primaltheory and primal pain for german to english.--Chip62 m 09:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Puzzled that this is on the deletion list - it's well known in the psychotherapy world.MarkThomas 15:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, what? --Liface 07:44, 6 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 02:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hero Clothing

Non-notable company fails WP:CORP. One of their primary vehicles of advertising is myspace. I prod'ed, author removed tag. I'm listing here. alphaChimp ^laudare 02:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - From the MySpace page: "Im josh.. i work at mcDonalds.. im hoping to make manager soon.... "[sic] Not notable and the origin story needs verification. --Transfinite 02:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete - can this be speedied? HawkerTyphoon 03:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

  Sadly, I don't think it meets any of the criteria. Gwernol 03:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

  Speedy under A8 - copyvio? It's all copied from his website. HawkerTyphoon 03:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

  Maybe... If I had originally felt it was a speedy, I would have deleted it a while ago. That casts it in a little of a different light though. I think it's a conflict of interest for me to delete it, but that's not to stop somebody else from doing it. alphaChimp ^laudare 03:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

  Withdrawn my speedy suggestion per Gwernol's reasoning :-) HawkerTyphoon 03:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Delete Large parts of the article are unverifiable - even their website makes no mention of "10 stores" for example, which I suspect is untrue. Beyond one website and the myspace page, this seems to be a non-existent company that clearly fails WP:CORP. I wonder if they even sell clothes? Wikipedia is not advertising space. Gwernol 03:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

  Note The "10 stores" claim was changed after I made this comment ([14]). Gwernol 03:20, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete for failing WP:CORP. It's just not either notable or verifiable enough. That may change someday, and I wish the best of luck to the company's founder in that regard, but it's not ready for Wikipedia by our standards yet. Antandrus (talk) 03:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete— fails WP:CORP Williamborg (Bill) 05:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Largely unverifiable; Wikipedia is not the place for publishing a business plan. Delete without prejudice: recreate the article when the company meets the criteria at WP:CORP. --RobertG ♬ talk 08:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - The article is unencyclopedic in tone, is written entirely by one person whose only contributions are related to this article. According to Alexa, the only page that links to heroclothing.com is the MySpace profile. Obviously Wikipedia itself hasn't yet been noticed, but one site? This is advertising written for a non-notable company, probably by an employee/the owner, and filled with unverifiable information.--Dreaded Walrus 10:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Nigel ^(Talk) 12:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and NN. --DieHard2k5 01:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Do not delete. there are some links I found on google that link to this site. The site looks to be credible. Typing in "heroclothing.com" brings up about 7 pages of results on google and some of those links are news releases on the company.--JohnnyD06 21:16, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment: User's first edit. And 7 results on Google does not fulfill notability. Heck, my mom has more than 7 results on google. =] --DieHard2k5 01:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Again, if you're readin this, Josh Ellis - Please read WP:N. If you don't fit in, we can't have you in. Simple as that. HawkerTyphoon 01:26, 7 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 02:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] G. Edward Griffin

There is quite a bit of assertion of notability here. However, the links to the organizations that Griffin are involved in are all external links to organizations that appear to have little notability themselves. Unless notability actually shown, Delete. --Nlu (talk) 02:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I am sure that the man has acheived enough to deserve an atricle and although the organizations aren't too notable, they're good enough to deserve a mention. I vote Keep.

It says he authored The_Creature_from_Jekyll_Island - that seems like a fairly decent claim to importance. RN 10:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

As well as being the author of The_Creature_from_Jekyll_Island this man also made one of the first film documentaries about political corruption in regard to the Federal Reserve system, that alone in my opinion make this man one of the most remarkable people in media at least of or modern time. i know of no other person that clearly put themselves on the record like this man did in 1960(1)(2), and that is not even regarding the many organisations Mr Griffin Founded etc – Keep surely seriously -Theblackbay 10:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Also I find it a little perturbing that the article is under construction and someone is trying to delete it? can't we see it finished and then make a decision? or don't we want to see it finished? -Theblackbay 10:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Some people think that if an article has to be deleted at all, it's better to do so before too much work has gone into it, because all that work will be wasted if the AfD debate leads to a "delete" decision. Imagine how much worse it would be if you'd spent months and months perfecting the article, and then somebody had said it should be deleted! — Haeleth Talk 12:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• I think this is likely to be a keep per WP:BIO: his books seem to have received the "multiple independent reviews" that the guideline proposes as a test for an author's notability.
  More information about the controversies that must have erupted around his theories on cancer would reinforce his case. — Haeleth Talk 12:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - Claim of notability appears fairly well established. Unless the original tagger can support his own assertion that writing ten books and appearing in or producing three films is not "notable". Wjhonson 15:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - per above --Mysmartmouth 15:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• • Comment - I've significantly expanded his list of Works, and added the ISBN and OCLC numbers for easy proof that his works actually exist in various libraries. I would also like to point out that "G Edward Griffin" gets eighty eight THOUSAND google hits.Wjhonson 16:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per Wjhonson. Gyre 17:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep known author. Nickieee 19:39, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The article needs cleanup, not deletion. The encyclopedia would be much better off if those who run around screaming that we should delete a lot of our material would instead use the time to actually bring that material up to standards. Rogue 9 22:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Controversial figure but clearly a notable one. Appears to meet WP:BIO requirements. Sufficient publications to permit a neutral assessment. --Shirahadasha 23:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• • • KEEP - Why delete? Makes less sense than Griffin's fear of internal Soviet takover of the U.S.Hoppkorv 01:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep The man has written 10 books, that certainly entitles him to a Wikipedia entry. I don't see where there's a basis for a deletion argument. Samurai Drifter 03:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - the person in question has written a book which has its own article, and I believe it meets the biography notability criteria quite well. Of course, the article still needs a bit of work in terms of formatting and context, but that's not a basis for deletion. Ronline ✉ 10:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - obviously. NightSky 18:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - I believe that significant notability is evident by comparing this article with the criteria set forth in Wikipedia:Notability (people). Additionally, a google search (with his entire name in quotes) comes up with 87,000 results. If for no other reason, the deletion of this article could create a ‘knowledge gap’ that web users may encounter if they were to search Wikipedia for this man or any of his works mentioned in the article. - Adam Clark^{(User_Talk) (email)} 04:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Thank you Everybody for making sanity prevail! -Theblackbay 08:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• keep this please there is significant notability and meets the bio criteria Yuckfoo 06:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per all of the above comments, subject is quite notable. RFerreira 20:45, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep - The article needs some work to sound more neutral and less like a promotional pamphlet on this guy's work, but it's not nearly the worst I've seen, and he's been prolific if nothing else. Seems just notable enough to keep. --Jaysweet 20:48, 8 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 nonsense and non-notable. --Nlu (talk) 09:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Global Principality of Pazal

Delete - it seems we've got a hoax on our hands. A Google search for this "global principality" yields a whopping 7 hits. Its official site is some free web server laden with annoying ads and redirected via free service CJB.net. Its language smacks of Jennifer Government's online roleplay (especially the graphics).

Let's also take the time to sack Pazal's young monarch as well. Fabricationary 02:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete both Global Principality of Pazal and Dimitri III as non-notable micronation which apparently only exists as a web site and in the mind of its founder, and non-notable purported ruler of the micronation. --Metropolitan90 03:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all Dlyons493 Talk 04:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Someone's delusions of grandeur do not belong here. Resolute 04:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete— this article and Dimitri III per comments by Metropolitan90 and nomination. Williamborg (Bill) 05:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was merge and redirect. --- Deville (Talk) 17:11, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quoyle point

Appears abandoned by its creator, but even if fleshed out is still not sufficiently notable by itself as a fictional location in a novel. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 02:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete I think any actual content here can be covered in the article(s) on the book and movie. --Brianyoumans 06:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge in condensed form with The Shipping News (section "Film version") and redirect. --Lambiam^Talk 08:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. alphaChimp^(talk) 14:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SuperObscura

The creator of this Article, who sounds like he might be the owner of the site, is bassically describing the whole site. I already removed two sections that were about his staff forums or something. He links to the Guidelines and Rules, making it look to me like he wants all users who he recruited from wikipedia to read the rules. This article fails WP:WEB in my opinion.

Alan 02:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - shameless plugging for a forum which utterly fails WP:WEB. The only Google hits I can find are a few posts on other forums begging people to join. -IceCreamAntisocial 07:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Alexa spews on this one. It's on a free web host without a distinct domain, therefore it is not notable. MER-C 13:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nom. Nickieee 19:39, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Super Obscure site. Pascal.Tesson 08:14, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. alphaChimp^(talk) 14:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Greg Ames

Appears to be thoroughly unnotable. I was very tempted to simply speedy delete it, but since this is not an area that I know well, decided to AfD it just to make sure. --Nlu (talk) 02:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete -- This article is entirely unreferenced. John254 03:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete— per nomination and John254. Williamborg (Bill) 04:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete not notable. Nickieee 19:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Sango123 18:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jon harchick

"Jon is 'probably' one of the most hated people on the Internet"? If this typifies his work, I can see why (although, to be fair, I'd never heard of him before this. Listed here rather than speedied as it does seem to be asserting notability/notoriety, but not remotely to any standard we have. When you put your own name as a (redlinked, naturally) category, you have ended all need to argue that this isn't the vanity page's vanity page. Daniel Case 03:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - very thin claim of notability, and the claim is inherently unverifiable. Unless he's a personality written about in external (and thus verifiable) sources, this fails Wikipedia's criteria for biographies. --PeruvianLlama^(spit) 03:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom, and I already speedied this. --Merovingian - Talk 03:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 03:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom & Peruvianllama. Williamborg (Bill) 04:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete probably could have been speedied anyway. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 07:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per PeruvianLLama. --Pixelface 08:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. JIP | Talk 11:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete - CSD G4. MER-C 13:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd be willing to let this AfD run its full length in order to get a consensus for deleting and salting the page. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 14:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Strong delete, fails WP:BIO. Salt after deletion. --Kinu ^t/_c 23:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete "His audience is comprised of his friends and classmates" says everything that needs to be said about this individual's notability. The candor is appreciated and commendable, but unfortunately the article doesn't meet Wikipedia's criteria per WP:BIO. --Shirahadasha 23:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete per nomination. Pathlessdesert 12:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I re-edited the prose, and corrected grammar/spelling mistakes. Further, the Bio critereon are far from being immutable guidelines, they are admittedly refuted by wikipedians, and are not law. If you believe that the prose is still sub-par, address me with specifics. If you feel that the violation of guidelines (which are clearly labelled as not being wikimedia policy) is wrong, then I challenge you to ask yourselves about the point of wikipedia as a whole. Information wants to be free, and this is doubtlessly information. CameronB 04:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: No, WP:BIO is not policy... but it is a consensus-driven standard that most established editors of Wikipedia apply. As for the purpose of Wikipedia, this and this should answer any questions. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Thank you, Kinu, for the information. Your brief links showcase no obvious problems evident in this article, and should serve as an indication of the case to retain the page. A brief search on google has produced an undeniable "Anti-Jon" sentiment, so it is obvious the gentleman is out there on the net, and known to the internet community, even if not known by the largest portion. Since Wikipedia is doubtlessly not a popularity contest, I would hate to think that "He's not popular enough" is a valid arguement. It takes little effort to verify his presence and notoriety. CameronB 16:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
• delete please it seems like a attack article if media covers him we can recreate later Yuckfoo 17:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Come on! I seen worse articles than this on wikipedia. Just do a google search for "Jon Harchick" and you will see just how notable he really is. I don't believe it takes a Jay Leno show appearance to get on wikipedia. I mean com'on what do you guys have to loose a whole 12kb of server space? domskidan 17:58, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. alphaChimp^(talk) 06:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Airwavesfm

Promo page for currently nn website. Daniel Case 03:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - does not assert notability. Alexa ~ 1,000,000 * pi [15] MER-C 13:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Nigel ^(Talk) 15:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. alphaChimp^(talk) 06:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Innovation formulae

A quick check of the web site will confirm for your satisfaction that this is an advertisement masquerading as an article. Williamborg (Bill) 03:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Strong delete per nom. Cannot be made into an article. Daniel Case 03:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete -- This is an advertisement. John254 03:39, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 04:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete per nom. It reads like a non-native user of English is trying to write buzzword bingo in the style of a management consultant: As an after-effect of the application of the ingenuity there may be multi-various and vicious range of off-springs. - Smerdis of Tlön 04:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Copyvio, but not speedy deletable. I'll mark it. ColourBurst 14:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Sango123 18:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SomethingFM

Another promo page for NN website that claims it "has gained popularity extremely quickly". Yet I couldn't find any news coverage in 797 Ghits^{[Check Google hits]}. Daniel Case 03:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete seems to fail on notability Nigel ^(Talk) 12:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Alexa ~ 3,700,000. [16] MER-C 13:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete— per nomination. Agree it is promotional. They cna come back when they are truly big! Williamborg (Bill) 20:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi guys, I'm Bungledust - the guy who put the article up. I put it up because I thought people would generally be interested, because the site is growing and getting some big names, and thought that people would want to know what it is. It is completely unbiased and says exactly what somethingFM is about. However, it seems destined to be deleted. Just wanted to know: At what stage would this page be deemed fit to be a wikipedia article? Is it a certain number of hits, certain number of links, etc? It might not be relevant to American users (aimed at an Australian audience); would that affect it's notability? Thanks guys.

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

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

The result was merge and redirect. I would have to say that this doesn't meet Wikipedia:Notability (songs), but this isn't a very fleshed-out guideline. However, just running through the obvious list, it seems to me that none of the songs from Kuch Kuch Hota Hai, or Kabhi Khushi Kabhie Gham, have their own pages. These movies (and thus their songs) are clearly much more notable than Kuch Naa Kaho, so, taking the other articles as precedent, I would say that Baat Meri Suniye To Zara doesn't cut the standard guidelines applied to WP articles about Bollywood. If and when the editors of Bollywood articles decide it's appropriate for films to have individual song pages, these can come back, but my guess is that the community will not go that way, since the information on these songs fits quite naturally and easily into the parent articles in the first place. --- Deville (Talk) 17:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Baat Meri Suniye To Zara

There are no song notability guidelines yet, but I don't think a "great song" at the beginning of the movie would qualify under any standard. Daniel Case 04:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep I think it’s just the "Great Song" part that should be removed, and it should be made a stub. It has potential to become bigger; it’s just the "Great Song" part which is leaning towards one side, removing the neutral point of view. - Alan 03:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Songs often have individual pages. This is true for anyone from Jay-Z to Eminem. Why not have a page for this song which was in quite a popular movie? Nlsanand 06:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as written. As it stands right now, there's no assertion of notability. --Nlu (talk) 09:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete The page has almost no content in it, although okay if merged into Kuch Naa Kaho. ColourBurst 21:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete Kuch Naa Kaho was one of the major flops in 2003. Also, the song is not very popular and very few people may remember it. As such it should be deleted. Also, I will add Tumhe Aaj Maine Jo Dekha in the AFD as a non notable song from the film. --Ageo020 22:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strond Delete I am not good in math but India produces over 600 films every year each having an average of 10 songs. That's 6,000 songs in 1 year, 300,000 in 50 years. No notability established, hence no need to keep. The criteria of notability overrides precedence IMO. --Antorjal 05:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:SONG Ohconfucius 09:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, or merge the only two vaguely encyclopedic sentences—"It runs for a 4:52 minutes. In english [sic] it means 'come on, Listen to me'"—into Kuch Naa Kaho. Pan Dan 20:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - no notabillity established. BlueValour 02:47, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
• keep please or merge per wp:csb Yuckfoo 17:43, 9 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, Wikipedia is not a collection of anti-Mormon attack pages lacking the slightest encyclopedic content. --- Deville (Talk) 19:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Berkeley of the West

This phrase is a protologism. A google search for this phrase only shows 12 pages of results. Of those, at least four are mirrors of this wikipedia entry and five are completely unrelated to the usage described in the article. This is far below the threshold to even be considered a Wikipedia:Neologism Ryan Gardner 03:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Inherently POV to boot. Daniel Case 04:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - coverted from Keep *Keep— I know that the language evolves, but a phrase was not a neologism or protologism last I checked. Perhaps slang, but we have no policy against slang (& indeed Wikipedia has a ton of it). So one needs to consider the article on its merits.

This doesn’t fit any existing article well; it comes most closely to being an example of critics considering the culture of Mormonism to be authoritarian, deceptive, & delusional (which is most certainly POV but survives in an unchallenged article).

So this small article could reasonable serve as the nucleus for non-Mormon commentary on the Mormon culture. It is borderline on notability but it does pass the reference criterion (it has references).

And unlike Encyclopædia Britannica (EB), which is constrained by physical size and number of editors to a limited number of broad articles and must focus on big topics, Wikipedia can cover both big topics and the niches. Although a minor article, it is factual and Wikipedia is not paper. Skål - Williamborg (Bill) 04:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete The above comment notwithstanding, Wikipedia:Neologism explicitly encompasses "words and terms". This one appears to be minimally used and primarily a vehicle for POV. Choess 05:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Agree that your read is correct; terms can mean "word, word pair, or word group" per the Wikipedia. So I struck my comment above. Well & carefully read. Thanks - Williamborg (Bill) 20:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Nuh uh.-Kmaguir1 06:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as neologism with little evidence of common usage. --Metropolitan90 07:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Although a minor article, it is factual and Wikipedia is not paper. Reswobslc 03:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as neologism with no quality references. The "dictionary" page that it cites is nothing but a humor page. Even within that humor page, the term isn't given it's own definition, but is used as a passing reference in the definition of "BYU". The wikipedia is not paper, but it is not a collection of trash either. --Ryan Gardner 05:32, 10 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 Woohookitty per WP:VAIN and article recreation after this AFD from August.

[edit] Piotr blass

Non notable academic on the basis of web page quoted in article [www.pblass.com]. Prod removed. Samir धर्म 03:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Appears to be vanity page, added speedy tag. --Wildnox 03:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete, although this could be close to meeting WP:PROF. Brief article about his Florida candidacy here, which is not nearly enough for WP:BIO. Better references might convince me that he is notable. Unfortunately, this article is so incredibly painful to read that I can't get any more out of it. bikeable (talk) 03:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Question from a non-American: Piotr blass mentions that Blass is a candidate for the Florida gubernatorial election, 2006. That article lists him as a Write-in candidate which, as far as I can tell, means he's not really a candidate at all, merely someone who has campaigned for people to write his name on the ballot? And thus would not be notable on the grounds of being an electoral candidate? --Stormie 04:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Very good point. And yes, that would mean he is not notable as a candidate unless he can prove that he is widely popular. --Wildnox 04:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete I already tagged this as a speedy delete. Looks like a vanity page. --Transfinite 04:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I could swear this was deleted before, because it is an autobiography. Ryūlóng 05:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Answer to non american a write in candidate has equal rights to all other candidates in florida

for 5300 dollars that changes to having your name printed on the ballot I decided against this course of action. The recent palm beach post plambeachpost.com has published a major positive article about my campaign putting it in the context of ideas of einstien and gandhi

as for other comments i am preparing vast documentation of notability of my work including its inclusion in the paris academy,russia and japan mainly about zariski surfaces

also the important impact of ulam quarterly journal will be documented and discussed with top editors in jim wales office i take this very seriously and please do not feel you can decide this unless you know mathematics at the ph d level at least. thanks dr piotr blass

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

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

The result was delete. alphaChimp^(talk) 06:08, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Allison Pfau

Non-notable by herself per WP:BIO -Nv8200p talk 03:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete- per nomination Williamborg (Bill) 04:39, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete- per nomination. There's nothing there. BTLizard 10:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete -per nomination. --Jonnymoblin 19:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Nitro Girls. It's common practice to redirect articles about band/club members to the article about the band/club itself. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 19:25, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete not notable. Nickieee 19:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete, the article itself, and the sources, explicitly say that there is no evidence that this phenomenon exists. --- Deville (Talk) 19:54, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Windows rot

Three sentences pretty much cover the basics: neologism, uses a blog post as its primary source and ends admitting the phenomenon is anecdotal and speculative. Daniel Case 04:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect to computer senility. --Merovingian - Talk 04:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with computer senility. I like the term Windows rot but have to agree that by itself it doesn't appear to warrant an entry. Williamborg (Bill) 04:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and improve - there must be some better references to be found, as I'm sure anyone associated with PCs has heard or used the term in description of a system that "just doesn't work as well as it used to". Ace of Risk 14:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect/Merge to computer senility. Very unlikely to improve considering it is a recent, pointless neoligism. RN 16:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect/Merge as RN stated above. CloudNine 15:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Pointless neoligism, huh? Considering that it is a common diagnosis of exclusion with computer technicians, I would hesitate to call it "pointless". However, I concur that it is a neoligism at this time, and consequently agree with the article's deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.82.34.243 (talk • contribs)

• Keep 746 Google hits, and from personal experience I've heard IT people talk about it for quite a few years. If the article ends up educating the reader that the phenomenon doesn't exist, that itself would be useful. Kla'quot ^Sound 06:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • 200 unique, all to blogs, and some talking about "window rot", a different phenominon :). If one were to use reliable sourcing guidelines for this article which they would, all you would have is the quote from the eweek article, which is a best a dictionary definition. Its basically a protologism. If someone can come up with more than a single article I'd be more convinced... RN 06:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Never heard of Windows rot... This should be merged with bit rot (82,500 Google hits) or cruft (1,870,000 Google hits) - both of which are a better fit. 15:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect/Merge as mentioned above. --MaNeMeBasat 14:45, 10 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 userfy and then delete. It barely satisfies WP:V and surely doesn't come close to being notable. No reference is made in the article, or here, or anywhere I can find of any third-party source writing about this. If there were an article on the WCBU 2004, then this could be a section in that article. --- Deville (Talk) 20:58, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Currier Island

It's a blatant hoax, written well enough to avoid being speedied. Danny Lilithborne 04:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• not a hoax Currier Island is an ultimate team that did compete at the 2004 World Beach Championships. For verification, see http://wcbu2004.org/scores.htm

As other sports teams (including ultimate frisbee teams) have appeared on the Wikipedia website, I don't see why Currier Island should not be included. --Minhja 04:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• • Comment The article presents Currier Island as if it were a country, which it's not. Rewrite the article so it's clear it is a frisbee team and not a country. Danny Lilithborne 04:31, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• • Sorry for the confusion. I will make the changes. Thanks. --Minhja 04:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep The article needs some links in it for verification. I don't see a whole lot of activity on the net about this - is it still active? Brianyoumans 06:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I am confused as to why Danny Lilithborne thought the article was a confusing hoax - all the versions I see in the history seem quite clear as to the fictional nature of Currier Island. Brianyoumans 06:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment An article that says "fictional country" without saying it's from a fictional story or the like is going to have notability problems. Danny Lilithborne 06:40, 4 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 21:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Big plastic factory

Webcomic, not notable. Tracker/TTV (myTalk|myWork|myInbox) 04:25, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete: "Within months, it morphed into animated shorts and collectable street non-action figures." Truly notable webcomics don't need to sell themselves like late-night TV hucksters. Daniel Case 04:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete It has had the domain bigplasticfactory.com since August 2006. Why don't we give it a little more time to catch on before having an article on it? --Brianyoumans 06:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Don't Delete I have been reading the thing for a year now. It's notable to me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.200.237.82 (talk • contribs) .
• Don't Delete Notability confirmed. [17]. 9/8/06 5:16 PM --Gregoryashadwick
• Don't Delete Image:Plastic factory.jpg —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gregoryashadwick (talk • contribs) .
• Delete, article content does not meet our policies as it is unverifiable through reputable third-party reliable sources. -- Dragonfiend 19:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
• This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. Dragonfiend 19:34, 9 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. --james^(talk) 13:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lynn Hershman Leeson

Previously deleted under the A7 criteria. Apparently it now has enough to barely survive that, but I still don't think this person deserves an article. Her only claim to fame is that she wrote, directed, and produced the independent film Conceiving Ada. The film received no awards according to IMDb - and in fact, it doesn't even have any box office information listed there, which seems to indicate it never had any kind of real release pattern or distribution. --Hetar 04:31, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - When one has to revert to Google testing for something written, you suspect it is a slim topic; I began this originally with a delete. But Goggle shows 39,000 hits, many of which show some merit. Someone needs to beeef this article up. But she passes WP:N. Keep it - Williamborg (Bill) 04:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep - Her movie does actually look like a major production, with stars and everything. I like the user review on IMDB; it said in part: "The only good thing I can say about this film is that Tilda Swinton was in it. I have no idea why an actress of her caliber consented to appear in such a dud, but she most likely regrets it now." Nonetheless, it was apparently distributed in both US and Germany. --Brianyoumans 05:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Conceiving Ada was reviewed in the New York Times, San Francisco Chronicle, and San Francisco Examiner, which suggests some kind of release. [18] And the fact that Swinton starred in Leeson's next film, Teknolust, suggests that she didn't regret making Conceiving Ada. --Metropolitan90 07:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep after having a look at the IMDB profile. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 07:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Multipule IMBD credits... never was an A7 candidate IMO DemosDemon ^{(Talk - contrib)} 10:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above comments, nowhere near an A7 candidate although I cannot read what was deleted. RFerreira 18:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. alphaChimp^(talk) 14:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Morehouse College Mock Trial

Despite the boldfaced notability claims in the article, I don't think we have any articles on mock trial teams. Like marching bands, they mean a lot to the people in them but that doesn't make them WP-worthy Daniel Case 04:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response

I fail to see how they are not WP-worthy just because a person does not participate in them. The purpose of Wikipedia (in my opinion) is to spread information and educate people on a wide variety of issues. Just because something may "mean a lot to the people in them" does not justify why it can not be shared with people who "are not in them". I feel that Mr. Case's rational smacks of Exclusiveness and basically forces contents on Wikipedia to be "only things that people are apart of". If we are to follow Mr. Case's logic, then there should be no Wikipedia articles on any athletic teams, professional or collegiate since the majority of fans and viewers "are not apart of them".

What does Mr. Case mean by, "they mean a lot to people in them"? Does he simply mean the actual students who compete in them? Or does he mean the countless professionals in the legal community who volunteer to coordinate and regulate the competitions held on campuses all across the country? Or does he simply mean the hundreds, if not thousands of students who have participated in the competitions in prior years, but still wish to remain informed about other teams in the competition? I would ask that Mr. Case not be so broad and vague in his assumptions regarding who will and will not have an interest in this information.

Mr. Case is right in his assumption that there aren't any articles on mock trial teams on wikipedia. Considering that it is one of the most competitive collegiate activity with 600 teams, I feel that more schools should provide information about their Mock Trial programs so that others can learn about the educational and academic competition.—Preceding unsigned comment added by TruOne (talk • contribs)

Your opinion means nothing as far as what the purpose of Wikipedia is. We are an online encyclopedia. Nothing more, nothing less. We have guidelines concerning what is, and isn't, notable enough to be included here. When I said that we don't have any other articles on individual mock trial teams, I mean that it does not appear that any other articles about mock trial teams have been written or survived a deletion vote. I mean that we have been working on criteria for what makes an organization notable under which most mock trial teams would not be included.

TruOne points to the amount of time that people spend putting these things together. That doesn't justify inclusion by our criteria. People spend similar amounts of time organizing Little League teams and games ... I'm sure you would agree we can't and shouldn't have an article on every single Little League team, ever.

Wikipedia is not about whether people would be interested in reading about it or not ... we don't sell ads here, we don't care how many people read or don't read a particular article. I don't deny that mock trial programs are important and educational. But if colleges and universities want others to "learn about the educational and academic competition", they can easily do it on their own wesbites. Daniel Case 05:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - This is a college organization; it should be mentioned in the Morehouse College article, or in an article on student organizations at MC. If we don't have an article on mock trials at the college level, we should definitely get one written. --Brianyoumans 05:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or if possible Merge with Morehouse article. NeoFreak 06:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator, although a sentence or two in the school's article would be acceptable too. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 07:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge - I would recommend merging with article with the Morehouse College article as well, however, it was recommended on the Morehouse College article that this organization be given its own article. If the information on this article could be merged onto the Morehouse page and all of the factual information and awards appear as well, then I would have no problem with that proposal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TruOne (talk • contribs)
• Delete - the information should be in the college's article. BTLizard 10:34, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and merge the essential idea to the main article. feydey 11:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, preserving important information in more general articles as suggested above. — Haeleth Talk 12:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Student society, not sufficiently independent and notable for own article per WP:ORG. Content may be merged per above if appropriate. Ohconfucius 09:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. alphaChimp^(talk) 14:41, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outpost: Coagulation

See the previous deletion discussion, which resulted in deletion. This article is probably substantially different from the original, which makes it an invalid speedy, but the underlying problem remains: There is a dearth of verifiable, reliable third-party sources for this series. Google returns only 31 unique hits, some of which are forums and other unreliable sources. No sources or even external links are provided beyond the production group's home page. Wikipedia:Verifiability states: "If an article topic has no reputable, reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on that topic." — TKD::Talk 04:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of machinima deletions. — TKD::Talk 04:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Per nom.--Drat (Talk) 05:35, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Nigel ^(Talk) 12:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Unlike popular series like Red vs Blue, these guys are obviously not noticeable, as the nomination proves handily. My Alt Account 03:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete, I'm not that convinced that there couldn't be an article about this, but this whole article is just cut and pasted from their website so it's a copyvio and nothing is lost by deleting it. - Bobet 10:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Girbau

Non notable corporation; advertising. Brianyoumans 05:39, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Daniel Case 05:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and Cleanup Appears to be notable. Google turns back more than 100,000 results for Girbau and more then 10,000 for "Girbau" "laundry". Article on the otherhand needs a complete rewrite. Canadian-Bacon ^{t c e} 06:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Counting Google hits is not research. Research involves actually reading the pages that the Google search turns up. Did you turn up any sources that would satisfy the WP:CORP criteria? If so, please cite them. Did you notice that many of your results were for people with the surname Girbau, or for Girbau, the town in Romania? Uncle G 18:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - Did a bit more research; the company does seem to distribute world-wide. It doesn't deal with the public much, as it makes industrial laundry machines. I saw nothing in the way of articles about the company, but there may be some in the Spanish press. I think I'm down to a 'weak delete', but if someone can find some articles about them in the popular press, I'd say 'keep'. --Brianyoumans 07:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete not notable. Nickieee 19:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete not-notable, unless it can be shown that it is a significant player in the Industrial laundry equipment sector, in terms of market share, innovation, etc. --Vsion 04:59, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jim Underwood

No notablity, no sources, and has been this way since 2004. Arbusto 05:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Is this the same Jim Underwood who wrote "More Than a Pink Cadillac" (a book about Mary Kay)? I suspect it isn't, but I can't find any biographical info on that Jim Underwood; if it IS the same guy, it was a best-selling book. Our Jim Underwood is in fact still a prof at Dallas Baptist, that is easy to verify from their site. --Brianyoumans 06:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and continue expanding. He is the best-selling author. --Use Your Naugin 09:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: New user's only edits are on my AfD. Suspected Jason Gastrich (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) sock. Arbusto 16:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep appears to be a published, well-selling author of business books. RN 09:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Verify "published" and "best selling" with sources, and we'll keep it. Arbusto 16:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• [19] - usa today review, [20] - businessweek bestseller list. RN 16:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Read "Brianyoumans" comment above. Those two articles you posted are about a book about Mary Kay Ash called "More Than a Pink Cadillac." Can you verify a professor at the Dallas Seminary (as the article claims) is also the "best selling author" of a book about Mary Kay Ash's comestics? Arbusto 17:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete not notable. In order to keep a direct connection must be made between the comestics book and the professor. Nickieee 19:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I did some more research and found a 'smoking gun' - this IS in fact the Jim Underwood who wrote the best-seller. I will update the article. I found at least one other source, a Baptist site, that said the same thing. I don't know why his university isn't making a big deal about it, but he does seem to be the 'Mary Kay' guy. --Brianyoumans 23:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Brianyoumans' research, that is a reliable source. GRBerry 02:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Brianyoumans, also if an article is unsourced, it needs sourcing, NOT deletion. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 09:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, meets WP:BIO as an author.--Isotope23 15:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• keep please per rn the person is notably published Yuckfoo 03:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Brianyoumans Agne 19:45, 8 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, publishing real book with awards meets at least the minimum bar of WP:BIO --- Deville (Talk) 03:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] David Naugle

Fails WP:BIO. Author of a book and claims a PhD, no different than any other college professor. Has no sources or notablity. Arbusto 05:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep and continue expansion. Notable. --Use Your Naugin 09:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: User's first ever edit was on the Naugle today. The first time anyone has expanded it in four years. Still asserts no notablity. Classic Jason Gastrich (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), a banned user. Arbusto 16:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete As non-notable. JoshuaZ 17:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Looking over his CV [21] I find it odd that he was a minister for 8 years then suddenly became a professor in 1987 and got a Th.D the same year. Then earned a PhD in 1998, 8 years after he became the chair of a department at Dallas Baptist University. Arbusto 17:31, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete not notable. Nickieee 19:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unsourced and hagiographic in tone, no credible evidence of encyclopaedic notability. Guy 08:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep published authors from non-vanity house, had a book of the week review with Christianity Today s well. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Badlydrawnjeff, non vanity press author with published reviews. RFerreira 18:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep published author of award winning book. I've cleaned up the book and award reference in the article. Agne 20:06, 8 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 21:18, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Roleplayers Ring

Letting the Wikipedia community decide on this, for me its just some player guild from the game Ultima Online--Jestix 06:25, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per OR and NN. NeoFreak 06:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This is not a player guild it is clearly an online community. You may search roleplaying for details. If we're going to delete a center for roleplayers we might as well remove roleplaying from wikipedia as well. Blake911 07:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

  Huh? Why would we remove a major article like roleplaying if we remove a minor example of one facet of it? That's a total logical fallacy. Daveydweeb (^chat/_patch) 10:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Daveydweeb (^chat/_patch) 10:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, unless this guild community has done something utterly exceptional. Clans and guilds need to be extremely well known to be included here, and this one just doesn't appear to live up to that. Daveydweeb (^chat/_patch) 10:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• keep Again this is not a guild, so both the reason that it needs to be deleted because it is a guild or because it is not a well known guild is invaild. It's not a guild. If you even consider well known guilds as you mentioned, then wouldn't a center for Roleplayers and guilds of all types be good enough?

I say again the reason for deletion isn't good enough because this is not a guild. Please remove your delete request and start a new one if you really feel the need. Blake911 15:34, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Does it fulfill WP:WEB? --Jestix 19:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Harassment Jestix can you stop harassing me, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blake911 (talk • contribs)

The preceding was moved from below, as this user's second !vote. Daveydweeb (^chat/_patch) 09:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete not notable. Nickieee 19:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete no sources, fails to meet WP:WEB and/or WP:ORG guidelines for inclusion. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable. -Simoes 02:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Wickethewok 20:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment This roleplaying community is similar to This article and actually covers more than one on line game. I woulld suggest that an online community that has a decent amount of members and covers several online games and different guild or groups within itself is noteworthy. Thordice 19:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. alphaChimp^(talk) 14:41, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aulola Apikotoa

This article was nominated for deletion by THB but the second stage was not completed. The article appears to be a non-notable person, there does not appear to be a claim of notability, and there are no external links. MLA 12:25, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Delete as non-notable person. THB 15:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete not notable. Nickieee 19:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete— May be notable but can't see that from here. The article doesn't establish notability. Google comes up dry. Williamborg (Bill) 20:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Nuclear Delete I propose the wikinuclear scientists be summoned for a special nuclear deletion, per non-notability.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Shazbot85 (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was delete. alphaChimp^(talk) 14:39, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bloodclan

ATTENTION! If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}

Letting the wikipedia community again decide on this, for me this is just a player guild from the Ultima Online game not meeting encyclopedic notability criterias Jestix 06:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete gaming clans. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 07:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep You may search roleplaying for details. This is more of an information center on Orcs and roleplaying community for Orc fans. You may as well delete Orcs if your going to delete this. Blake911 07:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

In what way is a single clan even slightly comparable to a fundamental concept that has shaped the whole of modern fantasy writing? — Haeleth Talk 12:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, unencyclopedic. And don't expect any objection from me if someone nominates the Orc stuff for deletion. --DrTorstenHenning 08:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Daveydweeb (^chat/_patch) 10:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete fails WP:WEB by a mile and doesn't appear to come close to anything else... RN 10:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as a clan; guilds and clans need to be truly exceptional for inclusion here, and this one doesn't meet that standard. Daveydweeb (^chat/_patch) 10:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per User:Daveydweeb. JIP | Talk 11:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, gaming clan with delusions of grandeur. — Haeleth Talk 12:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable gaming clan. Don't delete Orcs as just because an unencyclopedic non-notable gaming clan are not notable, that does not automatically mean that an encyclopedic article on a notable fantasy standard should also be deleted. Not a great straw man. MLA 14:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep This clan is older and has more history than Shadowclan and yet shadowclan and many other clans are never deleted from this website. I would also say this is more of an ORC Fan website and information center on Black Speech. Rather than a guild only website. --Blake911 15:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

You "voted" already aboth, (however this is not vote nevertheless)

Not going into details of this on notability discussion, but please keep your reality straight.

this clan is older and has more history than Shadowclan -- Blake911

Bloodclan was founded in November 2003 -- Bloodclan article

Shadowclan began in October of 1997 -- Shadowclan article

However age is not criterium per se.--Jestix 16:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, and it's worth noting that Shadowclan is up for deletion now as well, so comparing it to that page doesn't help much. However, even if that clan stays, this one shouldn't, as it lacks any external references beyond its own page to prove its notability. Terraxos 17:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Alright I will redo this with a lot my detail and follow all the guidelines. Delete it if you want so I can take another shot at this. I'm very new to Wikipedia and I'm still learning. --Blake911 22:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Dear Blake911, Actually Deletion is not cleanup. If the discussion results into a delete this is not because the article is badly written, it is because the lemma has been decided to be not notable for an encylopedia. You are then actually not supposed to just start the same article again. Badly written articles about notable topics debark in the "cleanup" section not "afd". --Jestix 07:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep This clan invented many words of black speech (i.e pizbur). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.83.115.19 (talk • contribs) U01:11, 5 September 2006.

Note You cannot invent words of Black Speech. Black Speech is the fictional language of the orcs and other evil baddies in Tolkien's fictional world. To create new words for it, you would have to be Tolkien. If you're claiming they modified Black Speech, that's true, but I don't see how that is relevant here. Shazbot85^Talk 06:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Further Note Review this user's edit history. Edits on this AfD page are the only ones the user has ever made. It is extremely rare for a new user to go directly to a new AfD page and begin editing. I'm unsure as to begin to start investigating sockpuppetry, or meatpuppetry, but Will ask for outside assistance from editors that do. Regards, Shazbot85^Talk 07:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• Withdrawn While I feel my opinion is valid, I withdraw it in the interest of being NPOV. It's very possible my biases could come into play in this discussion and that's against the whole spirit. Regards to all, Shazbot85^Talk 06:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Delete: Not notable. The only keep vote is by the author. Fishermen1 15:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete No evidence of notability. Simoes 02:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

delete—Preceding unsigned comment added by Blake911 (talk • contribs)

• Lock since the author already announced to recreate the page with similar content if it gets deleted, I think it might be wise to lock the lemma in case of deletion. Or this bloodclan thing just keeps us busy. --Jestix 07:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep Encyclopedic information needs to be unbiased. If another gaming guild, shadowclan, is to be allowed then you must allow all other gaming guilds. Or else delete shadowclan as well. If not, who is it that would then decide which gaming guilds are "noteworthy" and which are not? To remain unbiased you must apply a uniform policy.Jackson512 21:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Jackson512 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.

Comment Bloodclan does not come close to meeting notability requirements as Shadowclan does. Letting one highly notable gaming guild in does not mean the inclusion of every gaming guild. Thoseo f no note, such as this one, should be left out. Shazbot85^Talk 21:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment, Hello Blake, I strongly suspect Wikipedia:Sock puppetry (where you are once again in violation) or at least a single purpose account! To your comment, how about no? Because one thing may be noteworthy because of e.g. orginality, does not mean everything of the same class is just as notworthy. This is by the way an uniform policy. --Jestix 21:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment, I am not Blake, and you will not belittle my arguments by accusing me of hiding behind a false identity. As if any identity can really be verified on the internet. If you contend that shadowclan is notewrothy and bloodclan is not, that is your opinion, and certainly a subject for debate, but this is hardly the medium for it. I'm a live and let live kind of guy and you won't see me posting in support of shadowclans deletion on that page. But you ignore one portion of my argument wholly. Who is it then that would decide which gaming guilds are noteworthy and which are not? Certainly not you, since your opinion is obviously biased pro-shadowclan. There are hundreds of other gaming guilds out there that are far more original than either shadowclan or bloodclan, if that is to be your sole criterion of acceptance. At its core this site is for entertainment purposes only, as shown in the welcome screen "Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." Which makes it sound fun. So I say let shadowclan have some fun by being listed here, along with all others who care to make the effort and consider themselves "original" or noteworthy.Jackson512 23:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Jackson512 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.

Your comment makes little to no sense. This is the Bloodclan AfD page, there is nothing in relation to Shadowclan here. Where did you come to find out about this "Shadowclan", if you be such a new user? Shazbot85^Talk 03:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

KeepJackson is right. Fair is fair, gotta either keep them both or lose them both. I say keep em. Choirboy 05:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC):— Possible single purpose account: Choirboy (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.

KeepIt was recently agreed to keep the Shadowclan entry. This group is closely linked to Shadowclan, taking on the role of "carrying the torch" so to speak, therefore it should stay. It is extremely notable as well. If it is removed, then the Shadowclan entry should be removed as well. Drouillm 06:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Wrong In what way are they linked to Shadowclan? Did they imitate them? Yes. nowhere are they a part of Shadowclan though. Is an Elvis impersonator as notable as Elvis? Not in the least. Niether is Bloodclan as notable as Shadowclan. Shadowclan invented a new way of roleplaying. Bloodclan imitated them. While imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, it does not notability make. This vanity page has got to go. Shazbot85^Talk 06:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe in your opinion Bloodclan is not notable, but there are many, many more who believe it to be better known than Shadowclan even. It's wrong to delete a page because a vocal minority of people don't "believe in it". By the way, Wikipedia has a rather detailed article on Elvis impersonator's :) Drouillm 23:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I found websites to compare with Shadowclan. I know we're discussing Bloodclan but since I noticed this has evolved into some clan battle and Shadowclan survived a deletion nomination, I had to compare. When I viewed shadowclans deletion nomination entry. User Shazbot85 made supporting comments to keep the article and then later that he should not have commented since he has biases views as a member of Shadowclan. Which would make his comments here irrelevant. I personally feel both Shadowclan and Bloodclan are noteworthy.

Orc Community Website This website appears to be well known and respected. They have Shadowclan listed right next Bloodclan. Gamers Network Another well known website has them listed here. Another Community website Has them listed as well.

member list This website also has archives of mentioning runuo sponsership. I was going to throw a link up for Runuo but it's already listed on wik and you can click the link.

Thordice 19:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Thordice (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.

• Comment please do not ignore my comment above and I have made a lot more than 2 contributions outside this topic.

Thordice 19:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Those in favor of keeping this article ground their position by asserting Bloodclan's equal notability with a similar gaming group, Shadowclan, whose article has survived a identical AfD nomination. According to the Shadowclan article and its AfD discussion(s), their notability comes from the following:

- Being interviewed for a commercially-published book (a "...for Dummies" book, no less). [22]
- Being written into the official documentation of at least one game in which it was involved, Dark Age of Camelot. [23]
- Being the focus of developers of games in which Shadowclan participates in aside from the above. [24], [25]
- Being the focus of other, non-official game websites. [26], [27], [28]

According to this discussion and the present article, Bloodclan only appears to share this last item, attention from non-official game websites. Aside from falling short of equal notability with Shadowclan, this also constitutes failing to meet the notability requirements for Wikipedia. Simoes 20:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

- Being the focus of developers of games in which Shadowclan participates in aside from the above. [3], [4]

- Being the focus of other, non-official game websites

Blood clan appears to share the last two items and from what I have noticed there is several other gaming clans that survived AfD's with none of the above. They were and still are featured by runuo and UOGamers Website who in my opinion have a larger community than some of the shadowclan links you provided us with.

Thordice 21:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Thordice (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.

First (though I suppose this is obvious to you and everyone else), you have no evidence for your claims. Second, the last two on my list are neither necessory nor sufficient according to Wikipedia:Notability (web). And even if other gaming clans have survived AfD nominations without having any of the aforementioned items (another claim of which you provide no evidence), this would not be grounds to keep this article (refer to the logical fallacy, tu quoque). Simoes 21:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

When this article was submitted it did lack some evidenc and detail. However I prefer it be wikified or kept because it's more than noteworthy. Visit the links I already provided above who represent online gaming websites that feature Bloodclan. Runuo and UOGamers Developers also have mentioned that they focus their attention on Bloodclan.

Thordice 21:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

This vanity page has zero notability. Being mentioned on non-official gamer sites doesn't establish notability, nor does it compare to the recognition Shadowclan has garnered from game developers. Thanks for your effort though! Shazbot85^Talk 04:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Bloodclan has garnered recognition from game and software developers as well.contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.

Like who? Shazbot85^Talk 04:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Still waiting. Shazbot85^Talk 15:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - Non-notable gaming clan. Not WP:V, doesn't meet WP:RS/WP:OR. Wickethewok 13:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Bloodclan has garnered the recognition from the runuo team. [www.runuo.com Runuo Website]. They have also been the main focus of attention from two online communties. One of them even has several guilds on several different games more noteworthy than shadowclan within it's community. Please don't ignore my quote from earlier as well. I had to compare. When I viewed shadowclans deletion nomination entry. User Shazbot85 made supporting comments to keep the article and then later that he should not have commented since he has biases views as a member of Shadowclan. Which would make his comments here irrelevant.

Thordice 16:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but this isn't going to cut it. Please see Wikipedia:Notability (web), as well as Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 16:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nominator and flurry of sockpuppets. RFerreira 20:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Please keep in mind the flurry of sockpuppets are mostly Shadowclan sockpuppets.

Thordice 23:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Shadowclan has nothing to gain or lose by this article being here, they have notability, this does not. I seriously doubt that Shazbot85 is a sockpuppet Thodice, nor are Fisherman1 or Jestix or Wickerhewok or 90% of every other person who commented that a delete would be appropriate. I see very few comments made here by anyone who had anything to do with the Shadowclan page, besides myself, Shazbot 85 and...oh, you! Simoes, who has constantly made it clear to you that your fan-site "notability" is not adequate was not involved with Shadowclan either. If anyone is sockpuppeting here, it's you. Be careful of whom you accuse of socking, Blake/Thordice/Jackson512. Zinian 18:01, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Laughable claims of notability.-Kmaguir1 04:34, 9 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 by default - the afd nomination was duplicated at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Blake_Ragsdale_Van_Leer‎ which was closed as Keep by --james^(talk). Yomangani^talk 12:20, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blake Ragsdale Van Leer

Does not seem to meet WP:BIO Jestix 06:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Delete if you want, I didn't study the guidelines when I added this page. I'm going to redo it correctly once it's deleted. Blake911 01:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep. Georgia Tech is a large, well respected school and I would say that its presidents are notable. Several others already have pages. Page should be cleaned up, but the subject is noteworthy. - The Bethling 05:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep, per reasons given by The Bethling. • WarpFlyght (talk) 05:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The following comments are merged from Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Blake_Ragsdale_Van_Leer‎, apparently the result of a syntax error.

Does not seem to meet WP:BIO Jestix 06:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep & Wikify— President of Georgia Tech 1944-1956 is established by this www.library.gatech.edu link. He makes the NC State University College of Engineering Time Line as Dean of Engineering. To reach these positions one must made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field. Appears to me he makes the treshhold for WP:BIO. Skål - Williamborg (Bill) 21:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, made GIT coed[29] and a research school[30], so significant beyond office. --Dhartung | Talk 03:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

End merged comments

Keep He's notable. Shazbot85^Talk 03:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep There's enough evidence of a recognized contribution, and a bit of pioneering. --Mereda 07:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment Here's some more information. "Blake Ragsdale Van Leer, the first engineer to head the school. Van Leer, described as a direct man of military bearing, would oversee a dramatic expansion " Publication from Georgia Tech Alumni Association

Thordice 18:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. alphaChimp^(talk) 06:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cypress Consulting

Blatant advertising. The User:Nthompson71 who started the article just might be the "Nate Thompson" mentioned in the article. -IceCreamAntisocial 06:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete it is indeed. They had Microsoft as a client though but unless someone can provide at least some secondary sources it fails WP:WEB RN 10:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. BTLizard 10:39, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as spam. MER-C 13:23, 4 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. Petros471 18:34, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Access method

Listed on dab pages for cleanup, but I can't see how this can be cleaned up or why it is needed at this time. Neither of the two topics linked to database and networking even contain the term "Access method". Maybe this should be a networking stub or a redirect somewhere but I don't think it should be a dab page. Thatcher131 (talk) 01:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Moved from MFD as this is an article. — xaosflux ^Talk 06:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, not as helpful as it could be but it's a real term. --Dhartung | Talk 04:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Sure, but is it a term you can write an encyclopedia article about, or is it a dicdef for wiktionary? Thatcher131 (talk) 16:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Overly generic, not a term that is fixed and always used (at least for databases and networking). One could create Object method or Protection method or dozens of others, equally useless variants. Pavel Vozenilek 17:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: I just gave it some clean-up as part of my work with Category:Disambiguation pages in need of cleanup. — Reinyday, 07:58, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Pavel and Thatcher. Mangojuice^talk 15:17, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Merge and redirect into Flatbread. — CharlotteWebb

[edit] Sanchuisanda

One google hit that's not a mirror site (18 hits altogether for a very distinctive name), and apparently a 1984 article in National Geographic that I would suspect just mentioned this in a list of varietals. Not global, not even wholly Chinese, just the Qiang region, according to the article itself. Not notable cuisine. Seems like it's not very distinctive in terms of flat breads, and definitely, the notability quotient here is low.-Kmaguir1 07:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect into Flatbread then, as a variant. ColourBurst 14:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect into Flatbread per ColourBurst's recommendation. Skål - Williamborg (Bill) 21:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect per above. Shazbot85^Talk 15:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. alphaChimp^(talk) 06:06, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MyDeathSpace.com

nn websites.--Nynyny 07:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, doesn't meet WP:WEB. feydey 11:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as above & nom Nigel ^(Talk) 12:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and above. MER-C 12:31, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Húsönd 17:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:WEB.-- danntm ^T _C 01:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom --Deenoe 01:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 22:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Heliograph, Inc.

WP:SPAM--Nynyny 07:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as spam. MER-C 12:25, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Confused --66.92.80.172 18:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC)heliograph How is it SPAM? It isn't unsolicited e-mail. It is referenced by other articles (Space: 1889, Forgotten Futures, Diana: Warrior Princess) and is information on a company, just like the articles on White Wolf and Game Designers' Workshop (among others).
• Delete per WP:V. Every article is required to have "credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." This article provides zero. --Satori Son 21:20, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. The Land 16:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Animefu

nn websites.--Nynyny 07:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - no assertion of notability. You should try prodding these articles instead. (It turns out that Alexa is ~ 300,000). [31] MER-C 12:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Fdg35 22:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:WEB --Kunzite 22:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete I have to honestly say that while I've heard of this site, I really have never seen references to it besides of Everything2 and Slashdot banner ads - not exactly a hotspot among anime databases, I guess. It's a niche thing and probably not a hugely known site in any case. It's the state of the article that worries me; a stub for over a year. Meh. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 15:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. The Land 16:17, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rubberslug

nn websites.--Nynyny 07:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Alexa rank > 175,000. [32] You should try prodding this instead. MER-C 12:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Fdg35 22:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:WEB. Prodding does no good because of the serial de-prodders. --Kunzite 22:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete The Land 16:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ABC Idents

This a gallery of various ABC logos. Apart from the obvious fair use problems such an article creates, there really is nothing here to substantiate its existance. I am recommending delete under WP:NOT. --Hetar 07:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Given the importance of ABC, I appreciate having such a reference page, that helps for example in dating old recordings (wish I had something like that for RTL). Fair use should not be a problem, as long as ABC does not attempt to market a compilation of its logos. --DrTorstenHenning 08:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, TV-logo-cruft. Kirjtc2 10:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete as a gallery of fair use images with no encyclopedic content. A releted article managed to survive an AfD in the past, but was deleted anyways for the same reason. —Whomp t/c 17:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
  • What's the point of this discussion if an article can come up with a consensus to keep, only to be unilaterally deleted? Is spending our afternoon trying to reach consensus on AfD a waste of time? Williamborg (Bill) 21:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
    • It's a waste of time if one's arguments are in favour of violating our copyright policies. Our copyright policies are Foundation issues and non-negotiable. If you want to make an argument that this article should be kept, show that there's an encyclopaedia article here. Here's a hint: Without the images, this article has no content whatsoever. It doesn't even tell us which ABC it is about. It has no context. It is speedily deletable on two grounds, and a gross violation of the fair use policy (which is based upon the foundation that the fair use is allowable for "critical commentary and analysis" — an article with zero text contains no commentary or analysis). The best approach to any sort of article such as this is to write all of the text first, and only then add the images. Deleting this, so that Wikipedia doesn't continuously violate copyright until someone gets around to writing such an article, is a good start. Uncle G 01:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Speedy delete as a violation of copyright policy and a article with no context. GRBerry 02:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Merge and redirect (please note ANY user may merge and redirect articles). The Land 16:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Uncle Tyrone

Um, well, one episode, I don't even recall him actually appearing as the article alleged, or having dialogue. But even if he did, he's not recurring in any sense, not even in mention--he is only mentioned in this episode, and not even a key figure in the episode. Merge and Delete.-Kmaguir1 07:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Merge and Delete Wikipedia should not pander to every little Simpsons character that they artists put out. Should Bart Simpson have his own page? Yes. Should "Uncle Tyrone"? Heck no. Include him in a character list on the Simpsons page proper and get ride of this clutter! Shazbot85^Talk 15:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and Delete Perfect for a Simpsons Wiki...way to obscure for Wikipedia. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 16:25, 7 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 The Land 16:25, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wendell Borton

Rare presence, no notability. Delete and merge.-Kmaguir1 07:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Please note that per the GFDL, the edit history of an merged article needs to be retained. Therefore, merge and delete cannot be combined. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Merging into the List of Simpsons characters would lose information. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete The Land 16:28, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pokemon-Safari.com

Was tagged for prod and prod2. Web site for which it has not been shown that it meets WP:WEB. While Pokemon certainly is notable (shudder), Pokemon fansites are not automatically notable. Recommend delete. --DrTorstenHenning 08:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, Alexa rank <10k. [33] Kappa 08:39, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Change vote to merge per Kunzite's suggestion below. Kappa 03:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Kappa's Alexa rank. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as prodder. Vanity article: [34], PokeCruft. This article could be classified as vanispamcruftisement. MER-C 12:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Or alternatively, we could try to have a mature, civil discussion about the article. Kappa 22:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Alexa rank is irrelevant if the only criteria. Another fan site that had sub-10k Alexa rank was deleted despite its ranking. No verifiability with reliable sources seals the deal. ColourBurst 14:20, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Fdg35 22:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Alexa rank is a non-valid reason to keep. Article does not assert how it meets andy of the criterial of WP:WEB.. --Kunzite 22:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Popularity is a valid reason to keep. Kappa 22:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
    • There are no criteria for keeping something based on the number of internet hits. You cite an arbitrary ranking number by ranking firm whose methods of gathering information is disputed. According to actual guidelines for Web content (WP:WEB) the website must have been the subject of multiple instances of non-trivial media coverage, have been re-published by a major media outlet, or have won a major award. (i.e. A Webby Award not MarySue's Award for Awesome Pokesite.) --Kunzite 22:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
      • The ranking is not arbitrary, it means its one of the top 10,000 sites among Alexa users. That makes it popular enough to belong in anything that aspires to be a comprehensive encylopedia. Kappa 22:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
        • I remain unconvinced that you know what an encyclopedia is, Kappa. Few, if any, websites have individual articles in other encyclopedias. For example, it appears that the only mention of Google in the most recent Encyclopedia Britannica is in their article entitled "Search Engine". And even if other encyclopedias did regularly include articles on websites, they would use some knowledge-based criteria based on importance or historical significance, not on Alexa rankings. — Haeleth Talk 23:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
          • An encylopedia is a book (website/whatever) which explains things. Unlike WP, I don't think EB has any aspiration or duty to be a comprehensive encylopedia of websites. A popular website is inherently important to a large number of users and the topic it focuses on. Kappa 23:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
      • I didn't call the Alexa ranking arbitrary. I called your use of an alexa ranking of X as arbitrary. We have guidelines for inclusion. Those are at WP:WEB. This site doesn't meet those guidelines for inclusion and should be removed. We should not go by your arbitrary proclamation that the site is popular because of an ephemeral web ranking by a company with questionable ranking measures. --Kunzite 01:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
        • It's not an arbitrary proclamation, its based on verifiable third-party evidence from the best available source. A three-month figure is not particularly ephemeral, but today's rank is even better at 3,909 [35]. Kappa 02:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
          • I'm not disputing that the Alexa ranking exists. I am saying that you are making an arbitrary judgement call based on your personal beliefs at what level of ranking a certain Alexa ranking in terms of its notablity. In terms of websites, I think that rank is pretty darned low. But that's also arbitrary, ergo.. We have a set of guidelines on web content at WP:WEB. Please show me where this site has had any non-trivial mentions in any major media-source? Has this site won any major non-trivial award? As this site or any of its contents been republished by any major media-source? I'd love to see what you find. Can you cite any sources other than the primary source? Can you cite any that meet the guidelines on reliable sources? --Kunzite 05:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
        • Since it's a popular website, we should do the best we can to inform wp users about it. Kappa 02:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
          • It's popular based on what? An arbitrary call on your part that websites with X-ranking on a certain? If it were truly popular wouldn't someone, somewhere, have written about it? That would make it meet the guidelines at WP:WEB (something you still haven't addressed, BTW) --Kunzite 03:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
        • You mean "wouldn't someone, somewhere have paid someone else to write about it?". The answer is "not necessarily" - it's a pokemon fansite after all. Kappa 03:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
          • It's a subject about which nothing verifiable can be said, due to the lack of third-party commentary? I'm convinced. Delete per WP:WEB. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:WEB.
  For those concerned about loss of information, let's be honest: the only information in the article can be summed up as "Pokemon-Safari is a popular Pokemon fansite. It was founded in 1999 in Spanish. It became popular in 2006 when an English version was launched." There's no reason those three sentences need to be surrounded by an entire article of cruft, when the useful and verifiable information from this article could easily be made even more useful by putting it in some sensible context and adding those three sentences to a more general article on Pokemon fansites. — Haeleth Talk 23:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
  • So that would be a merge vote then? Kappa 23:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, doesn't seem like the site produces much information, but rather summarizes available information. —Philip N.✉ 19:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete per nom and others above. Also, Alexa rank and google search results are not acceptable examples of notability, especially for something so clearly crufty. We use such results for things we suspect are worthy of keeping, and then that's only a temporary measure pending further proof. -- Ned Scott 13:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Thε Halo ^Θ 21:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aussie Salute

Not a serious topic, at the very least, a dictionary definition for wiktionary. Iorek85 08:20, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Elomis 06:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --DrTorstenHenning 08:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Canley 13:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Part of Australia culture. DXRAW 21:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep -- uniquely Australian. I took a sample from some offline friends, and they all knew what it meant. -- Longhair 21:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, more than a dictionary entry. Needs expansion, referencing etc but no reason to delete.--Arktos ^talk 23:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Move to Australian salute, or merge to.... hm. Can't find a suitable target. Maybe it should stay, then. The content is accurate. pfctdayelise (translate?) 01:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • (maybe Australian English vocabulary? pfctdayelise (translate?) 01:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC))

• Comment - agree that capitalisation needs fixing--Arktos ^talk 01:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• comment I think Australian English vocabulary would be a good place for it. I can't see it ever having enough information to justify itself as an article. Iorek85 03:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Keep Part of Australian culture - but ideas are needed about how to flesh this article out. Without this, it might as well go to the Wikitionary. MojoTas 06:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep Needs expansion though. TGreenburg

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

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

The result was delete. Petros471 18:35, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fremennik

Rogue subpage of RunEscape. If you look at what recent RuneScape pages got deleted, how does this non notable clan of NPC's stand a chance of surviving? J.J.Sagnella 08:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

No chance on earth, or whatever fictional equivalent to Earth they might use. Delete. --DrTorstenHenning 08:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Gielinor J.J.Sagnella 09:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Halfway down the page it starts about a province rather than a clan. Rename to Fremennik Province, edit out clan, and redirect. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a game guide. Mangojuice^talk 15:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was deleted as copyvio. The debate outcome would have been keep otherwise, so if someone wants to write original prose, they should feel free. Mangojuice^talk 15:24, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SANRAD

Advert for a non-notable company. AfD since prod and prod2 were removed. If the product is unique (and notable), then the product should have an entry. --DrTorstenHenning 08:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• If a product page is created for the product with relavent articles about its uniqness and importantce, would that be enough to close this debate? - iSCSI user 8:50, 5 September 2006
  • Reply. It looks like the company is making switches and network storage products. These are already covered on Wikipedia, and if the products of this company have valuable features that other switches or network storage products do not have, then the first place to add info should be the generic product class pages. Just creating product pages will not settle the issue, because then the notability of the products will have to be established. If we could read on the page under discussion here what makes these products really notable (keeping in mind that this is an encyclopedia, so there is a certain threshold, and just being a little better than other products is not enough), then this page could very well stay. But, so far the page only tells us that the company makes something that can be described easily in terms of generic product lines. By the way, should you be in any way associated with Sanrad: the size between 60 and 360 employees is a little vaguely defined, could we have more detail on that? If you are not associated with Sanrad, but just a satisfied customer, please feel free to establish notability for the Sanrad products. --DrTorstenHenning 11:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I am not an employee of sanrad. My company uses their products, how would i establish the notability, they don't really sell switches as much as tey sell data replication and disaster recovery via IP san and SCSI. They helped us save our entire network, so i thought a wikipage would be a nice thank you.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.74.105.134 (talk • contribs)
      • Reply. By that reasoning, every fireman, medical doctor, ..., computer technician who saved a failing harddisk, ..., should "deserve" a WP page ... --DrTorstenHenning 14:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as the entry fails to meet the requirements of WP:CORP - the standard for determining nobility of corporations.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 14:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
  • The Byte and Switch article, already cited in the article, is non-trivial. Uncle G 18:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I agree that it is not trivial, but WP:CORP states it needs multiple articles.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 19:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• speedy delete as copyvio [36] -Harmil 01:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, Red Herring listed as one of top 100 private cos. in "Europe" (incl. Israel). They are the leading vendor in their niche, any high-end server architect knows who they are. (If you broaden the topic to "disaster recovery vendor" I don't know that they're still as notable.) Needs a better write-up, though. --Dhartung | Talk 04:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• I agree,Keep, Listed on red herring, large customers, big enought to get support from the Gov. of California, there products also win awards. Anybody building a WAN knows what they offer.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.74.105.134 (talk • contribs)
• Keep,but...I thik they have proved this to be a signifcant company the text could be meatier, but there is no reason to delete this. -- User:DrDorkus

This AfD is the only contribution by this user.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 11:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• Also I think keep this is an interesting company, and in my mind any company has public relevance on wiki. -- User:cliftonflack
• Delete for copyvio, as per Harmil above. --Vsion 04:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 22:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Astrovan

non notable drink. The only google hits for "Astrovan" were unrelated. (This article was prodded, and has since been improved however the drink is still non notable. Listed here following disagreement on the talk page Ladybirdintheuk 08:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Perhaps it's fodder for the WikiBooks Cookbook cocktail addendum? - Mgm|^(talk) 12:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• delete or, at best, transwiki - Simply not notable [37] as a drink name. -Harmil 00:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. As Mgm noted, at best it should be entered in the Cookbook, but it seems entirely non-notable anyway. Maury 17:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Mangojuice^talk 15:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Knowhere Guide

Seems non notable website. UK unique Ghits are one page only (given the nature of the site there are many non unique hits). This was originally marked as an advert and prod'ed but this was removed and not noticed. It may become notable but I do not consider it so now and seems to be intended to promote the site. --Nigel ^(Talk) 09:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Does not meet the notability criteria of WP:WEB. More importantly, all articles are required to provide reputable, third-party sources per WP:V, and this article has zero. --Satori Son 02:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was DELETED. Nonsense, troll-bait. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

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}}.

[edit] Jew Year's Eve

Article claims to a world wide event gaining steam but the only source of this statement is in hebrew. No other sources beyond this and a possible hoax. Lid 09:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Weak delete, which will be stronger pending the translation of the Hebrew by someone familiar with that language. BigHaz Schreit mich an 09:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete - per BigHaz, it doesn't appear to be a complete hoax at least - somebody was selling tickets for an event on New's Years Eve last year [38] , but there doesn't seem to be any other supporting evidence. Yomangani^talk 15:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

  Delete - Nobody seems to be able to provide evidence it is anything other than a random title for a party. We wouldn't keep Joe's 40th Birthday Party which probably gets more use. Yomangani^talk 11:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Very few Google hits, most of which appear to refer to something other than what the article describes. The link to the Hebrew web site goes to the front page of Ynet instead of to a specific article. --Metropolitan90 16:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete - per BigHaz & Yomangani. It can come back in 2 years if it bcomes truly notable. Williamborg (Bill) 21:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This event, (or at least the event of Jew Years eve) is real, and i have gone to many Jew Years Eve parties in different parts of the world over the last five years or so. I'm not sure about the USA, but it has become pretty big in Israel and other parts of the Jewish Diaspora over the last few years. Why would someone want to delete this (ok, i can see why an anti-Semite would want to delete it, but apart from that)? I say at least give it to the end of september, and then see. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.7.248.137 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment. According to the article, the Jew Year's Eve parties would be held on Sept. 21 this year. Therefore, we ought to be able to find web pages announcing these upcoming events, if they are truly an international phenomenon. But so far I'm finding very few. Don't equate support for the official policy of verification with antisemitism. --Metropolitan90 01:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong and Speedy KEEP. I dont think he or she was equating deletion with anti-Semitism. Metropolitan simply read it that way - not sure if this was Freudian or not. Metropolitan has a history of campaigning for the deletion of Jewish pages. The unsigned was merely stating that it would be obvious why an anti-Semite would wish to delete this article. This person couldn't think of another reason - but they didn't rule another reason out either. Personally, i don't think it requires anti-Semitism to delete this article. It merely requires someone to have no life, and thus nothing better to do with their time than go around and deleting other people's articles. Take up a hobby - I suggest Judo. p.s. The actual Perth event is currently being advertised weekly in the print edition of The Maccabean (website: http://www.maccabean.asn.au/) —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Kasparov of Sheshbesh (talk • contribs) User:The Kasparov of Sheshbesh is the creator of the article under discussion.
• Strong KEEP. This is a real event and occurs every year. Most readers of this site are probably not Jewish and therefore are unaware of the community activities held by the Jewish community world wide. Just as Christmas and Easter are ingrained in the consciousness of Christians world wide, so too are Yom Kippur, Rosh Hashana, and Jew Years Eve in the Jewish conscious. Please please keep this reference.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.27.5.28 (talk • contribs)
• Strong KEEP. I am Israeli academic. I traveled to Australia in 2001 for research summit. As a Jew in a country far from my own, I was so pleased to hear about this party. I am young, so I went. I was very happy to hear that they have a party like this every year. I met many people who I still write with and I know that there is a big party soon in Perth (wich is in western Australia). Please keep, keep to be true, keep to be real. Toda. Associate Professor Y. T., University of Haifa. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.59.101.120 (talk • contribs) — 203.59.101.120 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Comment - would any of the people advocating this article be kept like to add some references and/or confirm that the existing link has some relevance to the article? I think most of the weak deletes would be quite happy to change to keep if some reliable third party sources were quoted (I would at least). Yomangani^talk 12:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - Yomangani, you raise a fair point. I think Kasparov pasted a link to the front page of the website of the israeli newspaper ידיעות אחרונות . I assume on the day Kasparov did this, there was a frontpage story. However, that link only takes one to the front page of the particular day that the user clicks on the link, and thus i don't know specifically what article was referred to. Maybe it was this http://www.ynet.co.il/yaan/0,7340,L-20716-MjA3MTZfNDY1MjI2ODZfMTQ4Njg3MjAw-FreeYaan,00.html. For more stuf: Here is a link to an Israeli magazine called הלול that has loads of stuff about this http://www.ha-lool.co.il/magazine/article.asp?id=357. Another link relevant to this is http://www.tam.co.il/26_12_97/tar1.html (the top line could be effectively translated as "why is this night special/different?" Shalom to all, SHanah Tovah, and have great Jew Year's Eve, wherever you spend it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.7.248.137 (talk • contribs)
• Comment - I don't see how these links support the article in question. The first is about the jewish holiday of Rosh ha-Shana but as far as I can see says nothing about secular events the night before Rosh ha-Shana eve. The third is about "night culture" of Tel-Aviv without any connection to the JYE or Rosh ha-Shana (one phrase that seems to suggest that Rosh ha-Shana events become more popular). The second is a list of articles about Rosh ha-Shana again... perhaps some articles do contain something relevant, perhaps they don't, a quick check didn't help. Bukvoed 09:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep The Jew years eve party is the cornerstone of young Jewish community social participation around the world. I met my first wife at a Jew years eve party in Vladivostok. I think it is great that the Perth Jewish Community is taking the Jew years eve party to the next level and it will hopefully place Perth on the international map. Support this page, support Jew years eve parties around the world. You could meet your life long partner there too!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.161.98.17 (talk • contribs) — 203.161.98.17 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Delete - non-notable private social event. At most, try to merge it with Rosh Hashana and see the reactions. In comparision, would an article about what Jews do on Halloween or Xmas eve be documented on WP with it's own article? Maybe in twenty years if this event is still around. I'd remove the 2006 controversy part out of simple WP:Recentism, but leaving it in makes the article even more amateur and petty. --Shuki 06:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. -- Shuki 06:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - Shuki, XMAS etc has nothing to do with yehudim, but JYE is exclusively for yehudim, so your analogy doesn't work. Furthermore, JYE is not simply a private social event - it is also a communal event in many parts of the world (although admittedly it doesnt appear to be popular in USA). Merging with rosh hashonah is also problematic since that is a religiously based occasion and JYE is essentially secular/cultursl. Thanks for being involved though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.7.248.129 (talk • contribs)
• Delete because what on Earth does this have to do with Judaism or Jews for that matter? Should we thus create an article about Jews partying habits? If so let's have articles about those oxymoronic Yom Kippur Balls when atheist Socialist Jews partied on the holiest Jewish holiday or Jews and Christmas parties since so many secular Jews attend Christmas parties at work and in their private lives. IZAK 09:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - IZAK (and perhaps Shuki) objects to the article because it is a secular/cultural event rather than a religious event, and thus doesn't fit into his narrow vision of what a Jewish life should involve. This is absolutely no grounds for deletion. JYE serves as a means for Jews to get together and celebrate. THis is irrelevant to the debate, but as it happens, many zeyer frumisher menchen attend JYE parties, including some young rabbonim, especially those from Chabad. It is a great form of Jewish outreach. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.7.248.137 (talk • contribs)
  • To the above anonymous anon: Firstly, why not get a Wikipedia account and then log in and use the four tildes ~~~~ to sign your comments with a name which will give you and your views credibility on Wikipedia. Secondly, your accusation is false, I have no arguments against "secular/cultural" events. If you think that this article will pass muster with the editors at the non-religious Wikipedia:WikiProject Jewish culture then run it by them and see what they say, I have absolutely no objections. Also feel free to add it to Category:Jewish society that can hold all sorts of subjects not related to definitive forms of Judaism. At this time, this article infringes on WP:NN because it merely deals with the purported partying habits of some people who may or may not be Jewish. Your defense that "zeyer frumisher menchen attend JYE parties" is like saying that "zeyer frumisher menchen enjoy prostitutes" which is known to be true but would not be fitting for an encyclopedia article - at least not yet... IZAK 10:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• Wait, Delete unless additional evidence provided. In its current state, the article describes nothing more than a single party in Perth, Australia. It's essentially unsourced. It does nothing to demonstrate the party's notability. Some other editors have indicated "Jew Years Eve" represents a world-wide social phenomenon that has been going on for some time, rather than a the name of a single event that's being promoted for a single time and place. If this is so, suggest redefining the article's scope, and sourcing the larger scope. My vote could very well change if this is done and the larger scope turns out to be verifiable. --Shirahadasha 11:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I'm Jewish, and while the party itself is an interesting phenomenon and may indeed take place, IMO, it's utterly non-notable and unencyclopedic. -- pm_shef 16:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete this has nothing to do with Rosh Hashanan, or any jewish religious expression and therefore lacks any of the regualar sources for jewish holidays (2000 years of jewish law - mishnah, talmud, numerous commmentaries). It is a tiny group of people who have unusal parting habbits. A single party in Perth - even if it happens every year - is not notable. Jon513 16:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• Week delete. --Shaul avrom 18:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - The reasons for deleting this seem unsatisfactory. Firstly, there seems to be the IZAK school of though that likens attending JYE with the use of prostitutes. (BTW IZAK, none of my frumishe chaverim do this , but your personal life is your business). If they had bothered to use their brains before typing, they would notice that JYE takes place on the evening before Erev Rosh hashonah, and thus purposely does NOT violate the sanctity of yomtov/shabbat. Regardless, this is an irrelevant argument as was pointed out by someone earlier. Then there are those who are not jewish who want to delete this article for reasons i have no idea, although Kasparov has provided some suggestions as to why - they need to get a life.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.7.231.161 (talk • contribs) — 58.7.231.161 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Comment. The main reason to delete this article is that it has problems being verified, and all content must be verified under official Wikipedia policy. The idea of "Jew Year's Eve" is supposed to have originated in Perth, Australia, and the name is based on English-language wordplay, yet all the online sources cited have been in Hebrew, not English -- and according to User:Bukvoed, the Hebrew-language sources don't even support the article. I did find sources that describe a "Jew Year's Eve" event scheduled in Minneapolis this year [39] but Minneapolis is the only place for which I have found verification. Since "Jew Year's Eve" is supposed to be celebrated in many cities around the world, a single event is not enough to support the article. The event cited by Yomangani above [40] took place on December 31, not just before Rosh Hashanah (which would always be in September or early October). Similarly, this link describes a "Jew Year's Eve" concert which took place on December 31, again not supporting the article under discussion. I realize that several of the editors here are very supportive of "Jew Year's Eve", but unless we can establish by reliable sources that it is a commonly acknowledged event, we should leave it out of the encyclopedia for now. --Metropolitan90 05:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
    • By the way, has everyone noticed how many unsigned and anonymous "votes" are being cast here. They should be checked out and probably voided as they may be nothing more than annoying anonymous sock puppets. Furthermore the above anonymous responder is twisting my words and is obviously not directing himself to the issue at hand: Exactly what is the notability of the "Jewish" partying in this article? Let's say some folks decide to have a sweet sixteen party for Jewish girls and call it Sweet Jewteen party does that make it automatically notable and worthy of an encyclopedia article. Finally, I cited valid possibilities for articles about known sociological phenomena, and the fact that no-one has seen fit to create articles about them should put a damper upon and justify the exclusion of this article from Wikipedia until such time as it becomes a more solid and acceptable feature of normative Jewish life anywhere. IZAK 10:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep I just wanted to add that i think the article should definitely be kept BUT it should recategorised. As it is, it is currently under a judaism stub. It is more a jewish cultural event, rather than judaism. Could someone please recategorise it appropriately? JYE is a great event. I remember i was in Japan a few years ago and the Jewish community in Kansai held a JYE (also called Yudaya no Oomisoka in Japan) party. It was great, and it meant that the next night (erev rosh hashonah), most of the travellers and transients etc had already met many people the night before at the Yudaya no Oomisoka (JYE) party. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Faito (talk • contribs)
• Strong Keep. Shalom Chaverim. We have a few JYE parties in Melbourne (where i live), but if the musical lineup for the Perth communal JYE party is anything like what has been advertised in the Jewish press, then I think myself and some friends are going to make the trip over to Perth. Lehitraot, Art.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.178.63.3 (talk • contribs)
• So I put up a template that says we aren't counting votes, so that's irrelevant. So, besides the original editor, all registered users, except one have, voted delete. ALL other keeps have been made by anonymous editors who never signed their edits. Things that make you go hmmmmm --Shuki 20:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keepin mind אָבער, מערקווירדיק, ווי גרויס איז דער אונטערשייד פון זיי ביז אונז. די פעלקער פון דער וועלט האָבן אויך זייער ראש השנה, זייער ניי יאָר. אבער זיי גיסן נישט קיין טרערן. מיר וועלן נישט הערן פון זיי קיין קרעכץ, נישט קיין זיפץ. פאַרקערט, מען פרייט זיך, מען הוליעט; פאַרוואָס זאָל מען זיך נישט פרייען? עס איז דאָך אַ ניי-יאָר. און מען באַגעגנט דעם ניי יאָר נישט מיט טרערן; מען שיקט נישט קיין קרעכצן און זיפצן צו מקבל פּנים זיין דעם נייעם יאָר. פאַרקערט, מען באַגעגנט אים מיט מוזיק, מיט טענץ, מען טרינקט, מען פּויקט און מען פייפט, די שמחה איז גרויס. אַ קלייניקייט? דער ניי-יאָר איז געקומען.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.235.141.41 (talk • contribs)

• Keep - Firstly, please do not delete existing posts. I replaced the above persons post (looks like yiddish to me) after someone else (not mentioning any names) illegally deleted it (disgusting behaviour). Shuki is right, it is not a vote, it is about the merits of the arguments. And since it is about merits, then it doesnt matter whether people who are arguing against deletion have a history of editing or not etc. The merits for deletion are weak. The Jews who are arguing for deletion are doing so because they don't like the idea of any jewish institutuions that are not purely religious. Not liking a particular event is not a reason to delete it. I don't like Wagner concerts, but that doesn't mean they ought to be banished from the public record. Furthermore, Under such grounds that JYE should be deleted because it doesn't have a religious grounding, one would also delete yom ha'atzmaut, which would be absurd. Then there are those nonjews who want to delete it because they haven't heard of it before. Well of course you haven't - it is an institution that only jewish people participate in (unlike a 16yrold birthday party IZAK, which is not a jewish institution, but a western one). My own personal experience of JYE is that the (communal) events and the people who put in the effort to organise them are all about k'lal yisrael. Now if IZAK and Shuki etc, if you are against k'lal yisrael, then just keep arguing for delete. Otherwise, look into your hearts and change your 'vote.' Shabbat Shalom. Peace and Goodwill to all men, Yehuda ben-Yisrael.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.7.153.151 (talk • contribs) — 58.7.153.151 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Comment - I would just like to point out the reason why I and probably some of the others who are supporting JYE are anonymous. The simple reason is that IZAK has a history of getting users who disagree with him banned. Most people don't want to risk having their regular user a/c banned from editing wiki.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.7.153.151 (talk • contribs) — 58.7.153.151 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • To the above anon: What pathetic nonsense. Firstly, I came along this discussion long after a number of anonymous editors had their say, so your argument is pointless. Secondly, where the heck have I ever gotten users who disagree with me banned? Show me where this happened please, go ahead, Wikipedia is an open book. You know, this just shows that people can come up with anything if there is no-one with an institutional memory around to refute them. By this I mean that I have been around on Wikipedia since 2002, and during that time I have had debates with other editors. In some instances they were clearly anti-Semitic, but at no time did I cause them to be banned, on the contrary they tried to get me banned. But over time those contentious editors got themselves into trouble with other editors because I have never gotten any users who disagree with me banned. Thus, thirdly, I expect to receive an apology for this blatantly false accusation against me, but I suppose that may be too much to ask from someone who hides behind both anonymous IDs and deceitful arguments. IZAK 17:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Yehuda ben-Yisrael (58.7.153.151), (can you please make the distinction between me questioning your accusations and God forbid not you personally) your accusations, as well as the reasoning that people are scared of IZAK, as well most of the keep arguments here are false, pathetic and un-wikipedian. The keep side has yet to prove the wikipedian merits of this undocumented new social party. Your Israel Independance day example is perfect. While Yom Ha'atzmaut has an article, you will not find any 'salute to Israel', 'march to Jerusalem', or other events in which thousands of people particiapte in WP unless they are added to the relevant holiday/significant day. Yehuda ben-Yisrael, this has nothing to do with k'lal yisrael and proving the legitimacy of this event. The point of this discussion is that 'JYE' is simply not ready yet(?) for a legitimate wikipedia article. I sincerely suggest trying to add it to the bottom of the Rosh Hashana article titled 'non-religious events', or current events'. --Shuki 07:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• FWIW, even if someone wants to stay anonymous and post a comment, then signing with four tildes is still expected and required. This also adds context to the discussion: The majority of keep proposers either do not know how wikipedia works and what is relevant and legitimate to it, and/or are merely being disrespectful of this institution. --Shuki 07:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• FWIW, ok Shuki, i take note of your suggestion to add JYE to Rosh Hashanah, but i think it is kind of disrepectful to Rosh Hashanah for it to share its page with JYE. Clearly RH is far more universal and sacred event than JYE, and i dont think anyone would argue otherwise. Also, sorry if u felt lumped in with IZAK. As was mentioned by someone earlier, his analogy of JYE to people who hold a ball on kol nidre is absurd (As JYE does not occur on yomtov but at least a day before it), but i note that you personally did NOT make such an analogy. BTW, IZAK does have a history of having people banned, but your point about adding the ~~ is a fair one. I accept that you may feel the arguments for keeping JYE are "un-wikipedian" although (for example) wikipedia seems to me to have articles about the most minute and irrelevant comic book and TV characters, so i really don't know what objects are worthy of inclusion in wikipedia. Personally, if information is accurate (and this case i think it is, although the univerality of JYE may possibly have been exaggerated, in which case that can be edited, rather than the whole article deleted), i see no problem with including it. What is relevant to one person is often irrelevant to another and vice versa. In conclusion, i still see no harm in keeping the JYE page, and the page may directly or indirectly encourage some Jews in the diaspora to become more involved in the community - Kiruv. Shabbat Shalom to you shuki, Yehuda ben-Yisrael. 220.235.152.196 08:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC) — 220.235.152.196 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Stop your lies against me please (see my above comments). IZAK 17:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment The fundamental problem here is the lack of verifiable sources for the article, not whether it is a Judaism related article or a Jewish social event or anything else. It could be called "whoopsy-daisy spree day" or "jumping holiday" providing there were reliable third party sources for it - the inclusion of the word "Jew" in the title is irrelevant here. So far there has been no evidence that it is anything other than a pun that is randomly applied to certain parties involving Jews or around the times of Jewish festivals, and even that is mostly anecdotal. The one attempt to provide references resulted in sources that don't apparently feature this term. Merging it to another Judaism related article is not a solution - without evidence it exists it is as invalid in another article as it is standing alone. Without reliable sources it violates WP:V and has no place here. Yomangani^talk 11:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• KeepI heard this reference at a Christmas party after Mass last year and wondered ever since what it was all about. We need to keep the article in order to answer that question. It "is" something so let us define what it "is" in encyclopoedic terms. Incidentally, the article as it stands is approaching mere drivel, not even up to middle-scholl standards. So...keep it but re-write it correctly. It needs to have some context around it; for instance, I think it needs to have an etymology section and perhaps a cultural impact section. DocEss 17:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete I'm pretty aware culturally of Jewish stuff and I've never heard of this before. Together with the almost complete lack of google hits it is very hard to see how this meets WP:N or WP:V. JoshuaZ 17:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• Weak delete. It looks to me like notability has not been established. The citation from YNet is in Hebrew, I can't read it; since it is so short, it might be useful for someone to provide a translation here; if it demonstrates notability I would change my vote. Citing Heeb magazine without citing any particular article is essentially no citation at all. If this is deleted, it should be without prejudice to future re-creation if notability can be shown. - 17:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: I find the ad hominem remarks about IZAK disgusting. I'm a secular Jew, I disagree with IZAK as often as I agree with him on Jewish-related topics, he has, to my memory, on only a couple of occasions (none of them recent) been anything less than courteous to me (and I believe he would say approximately the same in return). At my request, he keeps me notified about AFD debates on Jewish topics because I don't usually watch AFD; he does this despite the fact that I probably often as not vote opposite to him. - Jmabel | Talk 17:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy keep as withdrawn nomination. — TKD::Talk 09:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Toyota rav4

Transwiki'd to es.wikipedia.org Joe 09:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC) Edit conflict. I transwiki'd and someone blanked and changed it to a redirect. Problem solved.

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

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

The result was merged. My thanks to the participants for doing this for us.

[edit] PDA Case

Contested prod - No evidence that this company or its products meet WP:CORP. A speedy tag was earlier removed by the author whose only other edits are to Sena Cases also on AfD.

• Delete as per my nom. Dlyons493 Talk 10:25, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• it is just a generic article about PDA cases - I cleaned it up a bit (and added some of the history above). Maybe it should be merged/redirected... RN 10:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
  • A merge/redirect would be fine if you know somewhere suitable. Dlyons493 Talk 10:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I think Redirect to Personal_digital_assistant would be my guess on this one. There really isn't much useful to actually merge.... but if someone finds something then a merge is fine as well. RN 10:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Thanks - I've been bold and merged and redirected as you suggested. The latter will take effect when the AfD notice is removed. Dlyons493 Talk

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. alphaChimp^(talk) 03:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sena Cases

Contested prod - No evidence that this company or its products meet WP:CORP

• Delete as per my nom. Dlyons493 Talk 10:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Difficult - it gets a quarter of a million google hits, has a decent alexa rating, and has quite a few reviews of its products on palm-related sites [41] [42][43][44] RN 10:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
  • There seem to be 267 distinct Ghits, many from blogs etc. The links above are interesting reviews of the product, but I don't see that they make the company itself meet WP:CORP. Dlyons493 Talk 10:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete yeah, you are right - it does look like it fails WP:CORP and has to go. I tried to find if it was used to calculate stock indexes but came up empty... RN 09:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi,

I saw that you did not like my post :) This is a real nice company with lots of cool pda and smartphone cases. It is one of the elading companies in the PDA case market and is appreciated by many users. A simple Google search for "sena cases" returns about 261,000 results in my computer which I believe is a sufficient indicator of the size and penetration of teh company. Here are a few further pointers for you if you want to see more:

• About.com article About.com's article about Sena products
• Pocket Pc Magazine article
• Gizmodo article

The WP:Corp says the following: "The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself." Furthermore, it says any of the rules and I strongly believe that it satisfies this criteria if not the others. I believe about.com, pc magazine and gizmodo among many others are sufficiently independent and well established publishers.

There are many more articles from many different publishers in addition to lots of interviews with the founders. I will leave the Google work to you.

By the way, I am not affiliated with the company in any way. I am just a PDA Geek who thinks Sena Rocks! :)

• • Comment Hi, it looks like a nice PDA case and your posts were fine. I merged the info about the cases themselves into the article on Personal digital assistant. What we're discussing here is the importance of the company which makes them. The above reviews are of the cases rather than the company. If there are Web articles about the company itself I've missed them - post them here or on my talk page and I'll take a look. PS I have followed the links from the article itself - one of my motivations for nominating the article was that as of 2003 it looked like there was a handful of people in an online store and that manufacturing was probably outsourced. So any company statistics would be very relevant. Dlyons493 Talk 18:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm always about expanding , perhaps there is something unbelieveable about this company that we don't know, at least let the page develop it needs some work so i vote, Keep or Merge if it doesn't expand.

Hi Dlyson,

I have not really had much time to check if there is any media coverage about the company. However, I think you can not expect each company to get as much media coverage as Google or IBM. This is not a billion dollar worth multinational giant. This is probably a small/miod size private company which is not required to publish any data about itself until it goes public. I really don't think that they are just an online store operated by a couple of people. You can hardly find any small online store that has quarter million Google entries and that has real good reviews from well extablished publishers. As far as I could see, Amazon.com sells its products from its own inventory, Palm.com sells them, Dell.com sells them, I am sure many others sell them. All in all, I think it is a farily large and established company that is worth at least a brief mentioning in Wikipedia.

Also the fact that most coverage is about the products does not mean that the company is bad or worthless. Those products are what the company makes and in a sense the products are the company.

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, alphaChimp^(talk) 14:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep company with independent media coverage, per list given by poster above. JulesH 18:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The above reviews are of the cases rather than the company. The company appears to be a handful of people with an online shop. The anon poster above has not referenced independent media coverage of the company. I don't see the multiple non-trivial published works which is the only part of WP:CORP that might apply. Dlyons493 Talk
    • Comment There is enough coverage of the products to verify them as notable. We could, instead, have article(s) on the products rather than the company, but I think it's best to keep it all. JulesH 13:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, independent coverage of a company's products is equivalent to coverage of the company itself. Kappa 09:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, I have used their cases for my Palm T3 and Treo 650. I am not sure how big the company is but one thing for sure is that they have their own unique designs for these cases. Therefore, I do not think the cases are outsourced. The fact that Palm sells Sena's cases shows that they have unique features: Palm Accessory Store. This is where I purchased it. JoeMona 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, the only info I could find on the company suggested they had 5-10 employees. I'm pretty impressed that a company this small has a slick website and this much coverage of their product. It's close, but I agree with Kappa and JulesH that the independent media coverage of the product makes the company notable. I don't want to stray into WP:OR, but the amount of penetration they have achieved with a company so small also makes me believe the company is notable. Kubigula 03:17, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was SPEEDY KEEP. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 00:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Irregular Webcomic!

Non-notability TheBilly 10:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, this looks like an interesting webcomic. JIP | Talk 11:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, in this case I'd go for notability by association with David Morgan-Mar (unless someone wants to argue writing multiple RPG books is not notable). Also, it might qualify for the longest running webcomic. If it ran for the past four years with only missing a day or 2 its schedule is a plus when it comes to WP:WEB guidelines for webcomics. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

It's definitely not the longest-running (Sluggy Freelance?), nor even the longest-running uninterrupted (Schlock Mercenary?), but I say keep anyway. DS 00:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, unless we are about to go through and wipe a lot of web-comic articles. Donovan Ravenhull 12:35, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, IWC is since recently a part of Modern Tales and IWC-Strips are regularly published in the Pyramid magazine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.234.100.106 (talk • contribs)
• Weak keep; while, frankly, going through and wiping a lot of webcomic articles probably wouldn't be a bad thing, this one appears to be pretty notable as such things go, and certainly meets de facto inclusion criteria. — Haeleth Talk 13:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, You deleted Okashina Okashi, You kept Megatokyo (good), You want to delete this and you let Casey and Andy have it's own wiki? C&A is on freakin hiatus! TestingTesting 16:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep, This is one of the longer-running, regular, innovative and more notable webcomics. Aclapton 14:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - one of the most clear-cut cases for notability in webcomics. Really wish people would stop playing whack-a-mole with these articles. Phil Sandifer 15:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Notable, long-standing, is also published in print (Wizard magazine). User:Zipster —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.2.138.98 (talk • contribs)
• Keep - I love how people seem to put up webcomics for deletion as "non-notable" with no other basis for it than either they haven't heard of it or they don't like it. Go WikiPedia! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.249.176.9 (talk • contribs)
• Keep - I think being a published webcomic (in the Pyramid magazine) is enough to keep it Deadpunk 19:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - I'm not going to explain my vote because right now I'm too mad to do that without cursing. I have lost count (well, actually it was two times) on how many times I looked on wikipdia for some article, only to find out that the article existed, but was deleted. algumacoisaqq 20:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Four year old daily webcomic is good enough for me.-- danntm ^T _C 21:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Pile on Keep— Too good an article to toss, given that we've got much weaker material here. Wikipedia is not paper. Williamborg (Bill) 21:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep, while this is not quite as notable as 8-bit Theater or Bob and George, its author is notable, and the article seems to be okay. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 00:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep in accordance with above. Like it or not, webcomics are a part of modern culture: long-running, notable, and established webcomics deserve the same coverage Wikipedia grants to popular music, websites, &c. Skybright Daye 00:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Sango123 18:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Famous Celtic Lineups

This is surely just not suitable for an encyclopedia. WP:Fancruft? Inherently POV (what is the point of the "typical lineup from the 80s"?) Camillus (talk) 10:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• delete. Inherently POV - no doubt information about Celtic's top players can be linked from or mentioned in the Celtic article. Grutness...wha? 11:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Violates rules against image galleries and original research. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per others. The creator has the chance to userfy. Punkmorten 12:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Fancruft, OR, POV.... --Guinnog 12:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Alias Flood 19:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. – Elisson • Talk 19:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into History of Celtic F.C. All but one of the lineups are ones that actual starting lineups for matches, and are thus verifiable; the sole exception is the "typical side from the 1980s", but that could be replaced with an actual lineup for a match from that era, or even a "most common" lineup, with appropriate citations to the statistical record. That match apart, this is definitely not original research, and while the choice of matches may be subject to POV I find it hard to disagree with anyone arguing that Celtic's European and UEFA Cup finals were not matches of importance in the club's history. Qwghlm 20:25, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into History of Celtic F.C.. Liked Qwghlm's logic. Williamborg (Bill) 21:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Per nom. Forbsey 22:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, WP:OR, WP:POV. And was I the only one hoping this would be about the Boston Celtics lineups from their championship years? --Kinu ^t/_c 23:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
  • don't be silly - it's Glasgow Celtic. Boston's team is called Boston United ;) Grutness...wha? 01:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. alphaChimp^(talk) 14:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ifti Elahi

The last paragraph begins: I think I've ranted on enough now. Need I say more? -- RHaworth 10:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Strong delete per WP:BIO. Only one Google result [45], which is from an unverified statement on another Wikipedia article.--TBCTaLk?!? 11:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete, this is a personal essay, not an article. I couldn't be bothered to find out the point, but this is clearly unsuitable for Wikipedia. JIP | Talk 11:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unencyclopedaic but an example to any editor tempted to write a stub on a very important topic. Dlyons493 Talk 11:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• "Below are the extacts from Punch Maar magazine..." ...oops, that'd be a copyvio then, wouldn't it? Note that the exact same text appears to have been pasted into (and deleted from) Sheraz Ahmed numerous times. It's no more appropriate here. — Haeleth Talk 13:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete as above Nigel ^(Talk) 13:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete. This appears to be an excessively detailed account of a feud among people whose claim to notability is not stated clearly. --Metropolitan90 16:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Amused, but strong Delete— May warrant a transwiki to the Unipedia (or whatever our humor counterpart is named); it is amusing in a juvenile way, as this quote shows: “he suffered from severe flatulence that he ingeniously incorporated into his comedy act, often setting his wind alight with inflammable methane gas. However during one act, he caused a minor explosion that seriously injured 5 people in an unlicensed theatre and fled to England to escape prosecution.” Someone had an enjoyable evening writing this one. This is so close to a speedy, that I’d support it except for the Uniwiki potential. Williamborg (Bill) 21:32, 4 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. --- Deville (Talk) 21:15, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Galactic Magnate

Non-notable online game. Not published by any notable publisher or developer, and the game hasn't been mentioned in any notable media sources. Alexa ranking of 6,298,776 and 125 unique Google results [46].--TBCTaLk?!? 10:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Carson 23:40, 4 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.

I close this discussion with a delete decision, for the usual reason: that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, that its entries are therefore necessarily to be encyclopedic—that is to say scholarly, tertiary-source accounts of accumulated research and reporting on a given subject, written from a neutral point of view; that whereas Wikipedians utilize the collaborative wiki approach to write the entries, in no way are the critical verifiability and sourcing requirements of such accounts thereby obviated; and that where an entry fails these requirements it ought to be remedied or removed. This article—and I use that word generously here—has never been remedied, and it is not clear to me that it can be; therefore it is hereby removed. Regards —Encephalon 19:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Completely Infuriated! Kuro Vs Luffy Final Battle!

This article seems to be a description of a scene in the manga series One Piece. I know nothing about the series, but this article does not seem to be within wikipedia's scope. Ladybirdintheuk 11:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep it's actually an episode article (episode #17, apparently). Does need cleanup, though. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: the title may be the title of an episode, but there is absolutely nothing whatsoever in the current text that is salvageable. Additionally, the concept that every single episode of even popular manga/anime somehow "should" have an article is neither more nor less than rampant fancruft. WP:FICT suggests very brief plot summaries of an entire work in the main article, not detailed accounts of every single episode's events spread over hundreds of articles. This is an encyclopedia, not TV.com. — Haeleth Talk 13:20, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as completely unsalvagable and not worthy of its own article. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 14:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Haeleth. --Metropolitan90 16:25, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Starblind. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This was part of a clean-up project that I never got around to completing. It's a very poorly written episode synopsis for One Piece. It was a trans-wiki, originally posted to the Arlong-Park OP fansite. I never got a clear answer on if it was a copyvio or not. It has a few siblings that need to be removed as well. --Kunzite 19:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- 3R9 16:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Most of the One Piece episode articles are beyond repair anyway. The Splendiferous Gegiford 20:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• Template:Vote keep and rewrite: Just clean it up. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 03:38, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

They're still a possilbe copyvio. If you want to clean it up, plese do it. --Kunzite 04:17, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Per Ladybirdintheuk. —Encephalon 18:38, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Sango123 18:41, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vehicle weapons

Delete - Vehicle weapons are weapons designed to be mounted on a military vehicle. Duh. And ship weapons are designed to go on ships, etc etc. This article has been around since Jan 2006, and hasn't been expanded. There apparently isn't much demand for this article as only one page links to it, Weapon, and what does that article state? drumroll....Vehicle weapons are designed to be mounted on any type of military vehicle.--Nobunaga24 11:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 11:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, transparent dicdef. — Haeleth Talk 13:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. Williamborg (Bill) 21:39, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Sango123 18:41, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Way of the Sword 2

Not notable film, not in IMDb etc. feydey 11:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete a listing on IMDB is my bare minimum standard for movies. I also don't get any Google hits--there are obviously things named "Way of the Sword", but nothing with a 2 behind it. If it didn't have pictures, I'd say it was probably a hoax (though that's technically still possible, I guess). Delete as hopelessly obscure and unverifiable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nonnotable homemade film. NawlinWiki 12:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable, no reliable references and Wikipedia is not for things made up in <insert location>. Yomangani^talk 15:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, it problably isn't a hoax but definitly an ameture movie. Though it is not greatly revlevant I dont see a real reason for it to be deleted. Who ever made the article obviously didn't know the people who made seeing as they didn't own rights to the pictures and didn't really know what he/she was doing. JacksonJoe 22:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. alphaChimp^(talk) 14:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Million Wing Tailgate

Was tagged as a short and no content/context speedy, but I couldn't apply that to a deletion with good conciousness. Is this worth merging to the school/uni in question (in a heavily edited version)? - Mgm|^(talk) 11:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - I can't find any evidence it is notable, even within the context of Pennsylvania State Universities (Google went as far as suggesting I should search for "Million Winning Tailgate" instead) and it's original research. I think you did the right thing bringing it here though, speedy would have been a bit harsh. Yomangani^talk 15:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Not speedy but Delete— not notable until they get to a million wings (& probably not then either). Williamborg (Bill) 21:41, 4 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. Petros471 18:41, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ICSA Group

Article doesn't assert why this company is notable; contested speedy brought here. NawlinWiki 11:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Weak delete FAmily-owned firm with about 10 offices across India. But it seems to be a very standard IATA-accredited transport company. Dlyons493
• It is a member of FIATA (Fédération Internationale des Associations de Transitaires et Assimilés (International Federation of Freight Forwarders Associations), BIMCO (The Baltic and International Maritime Council), APLN (Advanced Professional Logistics Network of the WCA (World Cargo Allaince) Family). It is an important entity as far as the logistics and supply chain information in India is concerned. The article is still to be enhanced & expanded. But the prospective information that the article would possess in the future warrants the article, ICSA Group for a place on the Wikipedia.Maa sekhar 13:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• It is also an agent for the Principal, Shipping Liner Mitsui O.S.K. Lines of the Mitsui Group which are also listed on Wikipedia.Maa sekhar 13:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep in the light of updates to article. Dlyons493 10:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• Please review the article and note the subsequent updates.--Maa sekhar 06:08, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete no independent evidence of notability, written like spam.--Peta 06:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
• Kindly visit http://www.wcafamily.com/meeting/apln2006/register/attendeeview.php to see International Clearing & Shipping Agency's participation in the 4th Annual APLN Worlwide Conference for an independent evidence of notability.Please do not delete the article. Kindly let me serve you the information to liberate the article from its "like spam" status.--Chandra Sekhar 07:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as advert, have statements such as "ICSA can today offer its customers virtually any service linked to their international trade." --Vsion 04:51, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Please note that the statement mentioned in the above point has been removed.--Chandra Sekhar 05:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete no sources provided, still reads like spam. Note that Maa sekhar and Chandra Sekhar are the same user, and that user is an ICSA employee (see the images in the article). If this company is notable, it's best to let someone independent write the article, per WP:NPOV and WP:VANITY. Mangojuice^talk 15:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as WP:ADVERT for insufficiently notable company per WP:CORP. Most importantly, provides no "credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" as required by WP:V. --Satori Son 17:08, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Bobet 10:44, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Manifesting Techniques

Someone other than the creator tagged it with a "db-author" speedy tag which doesn't seem quite right. I can't find evidence the creator asked for deletion. Bringing it here instead. No vote from me. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment— The title is wrong; it does not describe techniques, but rather a belief. That said, the article may, with a fair bit of work, make more sense. I'd give the author a chance to improve it—if not improved in a week it should indeed be deleted. Williamborg (Bill) 21:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I think I would have allowed a speedy as {{db-author}}, as it was blanked (twice) by the original author. No vote. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Looks like the original author changed their mind and blanked it. Either way, doesn't provide sources so fails WP:V. --Satori Son 21:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Punkmorten 21:49, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Feedback magazine

Contested prod that is blatant spam. MER-C 11:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom - advert Nigel ^(Talk) 13:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - spam. BTLizard 14:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Magazine Article, other magazines do not get deleted or marked as spam / adverts. Why this one? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RYKTP (talk • contribs) .
  • Comment Because the magazine fails notability and because the article has no analysis of its subject; it's just a peg on which to hang a link to the magazine's website. BTLizard 11:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. Clearly no chance of being notable, yet. Not backed by major publisher, and Official website says "first issue is due out soon". WP:NOT crystal ball; WP:NOT webspace provider. Ohconfucius 04:21, 6 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. --- Deville (Talk) 21:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hoblin

NN neologism. Reads like a dict def at that, but I doubt WT would want it Computerjoe's talk 12:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Article on a neologism that has no citations to reliable sources about the term as required by WP:NEO. If it had citations using the term, we might be able to merge it somewhere. But it has no citations so we have to send it to a cave. GRBerry 02:47, 5 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. Redirect optional. - Mailer Diablo 22:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dynamic counterbary

Bordering WP:BOLLOCKS, but I can't refute that the term was actually used in the 1950s. Please delete. Failing that, I'd suggets to redirect to Anti-gravity. --Pjacobi 12:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect to anti-gravity Computerjoe's talk 12:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete It doesn't seem to have had any currency outside perhaps the FF and/or lunatic fringe. The OED has never heard of the word. Dlyons493 Talk 13:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:V. Article is completely unsourced. --Satori Son 21:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 22:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ECurrency

Original research essay. Neologism. Prod removed by author. My favorite quote? "Now, unfortunately for 'facts,' I’m not an anthropologist, and unfortunately I don’t like doing research either, so I made that whole last part about the evolution of currency up." That pretty much screams WP:OR and WP:V, doesn't it? -- Merope 20:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. It appears the author has deleted all the unsourceable, unencyclopedic parts mentioned above. Now all that's left is something that still fails WP:NEO and WP:V. --Kinu ^t/_c 22:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Computerjoe's talk 12:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, empty abstractions. - Smerdis of Tlön 13:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per WP:Complete bollocks BTLizard 14:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• I can almost hear JzG girding up to write an essay about "blogger wibblings". ☺ Just redirect it to electronic money as e-currency already does. The alternative spelling is the only thing that I can verify. The current content is original research that hasn't even made it outside of its inventor's own web log. Uncle G 20:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. alphaChimp^(talk) 14:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yahoo! trolling phenomena

Previously no consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yahoo! trolling phenomena

This article is original research, without secondary sources. It also fails to establish how trolling of Yahoo! is in any way distinct from simply trolling. Most of the article is given over to repeating the comments of trolls and saying how offensive they are, when clearly the mature thing to do is to deny recognition. All in all it's one vast collection of forumcruft, with little or no chance of every being verifiable from reliable secondary sources; the verifiable content amounts to a description of Yahoo! (whihc we already have) and the fact that the Yahoo! forums get trolled (which is a trivial and obvious inference given that all unmoderated forums and many moderated ones are trolled). Just zis Guy you know? 12:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - per very complete and well-argued nom. Looking at the history there has apparently been no attempt to address original research concerns. Yomangani^talk 15:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Save - although article does have some issues with it not being in 'wiki style' or whatever, yahoo trolls have become a well known part of internet culture. Perrymason 16:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Then please prove it. Please cite sources where people have discussed these trolls and their activities. Uncle G 18:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - I came in here ready to vote Save, but then I read the nom. Yeah, Yahoo! trolls aren't any different from any other troll on any other forum. Stev0 19:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Too big for BJAODN, maybe. If I were forced to monitor Yahoo forums (e.g. astroturfing) I might want to write up a scholarly-sounding article like this to save my sanity. But I'm not, and I don't. Nor do we have to. --Dhartung | Talk 04:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• delete User Talk:JzG nailed it. Nothing that specific about Yahoo! trolling compared to other internet trolling. Ohconfucius 09:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• delete per JzG's solid summation. --Quiddity 21:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator as original research. RFerreira 20:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Bobet 10:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nenemy

Contested prod (no reason given for the contesting). Appears to be a neologism. --ais523 12:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Google suggests it's a term used in computer games or their development. I can't see a reference that uses it as described here. BTLizard 14:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. alphaChimp^(talk) 14:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mattressology

Neologism (1100 Ghits), most of the content is either obvious or possible spam. --ais523 12:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Only 127 distinct Ghits here mainly mirrors of each other. Protologism. Dlyons493 Talk 13:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - This fails WP:NEO and is possiblity vanity as the article creator is named Furshpan and the coiner of the term is Dr. Furshpan.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 14:31, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This is not a word, and nor should it be. Horrible. BTLizard 14:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all above, especially BTLizard. --Huon 15:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Gay Cdn's vanity comment. Incidentally, this same user Furshpan created Spinal Decay, which begins "Spinal Decay is a term coined by Dr. Bernard Furshpan ...." Michael Kinyon 07:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • CommentThe Spinal Decay photos are clearly marked copyright Bernard Furshpan, so, unless user Furshpan can prove he's Dr. Bernard Furshpan in real life, we're in breach of copyright. OTOH, if they are really one and the same, we're dealing with WP:Vanity. Dlyons493 Talk 11:32, 5 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 speedied. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 14:31, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RAPTURE

Reads as an advertisment, ~930 google hits [47]. Author deleted {{wiki}} and {{bias}} twice, and {{prod}} once -- TexMurphy 13:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - does not assert notability. Would this be a CSD A7, by any chance, since it is a club? MER-C 13:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete per nom Nigel ^(Talk) 13:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per CSD A7. This has no real assertion of notability. Jesse Viviano 14:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Sango123 18:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Flochek

And 3 redirect pages pointing to it, and a link to it from Valve. This page looks like advertizing. It was created on 4 Sept 2006. Anthony Appleyard 13:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as prodder. Spam. MER-C 13:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete spam spam spam spam spam BTLizard 14:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete It could probably prove notability given a bit of work (over 1000 Google hits for Flochek which are likely to be mostly this company), but as it stands it is pure spam. Yomangani^talk 15:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Replace by a plain link to http://www.engnetglobal.com/c/f.aspx/FLO017 in the ==External links== section of valves?:-
  • [http://www.engnetglobal.com/c/f.aspx/FLO017 Flochek (maker of valves)]

Anthony Appleyard 07:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• Like any other company like IBM or Intel, Flochek is also a genuine company having products which are used by different industries. Not proper to delete as it has more than 1000 google entries in the net. Devanshi.shah 08:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• But the page Flochek as it stands contains claims advertizing-type that its product is the best, and suchlike. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Anthony Appleyard 08:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. alphaChimp^(talk) 14:47, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kingston K-Pex

Possible advertising for media player with no assertion of notability over the hundreds of other similar devices available. Was prodded as such and deprodded with only the "it's a cheap alternative to an iPod or Archos" comment added. ~Matticus ^T_C 13:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Adspam for nonnotable product. Tarret 13:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. The iPod is a cultural phenomenon; this is not, it's just another product. BTLizard 14:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and BTLizard. Michael Kinyon 07:56, 5 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 23:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] KaiserMonkeys

Fansite with no evidence of passing WP:WEB. Prod removed without comment or addressing concerns. ~Matticus ^T_C 13:35, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - no assertion of notability. Fancruft. MER-C 13:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I have proved it is linked through ShareYourPage.com. I thought this passed WP:WEB. If not, explain how I can do so? Also, can you explain what 'The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.' means? Jonwood1 13:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

That particular guideline in WP:WEB means that the website has been reviewed, had an article written about it or something similar in notable independant sources. This does not include getting listed on blogs, directories, Digg or anything like that, because anyone can link to a site through these; doing so doesn't make that site inherently more notable (more visited perhaps, but traffic volume is not a criteria). So for example, if a website has had an article on Wired.com news about it, or an article in a newspaper or magazine, then it satisfies that criteria. The overwhelming majority of fan websites, no matter how well-made or comprehensive they are, do not pass muster. Otherwise Wikipedia would just become another web directory of every fan site on every subject ever. ~Matticus ^T_C 15:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Kaiser Chiefs are notable, Arctic Monkeys are notable, but this website is not. Fancruft. BTLizard 14:31, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - not notable at all. It completely failed the google test. --queso man 15:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - OK then, I'll delete it despite the fact I was hurting nobody. Maybe Wiki isn't a democractic site as I once thought, rather a beaucratic one. Jonwood1 19:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - The fact that we are having a vote as to whether this article should be deleted or not shows that Wikipedia is, in fact, democratic. --Mark ^{(Talk | Contribs | Email)} 15:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - Totally non notable site, or should I say page on a Social networking site, Piczo. --Mark ^{(Talk | Contribs | Email)} 15:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 02:57, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bra boys

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions.

Non notable street gang jmd 00:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - Useful information as the (predominantly 'Anglo') Bra Boys group are reportedly in discussions with the (predominantly 'Lebanese') Comancheros bikie gang in order to bring an end to the recent racial violence seen in Sydney
• Merge - It sounds to me like they're involved in this latest scuffle in Sydney, Australia over Muslim race relations. I say merge this into a relevant article on the rioting. --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 01:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• keep - they're notable enough. See this SMH article, where they are involved in negotiations with Muslim leaders. Borofkin 01:33, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Verifiable and notable especially as some have blamed them for involvement in the rioting although they are denying it. 12,000 hits for Bra boys including the Sydney Morning Herald [48] 73 Google News hits for "Bra boys" see [49]

Even namechecked in "Surf's Up: The Girl's Guide to Surfing" see [50]. Capitalistroadster 02:25, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - notable.--Russell E 02:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• ?? - I can't tell you why, but it just doesn't sit comfortably with me. I bet you could come up with 1,000+ Australian gang names if you tried hard enough. On the other hand, that their name is cited in various sources is irrefutable. Keep - after reading the latest edits to the article I've changed my mind - notable enough. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 10:00, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - the article is going to get a whole lot bigger in the next few days because of the riots. - G^t 05:18, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Lankiveil 06:09, 13 December 2005 (UTC).
• Keep sadly. I'd be glad never to hear of them again, but I'm not that optomistic. Regards, Ben Aveling 06:12, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Their significance is largely as an example of media hype. The article is unlikely to grow beyond a stub, based on the depth of media coverage despite the attention. --Zigger «º» 06:14, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I've removed the unsupported inflammatory allegation from the article. Had that allegation influenced any previous opinion here? --Zigger «º» 06:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Merge to the article on the riots. Won't be notable outside this context. Harro5 06:31, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - Dont merge - The Bra Boys 'involvment' in the riots are questionable --bacco007 06:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The group/gang has been in the media a bit recently and I wanted to read about them but was disapointed that wikipedia didn't have an article. Australian Story ran a programme on Koby Abberton, the founder(?) of the group a few weeks ago. He is very famous in world surfing circles apparently but was charged with murder and manslaughter. He was recently acuitted of those charges but found guilty of conspiring to pervert the course of justice (or perverting the coure of justice or something - don't quote me). Then, just this week, we're hearing about them again in the context of these events in Sydney. I think they are notable enough to have a TV documentary made about them, and are notable because of Koby Abberton's involvement. (There should probably be an article created about Koby Abberton too). -- Adz 06:57, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Koby was not the founder, and was not charged with murder and manslaughter. --Zigger «º» 07:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

His older brother was charged with murder of a founding member of the Bra Boys Anthony Hines and was later acquitted. Koby Abberton is being charged with attempting to pervert the course of justice see [51].

• Keep, should not be confused with the riots issue--A Y Arktos 07:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, although I'd really like to see it expanded somewhat. It still offers only a limited explanation of who they are and why they are important. It doesn't mention what they do (other than surf).--cj | talk 07:24, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per other votes; important enough to deserve an article though expansion is certainly required. - Wezzo 15:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Can anyone add some significance to the article, or perhaps it should be merged into Maroubra, New South Wales? --Zigger «º» 22:54, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep nn as of one week ago, but not anymore. Things change.Gator (talk) 22:55, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep This gang is well known, and is frequently mentioned in Sydney media. 203.9.33.2 07:38, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep* They're even pretty well known here in the USA.
• Keep I've been reading about the troubles back home and went Wikipedia to see who they are. reason enough to keep them. I have to agree that I was hoping to find out a lot more about them. I remember when I lived in sydney that the gangs in Maroubra had a fearsome rep. Steve
• Comment (again). I've expanded the article to list what they're famous for in Sydney, at least in the popular media. If others think this can be the basis of a bigger article, I'll butt out. Hopefully Australian beach and surfer articles can also be expanded. --Zigger «º»

• Keep Merge with Maroubra. Not only notable due to their "suspected" involvement in Cronulla, but have been part of Sydney culture for a long time. Most Sydneysiders would of heard of the Bra Boys at one point or another. In fact, easily the most famous gang in Sydney. Chanlord 14:33, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Please cite sources for any alleged involvement at Cronulla. For (unfortunately) more famous Sydney gangs, check out the "Milperra massacre". --Zigger «º» 15:24, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

• "Hours earlier, about 200 men had assembled outside Lakemba Mosque - some armed with Glock pistols - and dozens more gathered at Campsie. They were preparing to travel to Maroubra Beach, where up to 300 locals, many armed with crowbars, waited for an arranged fight, according to "Bra Boys" at the beach."[52]

These events took place on Monday night and were heavily reported in the Sydney press. This was supposedly in retaliation for the events at Cronulla.

Sunny, Jai and Koby have made media appearances to contradict "supposed" involvement, as recently as yesterday's Daily Telegraph (14 Dec, pg 4). I doubt that the "Bra Boys" at the beach meant to suggest that a fight had been arranged by the group. This would be better discussed on the article's talk page, if anyone thinks it can be expanded beyond a stub. Should non-events be the basis of an article, despite excited media coverage? --Zigger «º» 23:47, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

• Agreed. Bra Boys involved in Cronulla was non-existant and purely media hype. Perhaps an alternative can be to Merge the article with Maroubra, until such a time when more information is gathered about the gang. Amending vote Chanlord 01:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. They're not just another non-notable street gang. I had heard of them well before the last week's events. Dmharvey 01:33, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Very significant players in the 2005 Cronulla riots. Cnwb 04:11, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep notable gang. Sarah Ewart 01:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep They are widely known in Sydney. It has also been in the papers for the last week. Jmd, if you are living in Australia, you must be ignorant or have your eyes closed, hands over your ears and shouting "lalalala" at the top of your voice. If you are outside of Australia, don't try to delete stuff that is not pertinent to you.

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 22:13, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jojo Pellegrino

Non-notable per WP:MUSIC -Nv8200p talk 16:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Thryduulf 22:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Doesn't meet the notability requirements of WP:BIO or WP:MUSIC, but, more importantly, article doesn't have sufficient sources to meet WP:V. --Satori Son 21:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Sango123 18:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TV shows considered the worst ever

No original research, no reason given for including shows in the list. Yamla 16:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - apart from four unreferenced entries this is a duplicate of TV Guide's List of the 50 Worst TV Shows of All Time. In addition the title is wrong (An article with this title should only list the shows considered THE worst, not the top 50). Yomangani^talk 16:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. It is a completely biased list, that has no way of being verified (excluding the TV Guide stuff, but even that is biased). You really can't make an article based on speculation or reviews and such. --Nishkid64 16:34, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NPOV and WP:V as well as above comments. →bjornthegreat ^t|_c 17:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per verifiability, NPOV and OR concerns. See List of songs in English labeled the worst ever for an example of how to do an article about cultural critique. SliceNYC 20:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete very NPOV oriented. The TV guide listing can be mentioned on each of the relevant show's pages. No need for a list like this. Agne 20:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Comparable to someone making a "Fifty worst restaurants" list, biased and unquantifiable. There are better ways to single out bad TV shows. TheDrinkNinja 15:28, 9 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. Petros471 18:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Overclockers UK

No advertising for small commercial enterprises on wikipedia please. Well I see the previous comment was deleted. I will repeat it, an article on a small and unremarkable computer company, particularly one that has a history of shoddy service, has no place in wikipedia. If the ocuk folding team is notable then make an article on the ocuk folding team. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Panoptic0n (talk • contribs) 17:00, 2 September 2006 (UTC).

This article has been written by people with a vendetta against Overclockers UK and its owner, Mark Proudfoot. Most of the data is incorrect and probably libelous. Do not believe what you read here. (Preceeding comment added by 82.69.11.153)

This AFD was incomplete Yomangani^talk 16:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• object, the Overclockers UK is a large internet forum, it is also notable for the fact that they came #1 in the SETI@Home classic project after it closed, the article also contains references to OcUK's members prevalance in online gaming. -- Richard Slater (Talk to me!) 13:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose OcUK is a large company and community and deserves to be mentioned. --Hamish (Talk) 17:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

reply to above

How does ocuk 'deserve' to be mentioned? OCUK has no cultural relevance or academic notability, it is merely an internet forum (shrug) and a small business with a poor reputation. DELETE. - panoptic0n

It's forum has over 23,000 members, hardly small, as far as culture it has a large gaming and distributed computing community and is something people expect to see on Wikipedia. I don't see how having a poor reputation makes it less notable, surly it would make it nore notable if anything. --Hamish (Talk) 01:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree that ocuk is something 'people' expect to see on wikipedia, it's a small company and a fairly popular pc forum, which only means something to hardcore pc enthusiasts. Any 'knowledge' of ocuk that could be gained by reading this page will no doubt already be known to anybody that uses the ocuk site. It serves as free advertising for the company nothing more. I think it needs to be established that personal enthusiasms should not be allowed to run riot in what is supposed to be an academic text. OCUK has no academic or cultural value whatsoever. Perhaps if the OCUK site or forums had created some kind of cultural phenomenon like Myspace etc. then they would be notable but they haven't, the shop is just a small commercial enterprise and the forums are a place where people go to talk about computers, current events etc., just like many other forums.- panoptic0n

• Vote for deletion As I menioned before if the OCUK folding team is notable make a seperate article, if indeed they can be said to be worthy of one. Also there are many 'large forums' and that does not warrant an entry in an academic text. The ocuk tag might be fairly well used in online gaming, but how does that warrant a mention in an encyclopedia? - panoptic0n
• Delete. Does not meet any of the three criteria for sufficient notability listed in WP:CORP. Does not provide "credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" per WP:V. --Satori Son 21:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Satori Son, and note to closing admin: I would hedge on the side of deletion here, given the unsourced and very severe "criticism" section. Mangojuice^talk 15:34, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-09-04 22:53Z

[edit] Fanfic Trunks Story

Delete. Non-notable Dragon Ball fanfic; Google results for "Fanfic Trunks" equal 34. Prod removed by anon. ... discospinster _talk 16:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete per CSD:G1 - nonsense. Thryduulf 22:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 22:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copro Records

Non-notable company per WP:CORP and WP:MUSIC. Only mentions in Google are company's webiste and MySpace page. No multiple independent reviews as required by the guidelines. Leuko 16:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Copro records is mentioned on the Earthtone9 wikipedia page, FR8 wikipedia page, Desecration wikipedia page, In cold blood (album) wikipedia page and on the pages of almost all of Desecrations albums wikipedia pages Fethroesforia 14:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - I have had a good look round and I have been unable to find any meaningful commentary ob this company that would stand up an encyclopaedic article. BlueValour 21:10, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:V. Article provides no sources whatsoever, much less credible third-party ones. Even stubs must be verifiable. --Satori Son 21:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was deleted by User:Can't sleep, clown will eat me. Petros471 18:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Saber (Musician)

Debate blanked as a courtesy to the subject--Doc 20:08, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Don MacNeil

Non-notable. Seems to be vanity, promotional in nature. No references to prove multiple claims. Username = article title. Propose deleting out of main name space and userfying. Leuko 16:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete and userfy. Vanity Dlyons493 Talk 16:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Userfy per nom. Erechtheus 17:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: Nothing more than an election pamphlet.Victoriagirl 21:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - not-notable. BlueValour 20:48, 9 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.Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 06:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adam Tudhope

Maybe the band is notable. Its manager is not. This article originally had a tag to merge to the band's article, but I'm quite sure this article and Wikipedia are better off with it deleted. theProject 17:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete and don't merge. The Keane article should mention that he is their manager, but nothing more is needed. Thryduulf 22:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. First, the band is very notable and important. Second, Adam Tudhope is not only their manager, and even that's not his main job since he is a movie producer even before managing Keane. Very few information about him is found on the internet. However he has an IMDB profile with the movies he has produced to date. The merge desicion was to keep as a separate article as you can see here: [53].Fluence 01:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge (or redirect, if Keane doesn't want the material). The IMDB profile shows "assistant to the producer" on two movies, and producer on one short movie (without much information on IMDB) and one "completed" but not released TV movie. That's not notable. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:08, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and don't merge. The Keane article mentions that he is their manager, and nothing more is needed. BlueValour 20:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. As much as I like Adam and think his company is doing great work with film and art - he's primarily notable at present as manager of Keane, it doesn't warrant a separate article. All it needs is two lines in the main article saying that he's their manager, and that Keane have taken an active interest in visual art which Adam has helped to guide. Nothing more is relevant. Flyingnelly 21:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Shut up, Fluence. The Mekon 11:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Please comment on the content, not the person and remember the No personal attacks policy. Thryduulf 10:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and don't merge for reasons already stated (and unrebutted). —Encephalon 11:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. alphaChimp^(talk) 14:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Don Hurley

Not notable. Google cannot find any third party coverage of him. I don't think there's any sense in which he meets WP:BIO. Pascal.Tesson 17:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete per CSD:A7 - no notability asserted. Thryduulf 22:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - entirely non-notable. BlueValour 03:25, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Sango123 18:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Perfect Kirby

Previously deleted by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Perfect Kirby, but this is not a repost, it is a much larger unsourced article about a Flash animation of no objectively provable significance. Not much evidence of reliable sources in any of the 150 unique Googles. Fails to rise to the exalted level of having its own domain name. Guy 14:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete for reasons cited in last AFD, non-notable, WP:OR,WP:V,WP:NFT. Apart from that, it is fine. Yomangani^talk 14:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 20:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: appears to to be an unnotable fanime (and you'll observe that the article for the very term has been deleted...so good luck).--Mike18xx 04:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: If this article should be deleted, why shouldn't articles like Rise of the Mushroom Kingdom be deleted? It's an article about another Flash cartoon. As for people saying that it's "unverifiable": Watch the episodes (link in the article), watch the episodes with comments turned on, look at their Newgrounds pages (link in the article) and look at their website (link in the article). If you do that, you can verify pretty much everything that has been written in the article. --81.94.65.69 05:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete whether we judge this by web standards (per WP:WEB) or as a "film" (no IMDB entry, among other things), it would fail either way. Frankly, I'm absolutely baffled how somebody could have taken the time to write this up, which must have taken a few hours at least, but not bothered to take a few minutes to glance through our article guidelines first. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 10:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep: As far as Flash animation series go, Perfect Kirby is extremely noteable. Its later episodes are generally recognized as being some of the finest examples of tween-style Flash animation on the internet. The criteria for webcomics seems to be a lot lower than Flash series, and I don't quite see how this is fair. I mean just compare Category:Flash cartoons to Category:Webcomics. Either webcomics need to get a lot deleted or Flash articles need to be given some slack. I perfer the latter. --SeizureDog 23:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I'll go through the webcomics category looking for articles to delete, within the next few days. --Xyzzyplugh 13:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and other comments. This misses WP:WEB and WP:FILM and just about any other notability guideline out there. We should only keep flash cartoons which have gotten non-trivial press coverage. Secondly, the "Hey, look at these other crappy articles, if they get to stay, this one should too!" is not a valid reason for keeping. --Kunzite 19:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and above. -- Ned Scott 01:24, 9 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. Sango123 18:44, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oaksenham

Doesn't match WP:MUSIC. Reads like an advertisement.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Silvernich (talk • contribs)

• Weak delete, no sources for claims of notability (in second half of article). Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 21:14, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The article needs work, but lately I've been thinking about WP:BIAS a lot. I've never heard of any Armenian prog rock bands, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they're non-notable. I'd rather err on the side of including too many "non-western" bands than revert vandalism on yet another page devoted to an American pro-wrestler. Dina 22:49, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Note The country from where the band originated doesn't really matter, it's just the fact that they have not done anything particularily notable. It seems interesting, but the article needs work. Hispanic! At the disco 16:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment I guess my point is that the Armenian language doesn't use the western alphabet, Armenia has, as a country, a substanially smaller portion of internet users (both as a percentage of its population and real figures), than a country such as the United States [[54]] and as a result, determining the notability of this band using google is misleading. They could be the most famous Armenian prog rock band ever and I'd have no idea. So non-notability can't be established. That's all I'm trying to say when I reference WP:BIAS Dina 20:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep You'd better visit them and listen to their music, read articles about them on the net and then help with editing User: Arman Padaryan 00:47, 1 September 2006 (CET)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, —Mets501 (talk) 14:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep As per Dina. In this case we have no positive reason to doubt notability. I've never heard of them, but then I wouldn't expect to. Lots of people haven't heard of the Ramones or Joy Division either. BTLizard

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cherie Priest

This article was previously deleted through AfD. A DRV consensus overturned this result in light of new information, for which please consult the DRV. This is a procedural relisting, so I abstain. Xoloz 14:35, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep: as discussed on the DRV, this is anauthor who has published only book yet, but that book is published by a major SF publisher (Tor), the second book will appear in october, the first novel has had multiple independent and major reviews, the author has had interviews in prominent media (though not yet in the truly important ones probably), and the book has won a new literary award which received considerable coverage. Much of that info is missing or unclear from the current article though, so a rewrite / expansion is necessary. The current article gives on cursory reading the impression that we are dealing with a slef publishing blog writer (which would be a good reason for deletion), but she is way past that point now. Fram 14:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep, published Tor author. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - as notable as needs be, I've added Barnes and Noble link (which shows some external reviews) to "External links" Yomangani^talk 14:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete One book published, one to appear. A non-notable award, some 300 distinct Ghits many from blogs. And we cheerfully deleted an Iranian author with 10 published books! Dlyons493 Talk 18:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: as has been pointed out recently to me (on another AfD), distinct Google hits are calculated on the first 1,000 indistinct Google hits, not on the complete set. So a distinct number of more than 100 (give or take a few) means nothing negative, and in such a case the total number of Ghits should be taken into accunt as well (85,600 in this case). As an example; "Bill Gates" gives only 856 distinct Google hits, and "Jimbo Wales" gives 483 distinct ones. Fram 18:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment That's a fair point and Ghits shouldn't be determining the outcome anyway. Dlyons493 Talk 19:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: That's incorrect. One book published and at least 5 to appear, not including short story compilations. ~ DarkCryst 23:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment AfD guidelines ask editors who have a vested interest in the article, to say so openly. Dlyons493 Talk 23:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment Apologies, I should have made my connection to the article clearer. I'll amend my vote to an abstain to reflect that. DarkCryst 05:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment The Lulu Blooker Prize is the brainchild of the folks at Lulu.com. So it's a self-publishing marketer's invention. So, in my view, the only rationale to keep could be multiple, independent, non-trivial reviews. What I've seen look like very standard publisher-inspired ones but perhaps I'm looking in the wrong places. Any pointers to convincing reviews will be appreciated. Maybe she's the next Stephen King and I'm totally missing the point :-) P.S. I've finally found the deletion review and find I'm just repeating what Rossami said. Dlyons493 Talk 19:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The Blooker Prize is sponsored by Lulu.com, but features work not mentioned or published by Lulu.com. Cherie Priest for example has nothing to do with Lulu.com apart from winning the Fiction Blooker. The Blooker is just as much of a genuine award as any other. The only thing against it is that it is a new award about an emerging, rapidly growing, area of work.~ DarkCryst 21:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Publishers Weekly, KLIATT [55] and Kirkus are perfectly acceptable reviewers, not "publisher-inspired". ~ trialsanderrors 01:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Published under a major label. Good enough for me. Resolute 03:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above comments, unique Google hits are extremely unreliable indicators of notability. RFerreira 18:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Abstain (former Strong Keep, amended to reflect connection to article.) Aside from the previous reasons and strong amazon sales, the author has been mentioned by Warren Ellis and BoingBoing. Also has many notable authors reviewing her work, and large traditional media reviews. Additionally she has many books pending release, and one in the next couple of months, that will just lead to someone recreating the article ~ DarkCryst 20:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep appears to pass WP:BIO. Whilst her books are not bestsellers, they appear to have had multiple independent reviews per Amazon search, and rank in the low hundred-thousandsth. Ohconfucius 04:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: as the original article author, I in good faith created an article about an up and coming author who is well known in her field. I'd love to see the point of all this deletion, but are we really hunting for hard drive space this desperately that the opinion that the work isn't of note or is not mainstream enough really a good argument? My vote is keep (or abstain, as you like)...but you'll obviously do as you like. rethought 17:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)