Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 September 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< September 4 September 6 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep (withdrawn). —Phil | Talk 15:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Daniel Levitin

This article looks like vanity. Daniel Levitin fails the WP:BIO test, the WP:BAND test, and the WP:PROF test, and is therefore not notable. Keep. I was reconvinced that this person is notable. --GoOdCoNtEnT 01:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

*Strong Delete - as nom --GoOdCoNtEnT 21:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC) *Comment - search his "Levitin effect" on Google and you'll see that it will only has 27 hits. --GoOdCoNtEnT 21:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Note: not per nom, but as nom. same with below. ST47 21:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Michael 00:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


Search "Daniel Levitin" on Google and you'll see 113,000 hits. His book "This Is Your Brain On Music" has 130,000 hits and is in the Top 100 sellers on Amazon.com, BookSense, and Amazon.ca. User:ClydeC 04:49, 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The result was keep (withdrawn) —Phil | Talk 15:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Andrew and Alexander Fingelkurts

This article fails the WP:PROF and WP:BIO and should be removed. I have concerns similar to the ones presented by others in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mikhail Lebedev. --GoOdCoNtEnT 20:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC) Keep. Now appear to match the criteria of notability. --GoOdCoNtEnT 01:16, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

*Strong Delete - per nom --GoOdCoNtEnT 20:22, 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 Speedy deleted at my discretion. The business is clearly spamming. The text of each article is an unfixable copyright violation. WP:SNOW - Richardcavell 03:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GridNetworks & PowerGrid

At first, article seemed like just a cut/paste from corporate website. Talk page has contact info for an employee who all but states they're trying to get buzz running up to a launch. Should be deleted under Wikipedia is not a soapbox policy. Joe 00:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

  • GridNetworks is a new consumer content application that does have value for discussion on WikiPedia. We will be launching rather largely in the next 4-6 weeks with some very large name brand customers. Users of the wiki will be looking not only for information, but a discussion. We created the stubs on the wiki, and hope that the community interest will drive the content to be a truly neutral. As it is, I posted the most neutral information I could find to start the discussion. In no way do we plan to abuse, or would we want to abuse the wiki. We are pretty enthusiastic supporters of the Wiki, and personally I feel this adds value, but I might be biased. However, at some point, users WILL be making entries for this company and product, why not let the otherwise neutral stubs just stay for the meantime till the discussion gets going? Thank you for your time on this matter. We want to drive traffic to the Wiki from the beginning of the launch. Us, as a company, likely will never add content to the stubs again, now that they have at least been seeded with basic information. Nerolabs 00:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • It is a copy of [1] & [2] so I've marked it as a copyvio. Delete as failing WP:CORP and WP:WEB. -- JLaTondre 00:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I have updated our website to reflect that copyright permissions are authorized for posting on WikiPedia [3] & [4] Nerolabs 00:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
    • You need to release it per the GFDL. Release to Wikipedia is not sufficient as Wikipedia is GFDL compliant. -- JLaTondre 00:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
      • I will release under the GFDL tomorrow. Please keep the article alive in the meantime? Thank you. Nerolabs 00:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'm adding PowerGrid to this AFD as it's a companion article. -- JLaTondre 00:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete (based on the article content as nominated) They're going to grant copyright permission for us to be a free bulletin board for their ad campaign? How, uh, generous of them. If someone feels that this company is worthy of an article and actually writes one, I'll be glad to review my opinion, but this is spam. Fan-1967 00:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Agree with PowerGrid being part of AfD Joe 00:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Sigh :( Nerolabs 01:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete both per nom. Bigtop 01:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete both as WP:SPAM and WP:NOT.-- danntm T C 01:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete both as spam Dlyons493 Talk 01:54, 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) 01:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Crazyerics

Non-notable website, doesn't pass WP:WEB, no Alexa ranking. Mushroom (Talk) 00:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete No notability proven. Very few hits on Google. SubSeven 05:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as impressively failing WP:WEB. Not even the first hit on Google - it's listed 13th after a bunch of unrelated sites, including a hamburger stand. Only 216 general hits, 54 distinct, and as mentioned, most of these aren't the website at all. Not in the top 100,000 ranked at Alexa, no multiple third-party non-trivial articles, no awards, not via a top-rated service provider... notability neither stated, implied, nor attempted. Also fails WP:V for lacking any documentation outside of self-named website. Parenthetically, I note the contributor, user:Astigmatism, has only edited this article and made two minor edits to insert Eric's name into the Newsvine article. I checked the Newsvine site, cannot verify that Eric was ever an intern there, and it may be vandalism. Tychocat 09:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • delete per Tychocar. --mathewguiver 16:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Tychocar. Michael 18:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Tychocar. --GoOdCoNtEnT 21:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Tychocar -Elmer Clark 21:55, 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 no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mall of Louisiana

WP:VSCA of no value to wikipedia. - Richardcavell 00:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom --dtony 00:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom as no notability. Bigtop 01:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete What a joke. Absolutly un-notable. --Deenoe 01:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Timan123 01:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Large mall with 155 stores, which is more than the 100 threshold someone suggested in a discussion about another mall. Subject of independent coverage (see external links), which is probably to be expected of any mall this size. There is no evidence that the mall's owner has any connection with the original author of the article. -- TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 02:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete The WP:CORP criterion is multiple nontrivial independent published works on the subject, but this article currently has at most only one such, from a real estate publication describing a bidding war. All the other sources are clearly either advertisements (e.g. the airline guide) or from the subject's own website or those of involved parties (i.e. General Growth Properties, a potential buyer). --Shirahadasha 03:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, just another advertisement article. I don't see any notability, one of the largest malls, really? --Terence Ong (T | C) 04:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and a question. This is a major business hub for the capital of a state. That seems notable, in and of itself. The sad thing (for me) is that most US cities really only have malls as their business centers. If we have a stricter policy on **malls than on pre-automobile forms of urban spaces, we automatically close off Wikipedia to huge areas of commercial life in a major country (the USA). We allow, even encourage, articles on neighborhoods, see the article on Uptown, Chicago for example, but should recognize that many places in the US are no longer built with residential-commerical mixes. It seems to me that the Mall of Louisiana is at least as important as Uptown, where I live, and certainly more so than (to take a random example) Grant Park, Illinois, a tiny place of 1,000 people which I've never seen but which merits its own Wikipedia article. My question is what could Wiki-writers do to make the Mall of Lousiana wiki-worthy? Would adding information on the architects make a difference? To me, it seems the writers have made a good-faith start on this article. It is verifiable and NPOV. Interlingua talk email 04:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and per Shirahadasha. Fails WP:CORP. wikipediatrix 05:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep This mall is of sufficient size to warrant notability. However, a rewrite is needed. A list of all tenants isn't encyclopedic, but information on architecture, history, and its economic effect on the Baton Rouge area is. Kirjtc2 11:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Kirjtc2. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 16:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • keep - seems large enough to be considered notable to me. --mathewguiver 16:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete - It does seem pretty non-notible judging by the article. I would support Expand if there's actual reason for the page to be here... ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 18:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NN. Michael 18:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Valrith 20:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, mega-malls are notable, they even have mini tourist industries built around them (and in this case, a highway interchange). The article should be expanded to include some of the context from the external links, otherwise it's a near-pointless directory of stores. --Dhartung | Talk 21:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete mega-malls may indeed be notable, but this is a mall directory, which is not. If rewritten as an architectural and social article with sources and only the anchor stores, I could be persuaded, but this is slightly less useful to humanity than a link to the mall's own website. Guy 21:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, passes WP:CORP. Kappa 21:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC) ... with large amounts of independent coverage [5]. Kappa 23:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, as per Interlingua. Also needing expansion is not a reason for deletion. Seano1 22:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. As it is, I also only count one non-trivial bit of coverage in the external links. I imagine something else is out there, and I will hopefully remember to come back and check to see if somebody has found and added it. Until/unless that happens, this is a delete due to the failure of WP:CORP. Erechtheus 23:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and rewite Some of the info seems to be poorly written, but it should be kept in my opinion DemosDemon (Talk - contrib) 23:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete malls are inherantly nn, and there's nothing special about this one. Musaabdulrashid 03:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. I don't think any general category is inherently notable or non-notable. Notability depends on at least two things: the connections an encyclopedia entry has with the rest of the world and the size/exclusiveness of the encyclopidia. Certainly there are malls that are as notable as, to give the same example, my Chicago neighborhood of Uptown. Here, we have a major mall in the capital of a state (connections with the world) and a huge encyclopedia with room for all kinds of entries on fairly obscure people, places and things (size/exclusiveness). Again, I'm no fan of malls; in fact, I really dislike them. Despite that, I think that this article serves the purpose of a stub for an imporant part of the commercial life of a state capital. It certainly needs expansion to demonstrate this importance and also re-writing to make it less of a business directory. Interlingua talk email 23:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Response. Malls as collections of chain stores are most definetly NN. We dont have an article on every Macy's or Target store in the United States, so why should we have one simply because a collection of these stores are in the same location? I cant see how this can be expanded to prove notability. If this mall was the scene of some sort of disaster or notible first it would already be mentioned. Musaabdulrashid 06:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Musaabdulrashid, Erechtheus, Shirahadasha, and nom. Pan Dan 04:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep notable establishment and building and structure. Not a simple corner strip mall. --Shuki 06:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. 155 is a world away from 55--I would like to see a precedent history in this area, however.-Kmaguir1 07:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom and above. "one of the largest malls in Louisiana and the only mall that has a huge carousel by the food court" - woohoo for Baton Rouge but this is not encyclopedically notable. And malls are not "major business hubs" for Louisiana, unless you're suggesting that the Louisiana economy is tiny. Wikipedia is not some kind of local shopping directory. Oh, and this recent press release puts the shopping area of the mall at 1.3million square feet - which it substantially fails to make it into the largest 20 US malls (smallest is 1.928 million square feet) Bwithh 18:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment I agree that we don't want Wikipedia cluttered with all kinds of short articles about tiny malls. But I don't think that this is what the Mall of Lousiana is. As for it's importance, I wrote "This is a major business hub for the capital of a state", not that it was a hub for the entire state. I agree that the business directory aspect of this article is inappropriate and show be replaced with a link to the mall's official website. Nonetheless, the number of businesses there would, if located in a conventional downtown business zone, warrant a stand-alone article. I think that we shouldn't dismiss such an article simply because these businesses are present not in a downtown but in a mall (as much as I personally dislike malls). Wikipedia policy on corporations is only obliquely relevant to malls. WP:CORP has no mention of malls and is focuses much more on individual companies. I think that Wikipedia policy on schools WP:SCHOOL might be more relevant to the discussion of malls. "Schools are frequently important to their communities, and are often the subject of the sort of non-trivial published works that are needed to complete an article. Wikipedia articles about schools should show that there is, or that there is likely to be, sufficient coverage of that school to allow for the creation of a complete article". Malls, similarly are important to their communities, and we ought not insist that right now there is "sufficient coverage", only that there is likely to be such coverage. And I think that with a mall like this one, such coverage is quite likely in the future. Interlingua talk email 23:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep It is significant to the state of Louisiana. It is encyclopeidically notable and ought to exist. It just needs to be expanded upon. --Pinkkeith 18:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and Expand/Rewrite It is a notable landmark of that city. Interlingua raises good points. I can even imagine why some in Louisiana haven't spent the time expanding their wiki articles this past year. It even sounds more interesting than a basic US mall, with a Carousel and 150+ stores and such. It needs some work, sure, but that's a different tag. GumbyProf: "I'm about ideas, but I'm not always about good ideas." 03:35, 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) 01:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] National Chinese Song Writing Competition

nn article violates WP:VAIN and WP:SPAM dtony 00:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Sadly, some legends pass into history and are lost. Fortunately, this "legend" isnt one of them. Resolute 03:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete This article is unabashedly operating as a billboard/soapbox/web site for a private message by promotors,("We wish to bring forth the following message...") The subject may or may not be notable (I wouldn't know), but would-be authors need to write an article, not simply move in and use WP real estate as their soapbox for their private "message", if they wish to avoid summary deletion. They have not even attempted to do this. If they wish to attempt a real article on the subject, the deletion might possibly be reconsidered. --Shirahadasha 03:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Michael 19:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete doesn't assert notability or provide references, and it's written at least partially in first person, which is not a good sign. -Elmer Clark 21:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per all above. Erechtheus 23:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete no legend here Leidiot 03:10, 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. - Mailer Diablo 03:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] International Solidarity Fast for Darfur

Seems like a non-notable protest, but I am not sure. I am remaining out of the discussion for now. Andrew Levine 00:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete This refers to what could be an important event, but right now the article works as a message board to announce something about the future. It's worthy for a blog or newspaper but not for an encyclopedia, at least not yet, and not as a stand alone article. Interlingua talk email 04:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --69.236.160.1 06:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete fails WP:V and I'm guessing WP:VAIN as well. WilyD 12:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete The only way something like this (which has yet to occur) could be notable is if it were already receiving significant media attention. Zero Google News hits, and only 70 unique Google hits indicate that this is not the case. -Elmer Clark 21:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I have completely re-written the article to avoid the problems listed above. I suspect this event will gather more media attention as it nears, and I would draw your attention to the famous persons taking part. This event will almost certainly be notable, and (if it is not too vain of me) I believe the article as it stands is worthy of a Keep. LukeSurl 22:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. This article may gather more media attention and may indeed be worthy. It's still too speculative for inclusion at this point. The best course may actually be userfy for now. If the event pans out, this revised text will be easily edited into a worthy article. Erechtheus 23:32, 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 Keep. Thε Halo Θ 15:43, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mohamud Siad Togane

nn biography, does not satisfy WP:BIO or WP:PROFTEST. Only 180 ghits for 'Mohamud Siad Togane'; less than a handful for the books referred to in the article. Much of this article appears to be a cut-and-paste or from the same source as here (but it is not clear if this article is a copyvio). Agent 86 00:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete That site has a licence Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.0 Canada which requires attribution (none is given here) and no derivate works (which cannot be guaranteed). So Firstly this article has to be treated in the normal way as copyvio. Dlyons493 Talk 02:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. The article http://www.wardheernews.com/Articles_06/feb/11_Somalia_Absence%20of%20ellite%20based%20movments_Roble%20.html mentions him as a member of a group of would-be peacemakers. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 04:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep The article needs improvement, but I think Togane himself is notable. See for instance this article about how his poetry will be appearing on city buses in Montreal (along with the work of other poets). He appears to be an active contributor to Somalia expatriot websites. Also, I'm not normally in favor of "affirmative action", but if any area of the world could use a few role models who are NOT warlords, it's Somalia.--Brianyoumans 04:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep some of the language is very POV and needs to be changed, but the author has done a good job of showing the subject has published a number of books. Maybe not that many books, but we shouldn't be surprised that Somali poetry has a weak web presence. As part of overcoming systemic bias, I'm in favor of keeping this. It certainly is suitable for, say, an encyclopedia on Afro-Canadians, and therefore has a place on Wikipedia. Interlingua talk email 04:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. By the book, this article doesn't quite make it. I agree with Interlingual's take on the matter above -- if there is a good case for bending the guidelines, this looks to be it. Remember, they are guidelines, not laws. I think that means they were meant to be bent. Erechtheus 23:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Article needs more improvement, but nonetheless is a good source of info on a notable person. I removed those image links. The guy needs to upload the pic first to use it. ResurgamII 01:45, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Doesn't cross the notability threshold--he's a professor with one book out, one forthcoming. That pretty much describes 50% of the profs in North America. As an activist, I see nothing which would push him over the line into notability.-Kmaguir1 07:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep of course. We need a lot more on academics and artists, hardly less just because an early version of the article wasn't as well written as it might be. LotLE×talk 16:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Failed to impress me even with his own web page. -- Marwatt 13:32, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep:: Togane is well-known in Somali-Canadian circles and in the Montreal poetry scene. --Slp1 19:47, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: notability established. Mukadderat 18:06, 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) 01:30, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good Times Softball

Non-notable. Does not meet WP:V -Nv8200p talk 00:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Not only is it not verifyable but nothing if not anything links to it. Tarret 00:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Unverifiable vanity. Resolute 03:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above arguments.UberCryxic 18:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Michael 19:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete makes no claim of notability, and produces a mere 20 Google hits. -Elmer Clark 22:02, 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. --- Deville (Talk) 03:31, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] McNugget number

Previous discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/McNugget number

A neologism by MathWorld, which lists three references. Only two supports this usage: a newsgroup posting and a Mathematica-related book. The third, which is a Mathematica notebook by Stan Wagon, uses the more traditional "coin problem" setting for the mathematics. Anybody could make up countless pointless variations on this, and this variation of the time-honored postage stamp problem would appear one of them. C S (Talk) 00:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

  • No reliable secondary sources = delete. Melchoir 01:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Weak keep/rename/whatever per Michael Kinyon's finding below. It would be nice to have a second source... Melchoir 03:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and Melchoir. Bigtop 01:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Rename to McNugget problem and revise. This is a well-known problem in recreational mathematics (try a Google search). For instance, it is used as an early motivating example in
Irving, Ronald S., Integers, polynomials, and rings. A course in algebra, Undergraduate Texts in Mathematics, Springer-Verlag, New York, 2004. ISBN 0-387-40397-3. Michael Kinyon 02:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm not sure. Isn't Wolfram somewhat of a venerable source on mathematics? AdamBiswanger1R.I.P. Steve Irwin 03:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
    • No, he makes stuff up all the time. It's surprisingly hard to AfD this stuff, though, because so many of us remember when his website appeared higher than ours in Google searches. He was quite useful once, but his successor has content policies and oversight. Melchoir 03:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep (regrettably) It is a fairly trivial example of the coin problem, and I would prefer to have it renamed, but there do appear to be quite a lot of places other than Mathworld where this probelm is discussed under the name 'McNugget numbers'. Madmath789 06:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete/Merge I would make this a redirect to the [Coin problem] page and add this small bit of trivia to that page. The information on here could be compressed to two sentences at most, perhaps added in a new section of "Coin Problem." (The Swami 07:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC))
  • Weak delete. Although Irving above seems a WP:RS, do we really need to re-edit this article every time McDonalds changes their options? Perhaps, if the article is kept, we should refer only to the Orginal McNugget numbers and note that the numbers are subject to change at McDonalds' whim. Or perhaps we should merge to Coin problem. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 07:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge. Actually, I am now inclined to merge into coin problem. I don't think Irving's really trying to present some "classical" McNugget problem, although he may have been inspired by, say, Usenet. If you look through the book (look inside the book on Amazon), he keeps modifying the problem, even getting a Happy Meal and McNugget problem in the process. There is even a section of the book called "Congruence classes and McNuggets". I think it's fair to say he sees it as a good illustration of the more general Frobenius coin problem, but I think he's doing it more to be cute rather than because it's some classical, wide-spread, common, etc. way to present the problem. So I would take his adoption of this form with a grain of salt. BTW, you can now get 10 piece McNuggets, and the 9 piece is no longer offered. --C S (Talk) 08:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I've changed my mind. Merge to Coin problem (and maybe merge postage stamp problem in there too) per recent comments above. And I wasn't trying to suggest that the inclusion of the example in Irving's book implies that the problem is classical, but it certainly is a well-known variant of this sort of thing. By the way, is this AfD discussion making anyone else hungry? Michael Kinyon 08:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I actually went out and bought some because of this. Now I'm not hungry. :-) --C S (Talk) 09:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge. It's just one particular application of a general problem. I'm not hungry, because I don't like chicken! JPD (talk) 09:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to coin problem per above. JIP | Talk 09:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to coin problem per above; and yes, this discussion is also making me hungry. --B.d.mills 10:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to coin problem is appropriate - the McNugget problem certainly exists, anyhow. WilyD 12:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per above; Notable, but not enough can be said to give it it's own article. --ais523 13:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge I'll go with the consensus. --Salix alba (talk) 14:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge I like McNuggets and I like the fact that the coin problem can be rephrased in more interesting ways. (I also like consensus.) VectorPosse 16:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to coin problem. Michael 19:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per above. We actually did this in my math class a few years ago :-) —Mets501 (talk) 19:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge. Its entry in OEIS is more convincing to me than its MathWorld entry that it deserves some mention in WP: not so much that it exists at all in OEIS (so many things do) but that OEIS agrees to call this sequence by such a short name. On the other hand I agree with everyone else above that it is a simple instance of the Coin Problem more useful as an example than as something that can stand on its own. –David Eppstein 02:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge This is essentially a reformulation of the coin problem. Borisblue 04:24, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Would somebody please actually merge this time? Septentrionalis 18:06, 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) 01:28, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alzool

Not really clear what this page is supposed to be. In any case it could possibly have been speedied as a "nocontext". Pascal.Tesson 01:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete No context. It would more have its place on a Arabic Wikitionnary. --Deenoe 01:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unencyclopedaic Dlyons493 Talk 02:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Possible dicdef? At any rate, might be speediable under CSD-A1. Resolute 03:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Dicdef. Also CSD A1 when you remove the POV about how welcoming Sudanese people are. - Mgm|(talk) 08:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator. JIP | Talk 10:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom; also the article has zero links to it so Wikipedia won't miss it at all. --B.d.mills 10:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • delete - non notable, no sources mentioned, and no good results in google. --mathewguiver 16:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NN. Michael 19:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete appears to be a dictionary definition. If it can be verified, it might warrant a transwiki to Wiktionary. -Elmer Clark 22:04, 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 both. alphaChimp(talk) 01:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Reckitts AFC

  • I also nominate Hutton Cranswick United.

These two clubs play in the Humber Premier League. This is at level 13 in the English Football League System (the notability threshold is level 10). Despite each having won that League they were unable to gain promotion to Level 12. Fail WP:CORP. Delete both. BlueValour 01:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete both per nomination. Qwghlm 09:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable enough for here. — Gary Kirk | talk! 13:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. – Elisson • Talk 13:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. -- Alias Flood 19:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. -Elmer Clark 22:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Angelo 18:21, 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 keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:01, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Darrell Bock

Tagged for clean up since Jan., this article asserts no notablity and fails the The Professor Test. The biggest thing listed is one appearance on Nightline. Arbusto 01:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Books published by Christian publishers such as Baker and Nelson aren't a big deal. The professor test needs facts like academic notablity, sales, etc. Arbusto 04:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Breaking the Da Vinci Code was a New York Times Bestseller. --Brianyoumans 05:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Source it and add it to the article then. Arbusto 05:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Well known Evangelical author. Despite the nom's assetion, Baker and Nelson are well known and legitimate publishers. There is a disturbing theme to this and other nominations being brought forth by the nom. 205.157.110.11 07:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Comment: This "anon" user knows how to sign and use his only edits in the last day to vote for four afds- all which happened to be mine, and all that are created by Jason Gastrich (talk · contribs) who is banned. Arbusto 10:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, if only just for his bestseller, Breaking the Da Vinci Code, which was sold world-wide. Also, need for cleanup is NOT a reason for deletion. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 09:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, meets WP:BIO as an author.--Isotope23 15:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. The article looks fine to me, and passes the WP:BIO test. RFerreira 18:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I'd say being a New York Times bestselling author is a pretty strong indication of notability. -Elmer Clark 22:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Sounds like the nom has an underlying motive here. His claim that the article is weak on notability and fails The Professor Test is what is actually weak. Cormedan 20:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: This is Cormedan's second ever edit, and he has not made one since. Despite his second edit he already knows how to sign his name and vote in a AfD.Arbusto 02:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep per all above. This is looking like WP:SNOW Agne 22:10, 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 no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] John D. Hannah

Created by a banned user who was flooding wikipedia admittedly to push a bias, this article asserts no notablity and fails the The Professor Test. A handful of books in common for a professor, and some of these by a questionable publishers. Arbusto 01:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Weak Keep Hannah appears to be a pretty well known historian of theology; his 2001 book Our Legacy: The History of Christian Doctrine ranks #205,430 on Amazon, which is pretty good for a 5 year old hardcover - perhaps because certain colleges use it as a textbook - for instance, see here, under 'TH4005'. His charts of church history are distributed by Zondervan, which is one of the top religious publishers in the US. "John D. Hannah" get 180 unique Google hits, and almost all of them are him - I wouldn't call that bad for an academic in a backwater discipline. --Brianyoumans 05:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Arbusto has recently nominated a number of articles on Dallas-area professors at religious schools for deletion, and many of those AFDs are failing. I think perhaps he should try to do a little more research before trying to AFD these. (See, for instance, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darrell Bock and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim Underwood - both of whom turned out to have best-selling books.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brianyoumans (talk • contribs)
  • Comment: Actually they are all created by the same user, tied to the same school, and none of them assert notablity. I could care less if the article is kept or not. But if you vote keep, and make a comment such as you did, add to it, clean it up, and demonstrate it is worth keeping. As of now its still sloppy, ill-sourced, and of dubious notablity. Arbusto 06:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep AfD is not beauty school for articles. It's not our job to clean them up and this is not the proper venue to pursue that. They should be appropriately tagged with your concerns left on the article's talk page or with the article. John Hannah is a well known evangelical author who's work is used as text in many accrediated Bible schools. 205.157.110.11 07:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Comment: This "anon" user knows how to sign and use his only edits in the last day to vote for four afds- all which happened to be mind, and all that are created by Jason Gastrich (talk · contribs) who is banned. Arbusto 10:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Neutral, not many reviews of his books on amazon, appears to be not very well known as an author. [6] Might change my vote to keep if some assertion of academic achievements can be made. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 09:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete generic professor, Gastroturfing. Dime-a-dozen Christian books do not look compelling to me. Guy 09:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, unlike the other 2 related AfD's, Mr. Hannah does not appear to meet WP:BIO.--Isotope23 15:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:BIO. Michael 19:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete His best-selling book on Amazon has a SalesRank of 256,624, which is not enough to warrant inclusion. -Elmer Clark 22:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
    Comment Amazon SalesRank is a useless tool for Wikipedia purposes. It reflects recent sales activity, and can vary day to day based on when the last sale was. For academic books or books released a few years back, it is irrelevant. GRBerry 03:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete really seem like an unnotable academic. Anyone can sell books on amazon.com, notability is when brick and mortar stores carry the books. David D. (Talk) 19:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete. But we have to be careful which academics we include and which we don't--there's a lot of profs on here with 6 books who no one would dream of deleting. But few of those teach at Dallas Theological Seminary.-Kmaguir1 08:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per his books. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep While, as I said above, Amazon Sales Rank is a poor test for book significance, the research above seems to have found the second best seller, not the best seller, which is currently at 122,000 [7]. For a hardcover academic work, that is a high sales rank. Either it is fairly popular, or (as ssaid already above), it is a frequently used college text book. Per the proposed WP:BOOKS, that would make an article on the book worth keeping. If he has written books worth keeping an article on, we should keep the article on him. At least one of the prior comments seems to indicate that Dallas Theological Seminary is a low prominence institution. In fields like Math, English Literature, etc.. that is true, but then seminaries don't focus on non-religious subjects. In Theologoical studies, which is the relevant field, it is more prominent than places like Harvard that have abandoned their origin and relegated the religious departments to a backwater. I believe DTS should be evaluated as being in the top tier of U.S. colleges/universities when evaluating theological studies. They are "the academic center of Christian dispensationalism." The WP:BIO multiple independent review test is met; he has enough published books, each with at least one or two independent reviews, to meet the test. WP:PROF says "An academic who has published ..., a widely-used textbook, ... is likely to be notable as an author (see WP:BIO), regardless of their academic achievements." So I evaluate as passing WP:BIO (a guideline) and WP:BOOK (a proposed guideline) and WP:PROF (a proposed guideline) being irrelevant by its own language. GRBerry 13:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. He's more than the generic professor as he's published a considerable number of (admittedly rather shoddy or suspect) books. But the generic professor does less than this: he publishes his PhD dissertation and then a couple of more articles before he retires. He's also been the chairman of a department for decades, although in a seminary with no more than 1,900 students (and perhaps some/many of those not full time) this isn't the same thing as being chair at Harvard or the Sorbonne. I don't think I'd have many points of agreement with Mr. Hannah, but the aricle is 1) verifiable and verified, 2) NPOV, and 3) notable in the world of conservative evangelicals. He is NOT notable in my world of secular, ecumenical humanists, but that is not a requirement for inclusion in Wikipedia. Interlingua talk email 23:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep He is an established theologian and church historian with books that are considerably more than "dime and dozen" and published by reputable published like Zondervan, Crossways (who also publish John Piper and Hans Rookmaaker, Kregal and Moody Press (Publishers of Gleason Archer and Merrill Unger among many others). Both his Charts and Kregal histories are staples not only in church bible studies but also in many home schools and bible colleges (essentially text books). He is a prominent contributor to serious theological journals like Bibliotheca Sacra (around since the early 19th cent.) and Modern Reformation. He clearly passes WP:PROF Agne 21:47, 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. JIP | Talk 10:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Loldead

Just a dictionary definition, low Google presence for a supposed internet phenomenum. Donald Albury 01:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Strong & speedy delete per nom. zer0render 03:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as I would all leet words without a webpresence. It's a dictionary definition too. - Mgm|(talk) 08:26, 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 SPEEDY DELETE. Both articles have been deleted and their creators blocked indefinitely. JIP | Talk 10:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Viceroy seeds

Delete. Obvious advertisement; author and crony have been spamming other cannabis-related articles. Prod was removed, and I can't think of any speedy criterion that fits. ... discospinster talk 01:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I am also nominating an identical page: Viceroy Seeds. ... discospinster talk 01:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Strong delete per above. Spam, spam, eggs, and spam. Joe 01:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong & Speedy Delete... do I really need to explain my POV? --Deenoe 01:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete first spam I've seen in a long time for a worthwhile product, But still spam unfortunatel. Dlyons493 Talk 02:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete, spam, nonsense. --Terence Ong (T | C) 04:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Spammy delete - For wikipedia to publish this in my country is illegal. I wish it were a criterion for speedy deletion. Richardcavell 04:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Super strong delete for obvious reasons. Can I speedy delete it? Huh? Can I? Please? Pretty please? JIP | Talk 10:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and Protect Danny Lilithborne 10:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Why wasn't this sent to Speedy delete? Ben Aveling 10:26, 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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 03:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] David Jeremiah

Pastor of a church, and tracts/books of unknown dubious publishing. Created by banned user who was likely a follow of the pastor. Notablity not asserted. WP:RS not offered. Arbusto 01:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Can we verify that from an independent source? Arbusto 05:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Appears to be a well sourced article that does establish notability. Not sure what is meant by, "Notability not asserted" when the article claims the subject is heard on 900 radio stations. Maybe needs more evidence or some editing done to the article but does seem notable and well sourced. Bagginator 03:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment As ive got nothing better to do tonight i'm going to attempt to source the materials referenced in the article with external links to Amazon and such. Those which cannot be sourced I will edit out. Bagginator 03:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Further Comment Havn't finished the sourcing yet but i'm curious about the charge of "tracts/books of unkown dubious publishing". So far the book publishers i'm come across are W Publishing Group, Integrity Publishers, B C M Publications and DJ Publications. The dual claims of dubious publishing combined with sourcing not offered confuses me. Without the sourcing how was it evident the publishers were of dubious origin? Hope my sourcing effort clears some of this up. Bagginator 03:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Some come from unknown publishers or no publishers. Getting a self published book sold on Amazon and B&N is very easy. Two examples 1) This one by David Jeremiah at Amazon.com is a new hardback for $6.00 with no publisher listed. 2) "DJ Publications" does not seem like a reputable publisher with 137 yahoo hits. Arbusto 05:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep About 48,000 Google hits, Amazon.com shows 127 books and audiotapes in various editions, dubiously published or not. Google shows various references to appearances on a large number of radio stations and mention by various religious commentators. Involved in some rather unfamiliar controversies (from my neck of the woods, as a total outsider) -- Light House Ministries accuses him of giving in to the temptations of "Contemplative Spirituality." [8] Seems to be a notable enough religious figure to be kept. --Shirahadasha 04:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Shirahadasha. This guy is extensively published and followed. Shazbot85Talk 04:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, pastor meets WP:BIO criteria and has written many notable books. User was not banned at the time of creation, so any deletion criteria does not apply here. --Terence Ong (T | C) 04:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. The subject doesn't interest me, I suspect the books are of a low quality, but that's not the point. The article is NPOV, verifiable and verified, both of which are enough for inclusion. In addition, there's notability and also reasonable formatting (extenisve bibliography). Interlingua talk email 04:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
    • More Comments I edited the article in order to try and make it more agreeable to Arbusto. He doesn't like the lack of sourcing so I provided links to Amazon. He then reverted the edit. Is this appropriate? I commented on this further on the Discussion page of the article itself and on my talk page where Arbusto made me aware of his revert to my edit. Bagginator 06:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
What I wrote on your talk was:
I reverted the partial Amazon.com links [9] because wikipedia does not offer business to book retailors. Imagine if every single book on wikipedia followed this suit; all books would be linked to one business. However, adding in the ISBN number, publisher, city, year, and page numbers would be good. Arbusto 07:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Doesn't adding the link to Amazon provide the reader with the ISBN number, publisher, city and year? Bagginator 07:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Yep, it sure does. Adding a Barnes and Noble page with that info linked to every book could do it too. WP:ISNOT a collection of links nor is it used for advertising products.
Adding a whole collection of links to the article without writing an article would provide the reader information that could be in a article, but it would not be encyclopedic. It would just be a collection of links.
Sourcing an article means providing substantive claims with references. Not linking things for sale to a merchant. Arbusto 07:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm really having trouble understanding your position here. Would you prefer I alternate links between Barnes and Noble and Amazon and whatever other online book source there is? The links added to the article are not for the purpose of selling books, they are for the purpose of satisfying your criticism. Adding links to Amazon, Barnes and Noble and other book sellers will satisfy your criticism of the article. Bagginator 07:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Do not link books bibliography to a place where books are sold. To verify the books in the Blibiography provide the reader with the ISBN number, publisher, city and year. For example, APA format.
My criticism on the AfD still stands. No one has added claims for notablity. Arbusto 07:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Extremely well known evangelical author (not the least of which for his terrible toupee). His "Love worth finding" Sermons is nationally syndicated and broadcasted (On stations like the Bott Radio network). 205.157.110.11 07:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Comment: This "anon" user knows how to sign and use his only edits in the last day to vote for four afds- all which happened to be mine, and all that are created by Jason Gastrich (talk · contribs) who is banned. Arbusto 10:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Comment I removed the strike since you have no reason to invalidate my vote. The admin who decides on the close can give whatever weight to my thoughts as he/she shall choose. At the risk of being uncivil, I will say that the logic you are using is quite infantile. If your mouse has the capability of moving to click on the user contribution tab you will see that I've commented on many AfD in the past. (And tend to vote delete more often then not) Just because yours happens to be the ones that tickle my fancy today does not mean that I'm targetting these AfD. My brother and parents were huge Fundies and while I don't share that persuasion, I'm mindful of those for and against the fundamentalist bent. So, these Afds peaked my interest--namely because they're so laughably notable and the theme of the AfDs so apparent. 205.157.110.11 10:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I have readded the vote and comments that were improperly deleted by nominator Arbustoo (talk · contribs). The above user, 205.157.110.11, has voted on many RfDs that Arbustoo did not nominate and he has participated in other articles, so Arbustoo's claim in his edit summary is wrong. I don't have any opinion yet on this AfD, but I am concerned about Arbustoo's general editing history with regards to articles about preachers and his attitude that he takes with people that disagree with him. Vivaldi (talk) 08:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Bring an RfC on. Wikistalking is not acceptable nor are your personal attacks (on other pages). I noticed you stopped editting when this anon. started posting on other pages about me. Arbusto 08:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
comment I believe it's bad faith to accuse someone of wiki-stalking with no evidence. If you take the time to look at my contribution history (the AfD's with the ingredient listing for edit summaries are all mine) you will see that I comment on which ever AfD's tickle my fancy. The rash of anti-fundamentalist AfD on extremely well known preachers obviously caught my interest because of the very evident theme to the AfDs. That is not a crime and it's certainly not wiki-stalking. 205.157.110.11 08:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC) Note After some research I believe now that Arbusto wasn't accusing me of Wiki-stalking (his edit summaries when he was reverting my comments led me astray). I still believe his deletion of my comments were rash and uncivil, though.
Comment: An anon. who knows how to sign and what an RfC is. I suspect this is Jason_Gastrich (talk · contribs), which has been stalking my contributions. Arbusto 08:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Shouldn't you assume good faith? Bagginator 08:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
From an anon who knows how to sign and who's only actions are to vote in my AfDs? Arbusto 08:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Comment An anon who has been around the block. Feel free to pursue this vendetta and goose chase. It will only lessen your credibility in this AfD and susequently in your conflict with Vivaldi. By the way for those interested in the ingredients, it's Mountain Dew and MDX 205.157.110.11 08:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Comment Research Arbusto! Research! :p Like with the assumption that the subject of these AfD's are not notable, a little research would serve you a long way. 205.157.110.11 09:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, appears to be a well known evangelistic author, see also amazon reviews: [10]. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 09:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep D. Jeremiah is a well established author, televangelist with a huge audience. JungleCat talk/contrib 18:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per the above comments. RFerreira 18:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per notability. Michael 19:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep assuming claim of radio broadcasts is true, which it apparently is. A reference in the article would certainly be nice though. -Elmer Clark 22:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. We also have articles on talk show hosts who only air their shows on one station, but they are kept as notable. David Jeremiah is on hundreds of Christian radio stations and is a pretty well-known pastor and author. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 04:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep per all above and per WP:SNOW Agne 22:13, 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. - Mailer Diablo 03:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Andy Stanley

Not notable. Pastor at a church, and books of unknown/questionable publishing. This was nominated before in Jan. 2005[11], but was never closed. Someone seriously tamperred with the AfD process in and it was never closed or debated, view Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andy Stanley for details. The thechurchreport.com lists him as influential, but searching "thechurchreport.com" at yahoo I get 40 hits. He fails WP:BIO. Arbusto 01:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep - Despite the odd past AfD, the publishing company for his books has been acquired by Random House, and he has appeared/spoken at high profile churches such as Willow Creek Community Church. Crystallina 02:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - About 70,000 google hits for pastor "andy stanley", about 45 (not sure I counted exactly) editions on Amazon.com including translations of English titles into Spanish. The existence of translations and a standard publishing house would appear to be some evidence his books have substantial reach. --Shirahadasha 04:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep His influence is tied squarely to the coat tails from his pappy, which in the Evangelical world the name "Stanley" has big sway. 205.157.110.11 07:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Note: nominator Arbustoo improperly deleted the vote by 205.157.110.11 (talk · contribs) with the following summary "rv this IP that has hit every single one of my AfDs and ONLY my AfDs", however, user 205.157.110.11 has participated in a number of AfDs not nominated by Arbustoo, so that accusation is baseless and without merit. In any case, the proper thing to do would not be to delete the users vote and comment, but rather make a comment under his vote suggesting that he is only voting to spite Arbustoo, if that is what Arbustoo seems to be claiming by his deletion. Vivaldi (talk) 07:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete generic evangelical minister, or merge to his father, who appears to be the primary source of his supposed influence. Significance is apparently established primarily by reference to redlinked organisations. This should have been deleted at the first AfD, where only brand new users voted keep, but it was never closed. Guy 08:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep, with publisher that is acquired by major house and his books are subject to translation. That doesn't happen to non-notable authors. - Mgm|(talk) 08:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, books are sold in significant numbers on Amazon used&new and receive quite a number of good reviews by readers [12]. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 09:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per the above comments. RFerreira 18:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. Michael 19:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as pssing WP:BIO. Books with independent reviews, and respectably rank in the low thousandsths per Amazon. Ohconfucius 01:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per if this were anyone else it wouldn't have been nominated.-Kmaguir1 08:04, 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 (no consensus). There are good and valid arguments for deletion here, but arguments have been presented by Mikka among others that we have a number of other lists which bundle together topics related to a particular subject and that the list might be useful for navigation. I find that the people arguing for "keep" have sufficient merit in the arguments that I will call this 12d/9k a no consensus. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Russian language topics

Per WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not a "Mere collections of internal links, except for disambiguation pages when an article title is ambiguous, and for structured lists to assist with the organisation of articles." This is obviously not a disambiguation page and the list's theme seems to be "things that might mention Russian and if they don't they should." In addition, while the article states that doesn't overlap with category:Russian language, anything that is appropriately linked to Russian could easily go into that category, thus making this article redundant. AEuSoes1 02:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. There could be an infinite number of such topics, no basis for a coherent article. Important topics couls either get articles in their own right or simply be part of Russian (language) -- no need for having a separate "topics" article, and plenty of potential for harm. --Shirahadasha 04:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, a list is not a indiscriminatory collection of articles. If it lists all Russian language topics, it becomes by definition unmaintainable. I like lists, but I'd be happy to see this one gone. - Mgm|(talk) 08:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. What this is even doing before the marked articles have information added on Russian is beyond me, although even then it's significantly unmaintainable and superfluous. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - ugh, needs severe cleanup and reworking, but AfD is not cleanup. Topic is very reasonable given WP:LIST. WilyD 12:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - what type of list? Michael 19:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete No need for such a list. Borders on original research as well: it's pretty much someone combing through Wikipedia linguistic topics and making a list of those that have (or, in the author's opinion, should have) information about Russian. -Elmer Clark 22:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. This vote is outrageous.
    • This is a list of grammar topics that discuss Russian language, not an "indiscriminate collection". You keep List of sexual slang, yet you delete list of Russian language. Mind-boggling. We have List of basic archaeology topics, List of mathematics topics, and hundreds of other topical lists.
    • "plenty of potential for harm" haha very funny. Russian language is going to inflict harm.
    • This is not supposed to be a "coherent article", this is a list.
    • And there is no "infinite number" of topics. Grammar books are of fnite size, you know, and perfectly maintainable.
    • "Combing thru wikipedia" is how such lists are created.
    • "unnecessary" is personal POV, not an argument.
    • Not superfluous. There are quite a few esoteric topics that are not discussed in the main Russian language article. This list helps to keep trak of them.
    • No cleanup necessary. This is list, and well-defined, too, for God's sake!
    • "(or, in the author's opinion, should have)" What's wrong with author's opinion? Is the author inventing Russian grammar?
    • etc.
`'mikka (t) 04:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
What I find outrageous is your accusation that "unnecessary" is POV while asserting your own POV such as "well-defined" and "no cleanup necessary." Is your POV better than other people's? AEuSoes1 04:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
"well-defined", as opposed to "indiscriminate collection" is a fact, not POV: it is list of topics that discuss Russian language. It does not include porn stars, gay rights, pokemon and other popular topics. "no cleanup necessary": if a cleanup is necessary, please explain which exactly. I may be wrong here, but still I don't see why it must be "severe". Are you going to delete 5/7 of entries? In summary, yes, my POV is better, because I can argument for it. And it is not an accusation, but a statement of fact: "unnecessary" is a POV, not an argument. The voter who thinks it is "unnecessary" must provide arguments by which rules there is "no need for such list", out of simple courtesy to fellow wikipedians. We are not discussing deletion of a vanity page here. Lists are tools for search information. And like I said, we have hundreds of them. Why don't you go and try to delete List of songs whose title includes a phone number? If the operson who says "no need" provided a solid argument, there could have been a fat chance I agrreed with him. The issue is not like inter-ethnic conflict, where people just stand for their political POV. I will not die or kill for Russian language, you know. `'mikka (t) 05:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Rationale for the list. It comes to my mind that those who hastily voted to delete probably do not know the reason why all these List of mathematics topics, etc. have been created. There is a useful link "Related changes". If you click it, you will see something like this, which is very useful for monitoring articles that cover a certain topic, in addition to "My watchlist" tool. `'mikka (t) 05:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Example of usefulness: did you know that Russian is stress-timed language? Did you know at all what the heck it is? I bet my beard that 90% of native Russian speakers do not know it (and 99.8% do not know now to translate this term into Russian (or whether the corresponding Russian term exists), and 999.8% would not know where to find this fact). `'mikka (t) 05:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the reasons for there being no need have already been listed in the nomination. Your POV is not better than others. Your comparative examples are poor ones because they're lists of (arguably) non-notable trivia while the argument against this article is that it is not a "structured list." Linguistics pages that mention/should mention Russian is not a well-defined or discrete topic. Why, for example, are alveolar trill and voiceless velar fricative listed but not any of the other phonemes?
That you use the list as an addition to your watchlist to monitor pages is not a compelling argument.
Apparantly 99.99% percent of users named Mikkalai don't know to put important information about Russian in the Russian language article. AEuSoes1 06:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Aren't you the one who thinks that grammar issues of Russian language are trivial and do not deserve separate article, such as Reduplication in the Russian language? Now I remember you. I am no longer talking to you. `'mikka (t) 07:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
No, I'm the guy who thought Reduplication in the Russian language should've been merged into the Russian grammar article. Nice diversion, though. You've effectively countered my arguments with a number of fallacies. AEuSoes1 08:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment At the risk of getting my head bitten off, surely the place for the fact that (for example) Russian is a stress-timed language is in the article on stress-timed languages (which it already is) and the article on the language itself (which it doesn't appear to be). While the argument that "other equally large lists already exist" doesn't really get us anywhere (they might simply exist because nobody's got around to nominating them here yet), I'd argue that the difference would be that the articles linked in that list actually talk about "archaeology" or "mathematics" or whatever else it's a list of. When this list links exclusively to pages which mention the word "Russian" or "Russian Language", it might - and I do stress might - be a useful analogy. BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 07:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I suggest you to try to count the number of pages that mention the word Russian language before jumping to weird analogies. For all others: precisely because "Rus Lang" page is linked to countless articles that say nothing about the language this list is highly useful: it points to linguistics pages, in other words, it is not "an indiscriminate collection". (Of course, you are free to maintain that "Linguistics" itself is an indiscriminate collection. <Shrug>.)`'mikka (t) 07:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
      • What I meant was that not all of the articles on this list here mention Russian. This is admitted on the list itself and is (I would suggest) not the case in the other "List of X Topics" lists, which presumably link only to articles which do mention "archaeology", "mathematics", "dog-breeding" or whatever value X has. BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 08:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
        • This is a list of articles that discuss peculiarities of Russian language, period. When, say, the artile Mondegreens in Russian language will be written and placed into category:Russian language, then the entry "*Mondegreen" may be deleted from List of Russian language topics. When the list becomes empty, I swear delete it myself (I pledge to delete it even earlier: when it will contain less than 6 items). `'mikka (t) 15:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
          • In that case, why not move this to a subpage of your userpage for your own reference? BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 21:34, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
            • Because this is a reference, not "my own reference". You don't like it, don't use it. `'mikka (t) 22:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
              • Fair cop, but might it be a valid suggestion in case the list does get deleted? It seems as though you're saying that the list serves two purposes - it can provide links to topics connected in various ways to Russian and it can remind you (or another user who's interested in doing the same thing) to create articles about "X in Russian". I would respectfully suggest that if it's deemed to be unencyclopedic to do the former, userfication would make a lot of sense to achieve the latter. BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 22:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
                • Actually this discussion gave me an idea how to make this list into something "bullet-proof" against deletionists. And such lists wil be useful for other languages as well. My observation (which triggerred the creation of this hapless list) is that it is nearly impossible to quiclky find out whether a particular feature exist in the language. For example, is Russian an agglutinative language? The corresponding article gives "examples" of languages only, and it may well be that Russian is agglutinative, but simply was not among handpicked examples. Further, if it is not agglutinative, then which kind is it? Luckily, there sits the {{Linguistic typology topics}} template, and I can try and find Russian language in articles from the same category. OK here we go: it turns out it is synthetic language. But is it fusional or olygosynthetic (listed as subcategoeries in the template)? Dunno. Stuck. And this problem is especially acute with more obscure topics, such as does Russian have frequentatives? Right now I noticed that Russian grammar article has a statement that there is no Nominative absolute it modern Russian, which is false. My list is an attempt to add some search structure to the chaotic presentation of linguistic topics. And here come some deletionists who cannot tell ablaut from umlaut and tell me that this list is useless. Of course you don't need it when you write pokemon articles. Just take a look into the category:Lists of songs. How much effort is put into this songcruft, and all are happy. But my list useful for searches in a serious topic somehow makes someone sleepless. Sheesh! `'mikka (t) 00:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
So you're saying that this article is useful for people who prefer not to look in Russian language to find out of Russian is agglutinative or not? AEuSoes1 19:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep per mikka. Sure, it needs cleanup but it's not a reason for deletion. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 11:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and move to Wikipedia:List of Russian language topics. Once it's there, editors working on Russian language articles can use it as they see fit. Fg2 00:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. The title is fraudulent. What we have here is a list of articles on general linguistics. Lazybum 03:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Logical fallacy. We have a list of articles in general linguistics that are releted to Russian language, not the list of all articles in gen ling. Besides, wrong title is a reason for renaming, not for deleting. `'mikka (t) 15:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom.-Kmaguir1 08:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Lead could use a bit more clarification about the linguistic part, but the idea is useful organizationally. LotLE×talk 16:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete. The article doesn't describe what should be included, nor (apparently) can it do so. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:36, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
  • keep. Although the list requires some structuring. Some entries are related to language, i.e., of linguistic character. Some others (Palindrome, Paschal greeting) are articles on important topics where examples are given in several languages. This list somehow resembles me article like List of English words of Turkish origin, only vice versa. Since this is English-langauage encyclopedia, certain topics which may be interesting in Turkish or Russian langauge cannot have an article of reasonable size in English wikipedia. And it makes sense to have a kind of "table of contents" for them. Mukadderat 17:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Will it be reasonable to expand this article with the full list of topics related to Russian language, with indications where they are discussed? for example, Dialects of Russian language (and make a redirect to Russian language for now), Cases in Russian langauage, etc. Does it make sense? The two my examples clearly have a potential for large articles. Mukadderat 17:57, 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) 01:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Meet the Little Focker

crystal ball -proposed part of a trilogy,

  • Delete as per my nom. Dlyons493 Talk 02:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete the article said it was proposed. It is clearly crystal ballism. --My old username 03:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, WP:NOT a crystal ball, unverifiable. --Terence Ong (T | C) 04:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Sure, it made me laugh, but no. Delete per nom. — Gary Kirk | talk! 13:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Michael 19:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete does appear to be in the works, but it's not even on IMDB yet, and really hasn't produced enough buzz to be notable at this point. -Elmer Clark 22:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete The source of this rumor appears to be an entry in some kind of virtual stock exchange web site[13]. IMDB has nothing on this and lists other projects the director and stars of Meet the Fockers have. If this movie were really coming out next year it would be the best kept secret in Hollywood history. Seano1 23:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and recreate if it is ever confirmed. VegaDark 02:04, 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 03:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Heyman's Disciples

Original research - nothing on the ECW programming has acknowledged this as a "stable"; page consists of little other than a week by week recap (Wikipedia is not a news archive). Dsreyn 02:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 05:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I don't think this is officially a stable yet, or if that will be it's name. TJ Spyke 05:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. No notability stated or attempted. Two distinct Google hits, a new record. Tychocat 11:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. McPhail 21:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Oakster (Talk) 18:01, 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. - Mailer Diablo 03:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Todd Curtis

Not yet opened local restauranr

  • Delete as per my nom. Dlyons493 Talk 02:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete It claims that he has revolutionized cooking of some sort, but I just don't see it. It seems to be vanity or an enthusiastic review of a non-notable chef. AdamBiswanger1R.I.P. Steve Irwin 03:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete - The restaurant does seem to be open - see this review of it. On the other hand, I don't get the impression from this article that the reviewer considers Todd Curtis a "celebrity chef" - maybe he has a reputation around Central CT, but that's it. (I got the same impression from other articles online.) It's a fancy restaurant, owned by a basketball player. --Brianyoumans 04:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Wikipedia is not a crystal ball His aspirations are admirable and perhaps may someday be realized. --Shirahadasha 04:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Shirahadasha. Michael 19:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Baleet vanity, non-notable. --Cloth Ears 14:18, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete. No claim of notability is evident. LotLE×talk 17:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: as per nom. Victoriagirl 21:24, 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) 01:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Where The Dogs Roam

Seems like a hoax (WP:HOAX); a Google search of "where the dogs roam" and Snowden turned up only about 3 results, which is far less than you'd expect if the article was true. In addition, it was created by the user, who has the article's contents as his userpage - see WP:VAIN. Crystallina 02:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as nn AdamBiswanger1R.I.P. Steve Irwin 03:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Not necessarily a hoax, as the author never asserts that any of the 44+ volumes "written" were ever published. Without such an assertion, however, not notable (and not verifiable either) by definition. --Shirahadasha 04:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Not neccesarily a hoax, I know enough great books that have absolutely no web presence. It's the quality of the links you do get that counts. - Mgm|(talk) 08:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete There's a single ref at mandy.com to Where the Dogs Roam (Short Film) Casting: Actor Actress jobs so perhaps not hoax although 44 vols in a year is pretty futuristic. Non-notable. Dlyons493 Talk 08:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete apparently unpublished book that comes nowhere near the notability requirements for books. -Elmer Clark 23:47, 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. alphaChimp(talk) 01:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Kristen gudsnuk

Underground artist who really hasn't reached notability yet. If notability is reached later then the article can be recreated but as for now it's not really notable. Lid 02:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, because it is notable. The artist has finished a substantial amount of high-quality work, and just because she isn't in magazines yet, doesn't mean that her work should be discredited. This is obviously a non-promotional, informational article about an ambitious young artist.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.253.47.94 (talk • contribs)

  • Delete per nom. No claim to notability, and if she is so ambitious, she should do something to earn notability. ---Charles 03:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Charles and nom. I jsut don't see it AdamBiswanger1R.I.P. Steve Irwin 03:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and above. If and when she become notable, this article can be recreated (and with proper capitialisation). --AndreniW 03:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete It is bad when you search on "misfit assassins" and NONE of the 12 unique hits concern Gudsnuk's anime. Out!!! --Brianyoumans 03:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, at the least, because of a lack of reliable sources indicating any sort of notability per WP:BIO. --Kinu t/c 04:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 05:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator. The geocities website should be the first clue. RFerreira 18:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, fails WP:BIO. Michael 19:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Brianyoumans and Kinu -Elmer Clark 23:48, 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. - Mailer Diablo 03:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Philip Chandler

I speedy-tagged (A7) Philip R Chandler for no assertion of notability. I discovered this page was created after my user page was vandalized by the article creator, but as assertions of notability were now made (supposedly the founder of MediaLens), I let it go with an autobiography tag (edits were made by anonymous users, User:Pjchandler, and User:Philchandler). Upon some investigation however, I discovered that google searches for "Philip Chandler" and "MediaLens" turned up mostly Wikipedia mirror sites. The book Beyond Positive Thinking is not listed on Amazon or any other major bookseller that I can find. Fails WP:VAIN and WP:V. Irongargoyle 02:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Borderline speedyable, but I'll give it the benefit of the doubt. AdamBiswanger1R.I.P. Steve Irwin 03:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment A brief Google search tends to suggest that there may be a large number of people named Philip Chandler, rendering a reliable estimate of web presence difficult.--Shirahadasha 04:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Google has a few hits on a Philip R Chandler who is an Air Force researcher, but this would appear to be a different individual from the one described in this article. Wouldn't assume the same person is the originally intended subject of both articles. --Shirahadasha 04:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per well-researched nom. I checked issues of the magazine ECOS, and oddly didn't find any articles by Mr. Chandler, despite allegedly being a frequent contributor. It is to be noted there are books entitled "Beyond Positive Thinking", but they are not by Philip R. Chandler, and I can find no books authored by "Philip R. Chandler" on Amazon. Per Shirahadasha, this is why Google is not the final arbiter of notability. Tychocat 11:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete His home page gives some measure of how seriously this article should be taken Phil has a viscosity of 3.6 parsecs Dlyons493 Talk 15:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable. --Dhartung | Talk 21:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, as his (already pretty dubious) notability claims appear to be false per above arguments. -Elmer Clark 23:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per WP:HOAX. LotLE×talk 17:20, 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. - Mailer Diablo 03:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Resonant Vibes

Spam/advertising for a non-notable web based company (failing WP:CORP). They're a digital music store, with an Alexa of 271,593. I prod'ed, but the author removed it asserting notability derived from their web traffic ranking ([14]). alphaChimp(talk) 03:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom AdamBiswanger1R.I.P. Steve Irwin 03:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Fails WP:WEB for lacking multiple non-trivial third-party articles - I find a lot of directory listings, and one interview by an artist who's got his work on the site, scarcely an independent third-party. No national awards. For that matter, no documentation means failure of WP:V. Also fails WP:CORP for same reasons. Tychocat 11:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and Tychocat. Erechtheus 23:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete no assertion of notability. -Elmer Clark 23:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and Clark. --Tim4christ17 talk 18:48, 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 Speedy delete (CSD A7). Teke (talk) 05:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pek squared

Vanity and awkwardness. Húsönd 03:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Poorly written, no establishment of notability AdamBiswanger1R.I.P. Steve Irwin 03:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Extremely notable... for about 6 people in the world. --Brianyoumans 03:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy A7, no assertion of notability for a group... unless responsible for the Annual 4th of July Waterballoon Picnics and Thanksgiving's Left Overs somehow counts. --Kinu t/c 04:36, 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) 01:24, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Www.aerialshowgirls.com

Appears to be a a vanity advertisement for a small group of performers. The website fails WP:WEB, with only 1,612 hits, and search engine results don't seem to indicate much, if any, notability. The article was speedied before as empty, but was recreated with text copied and pasted from several articles. Recommend salting. Coredesat talk. ^_^ 03:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 04:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and protect per well-reasoned nomination. --Kinu t/c 04:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete it with a spammer hammer. — Tivedshambo (talk) 05:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as advertising. JIP | Talk 10:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete not sure what this is, but it sure ain't an encyclopedia article. -Elmer Clark 23:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete - Absolutely delete it. Spam/advertising and does not belong here at all. ResurgamII 01:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I see that my article has been requested for deletion. I took a look at some of the users who requested this, and I saw college students, computer programmers, and writers, but nowhere did I see anyone that seemed to have actual experience on any aerial circus apparatus. I did not see any indication that ANY of these people would know anything about aerial circus arts other than what they type into a search engine and find. Plus I added the link to the "Aerial Tissu" page to provide people with more opportunities to see and learn more about tissu and all the other apparatus, and my expansion was deleted. If this is an encyclopedia that is available to people on the web to expand their knowledge I do not see why there shouldn't be a dozen links to aerialists' pages to give a wide variety of what is really out there instead of giving one link leading to one website. Being an aerialist that has trained for several years and worked hard I have never come across any information that says the one link that is available on the "Aerial Tissu" article should be crowned the best representation of aerialists and be the only one offered on Wikipedia. If I've missed that announcement I'd love to get that memo. The website that is linked to the article leads to a good aerialist, but there are more professionals out there describing this topic, and the more available links that are listed on Wikipedia, the more rounded a persons understanding of that topic can be. So if my article is going to be deleted, it better be because someone with SOME kind of aerial training, background, and knowledge tells Wikipedia that my descriptions of the apparatus are not accurate, and the photos and video that are provided are falsely representing aerial circus apparatus. It should not be deleted because some young college student and computer programmer, with NO first hand experience in the circus world, have too much time on their hands. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AerialShowgirls (talk • contribs)
    • The reason why your article is getting deleted is not because of experience or lack thereof in the circus world. It is a simple case of notability (see Wikipedia:Notability). Also your article can be seen as advertising, which is inappropriate on Wikipedia. In fact, I find your claim that your article should only be judged by people who themselves have experience in the circus world amazing. There is nothing stopping anyone from writing, or criticising, an article about something they don't have first-hand experience of themselves. All that is required is an understanding of Wikipedia's rules and policies. If I were to write an article about myself, should I forbid anyone who is not a 20-something Finnish male computer programmer from saying anything about it? Of course not. JIP | Talk 11:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Then perhaps the article "Aerial Tissu" should be edited, and the link to www.aerialexperience.com should be removed too because when you click on that link, in the first paragraph it says, "From the meeting room to the stadium, aerial tissu is an emotionally moving act utilized with great success to entertain audiences. Perfect as a part of a symphony orchestra presentation, corporate meeting, tradeshow, sporting event or television production this creative aerial ballet can help to make a strong statement for your product and your company." Sounds like a suggestion to hire someone...like an advertisement. If that is not considered advertising than how is my article different when I offer a brief description of several aerial apparatus and present a link leading to more images and in-depth descriptions just as the article "Aerial Tissu" has? Plus, I was not saying that I think your lack of knowledge in circus should cancel your opinion. I was saying I think your lack of circus knowledge is limiting in deciding that one website deserves to be available as a link, but not another. Plus like I said before, why shouldn't there be at least a dozen links to aerialists' websites to provide the most accurate representation of Aerialists and the performance art itself. Any beginning aerialist is going to search online a lot to see photos and video of other aerialists to see the different styles and latest moves so they have something to aspire towards. I know this because I've been there searching myself when I was a beginner, and many of the students I teach are doing this now. Therefor having more info. available instead of less on an encyclopedia, in my opinion seems like a smart idea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AerialShowgirls (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. - Mailer Diablo 16:14, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trampoline platysmaplasty

Not notable, advert; very few Google hits on the term, and even "Gregory P. Mueller" and "plastic" doesn't get many. Previous prod removed by editor concerned that an expert was needed; I don't think that is necessary, I say let's just go ahead and get rid of it. Brianyoumans 03:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep - This is a legitimate subject for an article, though the text is written by someone who's not very good at it. If it survives AfD, let me know - I'm a doctor with an interest in anatomy, so I'm sure I can fix it. - Richardcavell 05:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Comment - you could fix it now which would increase its chances of surviving AFD. Editing is allowed during the AFD process. Yomanganitalk 11:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I've lost count of the number of articles I've tried to save by editing during AfD, and had my work wasted. If it's going to get deleted, there's no point. - Richardcavell 22:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I know the feeling. Yomanganitalk 22:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. I also do not see how this particular procedure, among the thousands of surgical procedures available, is notable enough for its own article. No notability shown or implied. Article is also detailed enough that I note WP is not a how-to guide. No sources, so fails WP:V. Keep noms should do more than simply claim notability because they say so. Tychocat 11:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete... neither MEDLINE nor PubMed seem to know of any journal articles about this procedure. Unless it can be legitimately sourced (for example, from the minutes of that ASAPS meeting), this article violates WP:V. --Kinu t/c 19:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I prodded this and the author removed the prod tag without giving a good enough reason on the article's talk page. --Sbluen 05:24, 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 Speedy deleted by Shanes. - Richardcavell 05:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gøran Aune

Non-notable person. Falls under WP:VAIN. zer0render 04:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy A7... a date of birth and a sentence about drinking with a buddy does not constitute an article. --Kinu t/c 04:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above, and per his friend. (below) --Shirahadasha 04:55, 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 Speedy deleted by Shanes as nn-bio. - Richardcavell 05:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Tårnesvik Hansen

Non-notable person. Falls under WP:VAIN. zer0render 04:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 04:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy A7... clearly no assertion of notability. DOB and favorite soda do not an article make. --Kinu t/c 04:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete No assertion of notability (somewhat the contrary, in fact). --Shirahadasha 04:53, 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 03:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mystic Nation

Non-notable band (I can find nothing on them outside of their own sites), article does not assert notability, probably either self-authored or copyvio Freekee 04:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, fails WP:BAND. --Terence Ong (T | C) 05:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per nom, tagged as such. Molerat 12:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per Molerat. I'm a little confused as to what is the appropriate course in situations like these. Should a db template be added when an AFD subject also meets speedy? The admin processing the one added in this case removed it. I have seen it go the other way. If somebody is aware of policy on this matter, please let me know. Erechtheus 23:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • It stays...


Mystic Nation is a trademark and the material is copywritten into history. The band owns the trademark, is a member of ASCAP and has international distribution. As far as notability, two of the band members were nominated for a Grammy in 2000, much of the historical record has not yet been uploaded, venturing into wikipedia seems a sticky subject, if there is a better way to present history and fact, not sensationalism, please explain. This page is only here to represent a group of musicians, a historical truth and basically the fact they have been performing all along with groups already existing on wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morris_Day_and_the_Time
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sublime_%28band%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Lobos
Oh yeah and part of some great history and truth...Goliath ordered http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mick_Fleetwood
a sandwhich when he was a kid.


Based alone on the fact that these bands are listed, this band should also be.

Outside documents include several news articles (prior to the internet, but can be scanned) from the Spokesman Review in Spokane, Washington, Music Connection (an industry standard) in Los Angeles and quite a few other sources from the LA Times to OC Register and the NY Times. Part of the group was also voted one of the top Rock acts in California 2001 (again part of the historical record that has yet to be entered, though I am sure once this joust is over, people will).—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.126.24.38 (talk • contribs)

  • Delete per WP:MUSIC. AllMusic.com hasn't heard of them, no evidence they've ever released an album, much less the two full-length albums required. ergot 18:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:MUSIC. Gamaliel 21:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I nominated this article, but if this person thinks the band is worthy of having an article, I'm willing to work with him on writing a new one - if he has evidence that it meets WP:BAND. He should comment here. In the meantime, still delete. -Freekee 13:23, 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. - Mailer Diablo 16:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Date rape psychosis

A plot device for one episode of South Park doesn't qualify for an article. The author's attempt to extrapolate the concept to a book in the Sweet Valley High series is a POV/OR comparison. wikipediatrix 04:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Appears to be fancruft. Agree comparison with non South Park events represents original research. It would appear that in general, attempts to use a fictional concept as if it were an actual one would be unverifiable, and unencyclopedic, by definition.
  • Whack with a fish* Fancruft is a non-specific word, please be more specific as you did in the rest of your post. - Mgm|(talk) 08:16, 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 No consensus Default to keep. I considered marking this as delete but the article seemed better sourced than the other misconception articles and there seems to be less consensus for this one's deletion. I hope the users who wanted it kept work to improve the article. JoshuaZ 21:18, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Science misconceptions

I just deleted Physics misconceptions as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Physics misconceptions; this seems to fall into the same category Deville (Talk) 04:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete and delete the other "misconceptions" articles as well. wikipediatrix 05:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Sad delete I would say to keep and rewrite this, but the article itself barely has any meaningful information in it. Like Physics misconceptions, it could be a useful and interesting article; I just don't think the current text would be of any use at all in writing that article. Keep if someone fixes it before the AfD runs out, I guess. (Also, you should peruse the see also section if you're chucking these - there's a lot more where this came from.) Opabinia regalis 05:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Doesn't deserve it's own article - see Misconception -Freekee 05:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all science misconception articles per AFDs of Physics and Chemistry misconceptions. The choice of misconceptions to explain on the articles is inherently POV. People wishing to put right their misconceptions would probably search for and read the article on that topic, not the article on the misconceptions of that topic. Molerat 12:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
    • It's certainly not inherently POV - if it's sourced, it's not POV at all. WilyD 12:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • What I meant was the misconceptions and their explanations are sourced and therefore not POV, but the choice of misconceptions discussed is, as there must be hundreds of science-related misconceptions, ranging from trivial to degree level science. It is POV to decide which deserve a place on this article and which do not. Molerat 13:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Fortunately, no such decision is necessary - you can include all that have reliable sources. Apart from which, it is essentially impossible to argue that choosing what to include and what to exclude from an article is so inherently POV that the article should be deleted - every single article does this. The article on Canada doesn't discuss everything that's verifiable that's ever happened there, but that's a featured article. If this was well sourced it'd certainly be encyclopaedic and verifiable, which would necessitate a keep argument. Here, it ain't though. WilyD 13:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
"If it's sourced, it's not POV at all" is just not true. If I started an article called Why Tom Cruise is a moron, it would obviously be inherently POV, even if I got copious amounts of sources for people stating words to that effect. The similar problem here is that "misconception" can be just as much a matter of opinion. wikipediatrix 13:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
If you had copious reliable sources about Tom Cruise being a moron, you should be able to make an encyclopaedic article. Everything in the whole shebang we call Wikipedia is just someone's opinion - please read WP:NPOV before accusing it of saying something it doesn't. WilyD 13:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm well aware that everything in Wikipedia is someone else's opinion, and I know WP:NPOV quite well, thanks anyway. The "inherently" part stems from the opinionated title and premise of the article - I thought I'd made that painfully obvious, but I guess not. wikipediatrix 13:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Given that neither the title nor the premise are inherently opinionated, it'd pretty hard for it to be obvious. I'm sure if someone were so inclined, they could write an excellent article on the exact subject using nothing but articles from peer-reviewed journals. Whilst the title might omit some implicit qualifier like common to suggest the entire content of the article needs to be in the title is a bit excessive. This article is at the title it should be per WP:NAME, being at the most common name for the subject in english - along with all sorts of other articles like Armenian Genocide or Wounded Knee Massacre WilyD 13:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I am also sure that an article called Why Tom Cruise is a moron would be deleted as an attack page and not for being inherently POV. Since this is not an attack page it is an apples and oragnes comparasion. You need a better example than that. I also have a question. Can you desmostrarte anytime that a well sourced artilce was deleted simply for being inherently POV? If you do can you please provide the AFD record so it can be eximined. --My old username 01:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • If anybody provides any reliable sources that show the misconceptions described are the most common of all misconceptions, as opposed to a random/potentially POV choice of misconceptions, I may change my mind. I doubt any reliable research has taken place into the most common science misconceptions, though. Molerat 18:49, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Just because an article could be incomplete dose not mean it must be deleted. By those criteria most articles in wikipedia have to be deleted. If there’s a science misconception that’s missing it can be added. Seano1 00:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete! The history of science shows that science is wrong more often than it's right. We just have to hope we weed out some wrong and accumulate right. You can't cram most of the history of science into a single article. Doczilla 05:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep The history of errors is just as important as the history of accomplishments. Quite a few misconceptions are notable and widely dicussed. Although I must admit this article is a poor stub now. By the way, IMO Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Physics misconceptions was closed in haste: only three votes, two for deletion. I am placing it into deletion review. Mukadderat 18:24, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep From my knowledge, it looks like the articles contain some original research WP:OR, but also some sourced statements. Anyway poor formatting, and in need of attention of an expert of the subject. See Deletion review: Keep all and improve; remove OR/POV (point of view), or Delete all. The articles are really poorly written, in terms of WP:LAYOUT. The misconceptions maight be sourced, because it happens again and again? I do not know the subject well enough. User:Yy-bo 19:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Name should be Misconceptions_(science), and disambiguation required. User:Yy-bo 19:35, 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. - Mailer Diablo 03:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] JpgEarth

Non-notable. 96 Google hits, no Alexa.com ranking. Haakon 04:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. EVula 04:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as promotional for a non-notable mash-up. --Dhartung | Talk 21:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. VegaDark 02:08, 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 14:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Flash (drug)

not notable, unsourced, trivial topic Anlace 22:02, 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, Deville (Talk) 04:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete so it's shown once in the game and doesn't appear in the movie? This is interesting how? Opabinia regalis 05:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. wikipediatrix 05:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, only shown once, non-notable ficitional item. --Terence Ong (T | C) 05:46, 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. --Sam Blanning(talk) 19:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bioethanol From Small Grains

I realize this is still being written, but nothing is going to save it from being a long personal essay full of original research that doesn't cite its sources and is pretty much redundant with bioethanol. Opabinia regalis 05:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. You don't know that. If you ask, you might get the author to cite sources and write in an encyclopedic style, but essentially this is OR and obsolete with our existing articles in the subject area. - Mgm|(talk) 08:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, this is an essay, not an article. JIP | Talk 10:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete - it fails per nom at the moment, but the editor claims they will provide references, and if cut back it wouldn't be entirely redundant with bioethanol (although it would be a likely merge candidate). Engaging the author before bringing it to AFD would have been a good plan. Yomanganitalk 11:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete... if this gets cited it would be appropriate for a merge to bioethanol, but I see no reason for a separate article.--Isotope23 15:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Rename to Biofuels in South Africa. Looks like sources have been added and the material that is there is specific to South Africa and the Western Cape so let's give the article the appropriate title and be done with it. --Richard 08:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Hmm. I was going to vote Move to Biofuels in South Africa, but then I actually read the thing. If those "references" at the bottom really are related to anything in the article (I hesitate to call it an article; it is an essay), there's no way to tell. This does appear to be rather POV and the tone is inappropriate. At the very least, it will need to be moved and rewritten. No vote. ergot 18:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. A very bloated essay. If someithing is salvageable, urge the author to merge it into bioethanol Mukadderat 18:28, 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 deleted by User:NawlinWiki (log). BryanG(talk) 03:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sugar-Free Party

Apparent hoax. No reference to this "Sugar-Free Party", either in history books or on Google searches Interlingua talk email 05:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

  • delete redirect page. '자유' can be translated into 'liberty', 'freedom' or free, and '당' is 'party' or sugar. so '자유당' -> 'Supar-Free' is just nonsense. Liberal Party (South Korea) has no problem now. --Klutzy 05:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • delete per nom Antonrojo 17:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Close, WP:RFD is the place to take redirects for deletion, but I'll slap a speedy anyway (it's implausible per Klutzy) so you don't have to relist. ColourBurst 20:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Close, it has been deleted. --My old username 22:13, 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, due to many new accounts asking for a keep, and the experience and reason shown by the deletion !voters. —Xyrael / 12:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yenta claus

non-notable content/advertising ArmadilloFromHell 05:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

*delete Apparent hoax. Book cited doesn't exist, at least as far as web is concerned. Antonrojo 17:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Conditional keep I support keeping this article if at least one source that discusses the details of the myth is added otherwise there is no way to tell if artistic license was taken. This should be available since we can read about oral histories of societies that have had little contact with outside societies I'd expect at least some reference would be available. If unreferenced information were removed, I doubt that enough information would remain to justify an article. Antonrojo 16:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Article apparently not hoax (see below). At least, book will need a {{fact}} tag Antonrojo 15:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Hoax, fantasy or original research. Should have been a speedy delete to begin with --ArmadilloFromHell 17:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep Not a hoax. Article was edited numerous times and all objections were addressed. Web sources were added to the article and linked. Not a lot of info on the web but there are sites which are unrelated to each other and in diverse areas referencing the Yenta Claus character that appear to confirm it. There is the emergence of Jewish Holiday Mythical Characters and one of them is Yenta Claus. The new info includes a play written by a Pace University Professor where Yenta Claus is Santa's wife! http://webpage.pace.edu/newmorning/archive/nov2100/party.htm People who voted to delet may reconsider after they reread the new and expanded article.--Bhires 16:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

What do you have against Jewish Holiday traditions? I keep adding everything I know about Yenta Claus and related characters even though they have Wikipedia entries of their own that ignore her. I will post the Yenta Claus "book" online for you and everyone else to read as I didn't know notable meant the necessity of materials being on the internet. I am probably wrong here, but I thought the reason Wikipedia invited new material was because the mission was to get info useful to readers on the net and that Wikipedia was paperless, with millions of entries and thus open to niche topics. Wait until December, Yenta Claus, Bubbe and Harry et. al. will be all over the net, blogs and relevant cultural sites as well as the off line world in mostly urban areas and I bet Israel too. Last year Blooms book, out of print at the time was fetching over $1000 on Amazon and I know it for a fact because I couldn't afford to get my hands on a copy. Now if Hanukkah Harry gets a stub entry and Chrismukkah get a full status entry and so does Santa Claus, why pick on Yenta Claus for exclusion? I made it a stub and asked for help in dressing up the article as well as expanding it. This is my first attempt at not only a Wikipedia article, but writing an online article altogether. Cut me a little slack and be constructive rather than summarily dismissing the subject and my attempts to fill an online void. P.S. Isn't Santa Claus really a hoax or fantasy perpetuated upon children for every ones enjoyment and delight? Be nice to Yenta Claus and she will be nice to you too! :-) I thought you would be delighted to see this and was taken back at the blatant attempt to censor it. Well, maybe you will reconsider, after all you really didn't give it more than a moment to 2 as you set it for deletion minutes after it went up yesterday and after the first revision spent less time to sent it to the deletion tribunal. --68.41.86.146 19:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC) PS isnt almost everything around the holidays, including Santa as we know it compliments of Coka Cola ads of the 1930-70s, comercial. It is impossible not to link to comercial sites when writing about anything to do with giving toys or the way children get them around Christmas, Hanukkah and Chrismukkah.

  • Delete, fails WP:V. For future reference, ranting never helps. Sourcing and citing the article, however, might. --Kinu t/c 19:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and, you know, this would make a good blog post, but is not an encyclopedia entry. --Dhartung | Talk 21:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


The standards you cite ought to result in the deletion of many many many articles I have read here. Not everything of note and worthy of inclusion in a site like Wikipedia is vintage or antique so as to have been published in sources required for undergraduate term papers. I have written my fair share of those and have since experienced enough real life post graduate school to escape from grade school mentality. No rant but really folks, real life is a very good source, ie published news articles, published speeches made by leaders and authorities in the field, actual books, commercial site offering the evidence of the existence of the topic. So are you saying you object to anything that does not smell of moth balls and was already predigested by academic types so one merely regurgitates second and third or more hand takes on dry toast material? Don't need Wikipedia if that is all it is, but you have Hanukkah Harry? And so much totally weird stuff? You propose to censor what is offered to the public, an inside scoop, the real thing with cites of real people doing and writing and saying what amounts to a cultural phenomena and you vote to delete? Apparently because the citations and links do not lead you to stuff that sits that has been around so long it is already dusted over on times shelves? Well, I may pull it off totally befre you delete it and write about how you young folk barely out of school with little real life under your belt think you qualify as experts in censorship.--68.41.86.146 22:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

OK rather than summarily vote to delete something as wonderful as yenta Claus, and since you all apparently have the time to sit in judgement over so much information that undoubtedly is tossed up, I ask for the sake of discussion that you, for the moment only, assume that Yenta Claus is a worthy subject, critique my work from that vantage. In other words, tell me how to win. Not to worry, even if you tell, if I can't deliver than I'll at least understand. I think I get the drift here but being that we have a generation gap and I can, thought rarely will admit to remembering, fondly remembering, rotary phones and party lines. Ha! Now those are subjects dusty enough to be included? Yes? So the future will know of it? And I remember the first TV and the first orbiting satellite Sputnik. There write about the Space Race wars and haw us kids watched the night sky to see a Soviet glowing ball of steel float over the night sky several times every clear night. OK, tell me what you consider the type of sources I need and I may just be able to float a few your way and then maybe not but at least you will have "communicated" and perhaps I'll write about a few patents, a religion based upon faith in life and how a trial lawyer save tens of thousands of lives with one lawsuit and did it all pro bono. Really, do give Yenta Claus the chance anything that cool deserves by just giving up the details your summary dismissals hint but do not reveal to those who were born before the Internet.--68.41.86.146 23:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

FYI [15] and do forgive me for sharing this: "Aaron Swartz analyzed who was mostly responsible for adding the gist to a typical Wikipedia article, and his findings show that – as opposed to what Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales himself assumes – it’s mostly outsiders (people doing only occasional edits, often unregistered). The Wikipedians, those people with deep inside knowledge into how Wikipedia works (like policy debates or advanced syntax), do more edits by number, but those edits are also often just structural or syntactical changes to content “non-Wikipedians” provided.

Frankly, all of this makes perfect sense (expert knowledge on such a wide array of topics must be widely distributed among different people, too, and won’t be contained within a group of say 500 Wikipedians), but it also shows that Wikipedia will only remain healthy if it keeps trusting outsiders." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bhires (talk • contribs) .

  • delete There are no Ghits (out of 32 unique hits for "Yenta claus") outside the company, its products, and greeting cards, and a private individual using tripod.com, so it appears to be all original research. The owners probably would have not been able to register such a company name had it been a generic term. However, if Yenta claus brings me something for Chrismukka, I might just reconsider ;-). The article appears to be a product placement, written in such a way as to subtly introduce an apparently unknown company and its products, and so violates WP:NOT a soapbox. Wiki does indeed have a conservative bias, but is not censored, so whether the editors collectively "like" or "dislike" the article would never be an issue. Unlike blogs which where people can write or rant about whatever trendy thing they like or dislike, wiki editors need to follow fundamental rules on verifiability, and unfortunately Blogs and chatroom fora are not considered reliable per WP:V. As a result, Wiki may often miss grass-roots phenomena, which blogs and community sites pick up. Also, there are subject areas, cultures, countries which have a low web presence/penetration, wiki editors would tend to err on the side of caution when no sources (on-line or otherwise) are cited. Often, the deletion debate results in articles found which may sway the deletion panel. The simple fact is that a well sourced and referenced article, documenting a well-known phenomenon, has a much better chance of being retained than one which does not do one or the other. Ohconfucius 02:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
vote change to Neutral. Appears to be a genuinely emerging phenomenon gathering momentum, but still lacking in reliable sources. Ohconfucius 04:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

User:ArmadilloFromHell added the "prod" template to the article Yenta claus, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but we don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and User:ArmadilloFromHell explained why in the deletion notice (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree, discuss the issues raised at Talk:Yenta claus. If you remove the "dated prod" template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. — riana_dzasta wreak havoc|damage report 00:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to blank or remove content from Wikipedia, as you did to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yenta claus, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --ArmadilloFromHell 00:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Ohconfucius None of the 32 Ghits about greeting cards are mine and you missed the sites on jokes/humor and Comedians playing the Yenta Claus character for Elk club and the like parties and the reference to Yenta Claus on the Chrismukah site. Ta ta self serving dunces. I did creat a pillow doll exhibited on one site named Yenta Claus, but alas it is not a retail site and you can not buy one online or in any brick and motar store anywhere. Selectively reporting a single engine key word search and then with bias slanting the report of it, thus telling a bold lie, is a very dishonest and unethical tactic and particularly offensive when used for a purpose a nefarious as censorship.--Bhires 02:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC) Oh you also missed the Rabi's published online four (4) myears ago, Hanukkah sermon on Chrismukkah and Yenta Claus! There are other sites as well, referencing her and BTW Yenta Claus is the name of a Corporation as well. And, since you probably are not Jewish have little to no interest in.

comment Concerning the other sites you mentioned, these were personal websites and excluded per WP:V and WP:OR. If you are implying that the Armadillo recruited me, you will have one hell of a job to prove it. BTW, I only notice one person ranting here. The only thing missing is expletives ;-) Ohconfucius 03:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


It isn't my job to prove anything to u as "the proof is in the pudding."


So the Elks Club, Some Synagoges publishing a Rabi's sermon online and American Greetings, Yahoo and Chrismukahh are all personal site. Cool. So is Wiki than!

Hey look what I found![16] I guess it was considered valuable to someone even though it was up a fraction of an hour, first version up less than an hour yesterday, when it was cut and pasted and shared! —The preceding unsigned comments were added by Bhires (talk • contribs) .

comment There are loads of sites which pick up content directly from wiki, as it is free from copyright. In an earlier post, you asked how your article could be turned into something keepable, and I did offer some advice. But it would appear that you are making your own interpretation of the rules and not actually appear prepared to listen to anybody. I will not give you any more grief. My vote remains unchanged. Ohconfucius 03:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

OK you all want Yenta Claus deleted, so which one of you reposted it!! Why so you can click your delet buttons in unison upon the The Verdict as in the Tale of Alice in Wonderland? (remember the trial and the mouse's tale?)LOL Enjoy your exercise and let sanity not vanity win the day. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bhires (talk • contribs) 04:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC) in response to the reversion of his blanking of the article.


I read this on a Wiki user site: "This is what the inherent failure of wikipedia is. It's that there's a small set of content generators, a massive amount of wonks and twiddlers, and then a heaping amount of procedural whackjobs. And the mass of triddlers and procedural whackjobs means that the content generators stop being so and have to become content defenders. Woe be that your take on things is off from the majority. Even if you can prove something, you're now in the situation that anybody can change it. And while that's all great in a happy-go-lucky flower shower sort of way, it's when you realize that the people who are going to change it could have absolutely no experience with the subject whatsoever, then you see where we are." --Bhires 04:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

and as [[17]] continues, and please do forgive me for sharing. I am tired and feel a bit worn out by what I thought would be a positive and productive effort to what is clearly becoming 'not fun at all' and otherwise something I wouldn't ever do again, unless, possibly unless I was paid a significant amount for, turned into efforts to salvage my little but notable piece from an attack of the Langoliers as in the 1990 Steven King novel Four Past Midnight;

"If you've ever worked in a large company, one where not everyone's name is known by everyone else, you've bumped into these people, who don't know the thing the company makes very well, don't keep on top of new ideas beyond buzzwords, yet wield the kind of power where they can stop and start innovation and positive growth because they simply feel like it. It's pretty heartbreaking stuff and I hope a bunch of you never have to deal with it.

But thanks to Wikipedia, you can experience this on a daily basis! College students with too much free time deciding your subject matter is not worth reporting. Bizzare insight from strange lands telling you they didn't think your paragraph was relevant. And ever the bizzare need for a Neutral Point of View. Neutral Point of View is a doctrine about how Wikipedia articles should be written. Like wikipedia itself, it is a great idea in theory. In application, of course, it turns into yet another hammer for wonks and whackjobs to beat each other and innocent bystanders.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhires (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia is a relatively new creation, but it already quite beset with the same problems that inhabit any self-styled intellectual collaboration. People make little empires, have their agendas, push through ideas and themes they want, and disregard and delete things they do not. The main difference between this and other similar academic environments is the pure speed at which stuff can happen; you can literately have 30-40 little editing nibbles on a page within a single day. If people are feeling frisky, it can take place in a few hours. This means that you get all the politics and turf war of Ivory Tower Academia without the mitigating barrier of time to cool down or consider. That is, you get a nice big mess." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhires (talk • contribs)

Delete and comment Fails WP:NEO and WP:V. Changed to conditional keep - see belowBhires, you're not helping yourself here by making personal attacks. I've removed them, and I suggest you spend your energy discussing the merits of this article, instead of throwing insults on the project and its contributors. Baseball,Baby! balls•strikes 05:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


  • Delete – Bhires, if your article was backed up with the appropriate citations and references, I doubt anyone would worry about it too much. It's a shame that you think so little of Wikipedia, but I hope that you'll spend some more time understanding that the policies we have are there for a reason. As I see it right now, the article is a pretty good candidate for deletion. — riana_dzasta wreak havoc|damage report 06:16, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


I think less and less of it every time I login. It may be that some think so little of Wiki that they feel qualified to delete another’s work and project their own motivational issues upon others when ascribing opinions on intentions and efforts.

To have Baseball Baby, who ever that is, remove my discussion because of an apparent discomfort when criticism is too accurate citing a no personal attacks policy as censorship justification is one example of why I object to this exercise. It is a poorly organized effort. Well, you should know, my comments were not intended as personal though expressed with feelings of a real person, me. I usually avoid this kind of silliness, that is subjecting myself and work to critiques by people who don't have a clue about it nor its cultural context and may, possibly may, harbor resentments towards others, i.e. prejudices.

Yes it really bothers me to have you all nominate something I care about. I’d rather have never offered it than to have it shot down. It is doubly an offense that I don’t feel some here are truly qualified as gatekeepers. It would be different if someone here tried to be objective and contributed to an effort here rather than issue summary deletion attacks. Nevertheless, I agree to remove the entire article, something I have agreed to before but was actually prevented from doing.

BTW, for those who keep referring to me as a he and those who are impolite, not that it really matters, but I am a highly educated, successful, accomplished dual professional and a woman. Many of my accomplishments could easily rate for separate entries. Note: I am not interested in more notoriety than I have already received in life. I had my moments and do not need any more. See, I already have had two Wall Street Journal articles discussing me and my work, numerous TV news appearances, on the cover of magazines, hard copy not online, and featured in various news papers, print copy and so on and so forth.

Note: I have read up on many of the contributions, citations in articles of minor note and personal pages of most here. I am happy some are ambitious and seek success and fame. I am impressed that some graduated college, and some have jobs or once had jobs and that some are heads of their own publishing companies, i.e. Boggs and online rant sites. A few even wrote articles about their experiences. However, it does appear to me that perhaps some of you though adults are fairly young, very close to the age of my son. Thus I should give you all a bit of slack, something not offered to contributers of content apparently, and tolerate the youthful approaches.

I would like to simply withdraw my article.

I have one other recommendation for the future, it would be wise to learn to be less judgmental about what the "world" may find of value. Clearly that Wiki lets people write articles about their High Schools, college records, amongst articles about companies that once employed them, and the like, all of which underscores Wiki's acceptance biases.

So, let's end this now. I elect to redact my article.--Bhires 15:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment: Seeing as how the original author is now in favor of deletion, given that she is the only editor (aside from an IP who is assumed to be the same editor from the comments herein), can this be speedy G7ed? --Kinu t/c 15:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC) Eh, might as well let the AfD play out, for the sake of future G4ability. --Kinu t/c 16:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm reversing my vote above if that makes a difference...my main reason for citing WP:V was the lack of citations to the book. Whether the unverified book citation belongs in the article or not, legitimate sources do mention Yenta claus so I think it passes the validity test: [18] [19] [20]. Antonrojo 15:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Comment: IMHO, the use by a few random greeting cards (even though they are on American Greetings, etc.) and a random crafts website is of tenuous reliability, at best. Other editors might agree with you though. --Kinu t/c 16:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, fair enough. So long as it's up, I'll revise as I can to address the objections. The "book" about Yenta Claus is now available for reading online at [21] Scroll down read on, a short read as it was meant for children. Whether or not you still vote to delete my article, I do hope you enjoy it and that you take away a bit of holiday good cheer.--Bhires 17:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Note: this will only show up in Internet Explorer Antonrojo 18:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll try to see what is wrong.--Bhires 20:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


I got it open with both Mozilla and Explorer. What browser are you using? Also try refreshing the page as sometimes your browser stores an older version in the cache' and the old page will appear.--Bhires 20:34, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Firefox Beta2. Apparently the problem is due to the 'beta' and not the 'firefox'.Antonrojo 16:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Conditional keep I was asked to reconsider, so I took another look at the article, the changes Bhires has made to the article since the Afd opened, and his sources. Based on the changes, I think I can see where Bhires is going with this, and I'm willing to give him a chance to more fully develop the article. He's provided sources, expanded it a bit, and demonstrated that the term isn't a hoax, so why not? I agree with Riana dzasta that it needs a serious copyedit and wikification, but that's not hard. My reasoning is that as Christmas and Hanukkah approach, there may be more references to Yenta Claus and more editors on this article, so let's wait until after the holidays to see what happens. It can always be renominated if it doesn't develop or expand, or if the term isn't in use this year. I think this may be the wrong time of year to judge notability as a neologism – a better method would be to wait until the time of year when the term is more likely to appear online and other places. My condition? No more calling people "whackjobbers" and the like, okay? :-) BaseballBaby 01:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Deal and thanks for reconsidering :-)) P.S. I'll put in a good word for you with Yenta Claus. You never know!--Bhires 02:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment about to embark on a wild copyediting spree, have moved page to Yenta Claus; hope no one minds. Agree with BaseballBaby (for some reason your nickname makes me laugh, by the way), conditional keep provided that we get more references, etc, and that Bhires continues to play nicely :) (I understand it would be very hard to sign up and have your first article nominated for deletion, so I won't judge you too harshly) — riana_dzasta wreak havoc|damage report 07:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: While the concept may exist, I still fail to see how a play of dubious notability (written/performed for a holiday party and staged once?), even along with the other references provided, meets WP:RS. Mind you, I have no prejudice toward recreation if this concept does gain some traction this holiday season or whatnot, but until then, WP:NOT a crystal ball as to whether notability will be asserted in the future. I do appreciate the efforts to source the article, however, and best of luck to the author in her future contributions. --Kinu t/c 13:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Suggestion everybody take five, and don't get your knickers in a twist. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 23:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

RE: Suggestion Point taken and I have adjusted my knickers. I was unfamiliar with the workings of the site at the time I began to write. It all started as I was researching the subject, found Hanukkah Harry and no Yenta Claus on Wiki and rather spontaneously, began writing for Wiki to fill what I preceived as an online void. Over the past few days, I think I have spent as much time learning the Wiki process and trying to make amends, as the time I spent trying to improve the contribution to address the concerns raised. I am truly a "newbie" here and hope my learning curve is short.  :-)--Bhires 22:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep. The article needs more work, but seems to be genuine enough for me. Jdclevenger 02:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nelogism, of dubious notability and verifiablity. Mukadderat 18:31, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Kinu - no evidence that the concept has "gained traction" yet. It seems that a few scattered creators have invented the punny name independently. FreplySpang 02:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment If she is indeed popping up on multiple independent sites that all say she is a Jewish Hanukkah character, why negate her? The article includes all known versions from a NPOV. I have read many wiki articles on obscure characters that are not deleted who have either no external referances or are merely claimed to exist in ancient manuscripts written on untranslated Arabic or simply referanced to a library, containing thousands of books, in a distant nonenglish speaking foreign country. At least we know Yenta Claus exists in multiple online communities. I have even read emails/blogs have written years ago where they write that they asked her for presents for Hanukkah. I think some here just might be a tiny bit too hasty in their dismissal of her. At least she should be allowed time up during the Holiday since she is a seasonal character and we are out of season now. Time will tell who was correct, but if she is deleted now, she may not reappear and Wiki will be out an objective stub and a valuable article. Do you really think come March when the referances fade off line in the off season someone will say, hey lets write about her for Wiki? Please reconsider.--Bhires 04:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC) Changed to "comment"--Bhires 05:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Comment You said "Time will tell who was correct, but if she is deleted now, she may not reappear..." That's actually a key part of the Wikipedia philosophy. If an article is deleted and no other author comes along with the same idea, that means that "time has told" that it was appropriate to delete it. Also, if several individuals have independently come up with the name "Yenta Claus," it does not mean that there is any shared cultural concept that they are all referring to. Uncle G, a respected longtime contributor, has written an excellent essay that you may find helpful for explaining some of these issues. FreplySpang 16:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Comment Thanks for the info linking Uncle G and I did read it and understand where you are coming from on this. In Yenta's favor, he did say things that would tend, at least somewhat support, keeping the Article as well. I see how people could easily vote either way. I just want a chance to better it. I am new here and am sorry to have put it up early and in such unfinished form. I saw many with less and thought it was going to be a colaboration of sorts not a rush to judgement. I appreciate many helpers and supporters and believe we will get morer contributers soon as the season is approaching and perhaps people from other groups, like Chrismukkah and such helping too. I did more research on both Christmas and Hanukkah characters ond observances and the internet discussions pretty much end in early Janurary and start up around late october to mid November or so. I do see her as a emerging and Notable character even if she is of interest to a smaller group and during a specific time of year. Uncle G seems to support these topics and cautions against subjectivity in deleting them because of this. I am tired and need to do something else for a while so my comments should be taken in that context and in both the words and in the spirit of an excellent essay. I just don't feel it is fair to dismisss the topic if it isn't of interest off season, like now I guess. I'll work more on her and Mrs. Claus later today or in the morning. I did find a very nice referance to the origin of Mrs. Claus and added a bit to that very short and neglected article. I am beginning to adopt her as an interest of mine and I'll actively work to improve that entry too. Later and nicey nice til I am back to work on this.--Bhires 18:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom.--Peta 09:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Not covered by reliable sources in any way. Less than 50 unique Google hits? I'm surprised there's even one argument for keeping this nonsense. Wickethewok 04:08, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Off Topic, Sightly that is

[22] This is way too fun not share. The subject os the short freebie is "Yes there is a Jewish Santa Claus Virginia!" I have to actually work today and will not get back on the project until later this evening so be gentile with Yenta Claus in my absence, pretty please.--Bhires 15:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Never nude

A minor plot device from episodes of Arrested Development doesn't qualify for an article of its own. Not even important enough to merge into the show's own article. Fancruft. wikipediatrix 05:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Minor plot devices can be important too, though I'm pretty sure this one isn't. Please don't throw around the term fancruft as it is overly generic and possibly inflammatory to some (I know I get irritated by it). Your nomination works fine without it. - Mgm|(talk) 08:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm pretty sure there's nothing wrong with saying fancruft given that it just means I'm too lazy to make an actual argument for deletion. WilyD 13:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, amusing as the plot device (and the scene the picture's from) is. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator. JIP | Talk 10:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless reliable sources are added. Topic seems encyclopaedic enough if verifiable third party sources have covered it. WilyD 13:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete even if reliable sources are added. "Minor plot devices can be important too!" You guys really brighten up my day. Recury 14:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
    • More like I prefer the judgement of reliable sources on whether things are notable to the opinions of Wikipedians WilyD 14:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, hilarious recurring joke from one of the funniest series to ever air on television; but it in no way merits a stand-alone article. Now if you'll excuse me I have to get back to blending my professional interest in being an "analyst" with being a "therapist". Maybe I should get some business cards made....--Isotope23 15:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Now, if this were analrapist, it would be...exactly the same decision now that I think of it. This has its place on the Internet, but Wikipedia is not that place. Erechtheus 23:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Doczilla 05:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. 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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 16:32, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Human Meta-Human Vampiric Virus

Wikipedia is WP:NOT a game guide. The relevant information is already in the Shadowrun article, so there's nothing to merge. wikipediatrix 05:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Weak Delete Article is a detailed expansion beyond the mention in the article, but is awfully crufty. -Freekee 05:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and edit mercilessly, the disease's mention in the shadowrun article is awfully short. It can't hurt to describe the different strains in a separate article. Cruftiness usually requires cleanup instead of deletion. - Mgm|(talk) 08:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. This article contains informaion beyond what is in Shadowrun. jgp TC 10:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes. Game guide information. Which doesn't need to be an article. wikipediatrix 13:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Why not? --Dr Archeville 14:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Because WP:NOT says so. wikipediatrix 14:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
From the definition of encyclopedia, an encyclopedia is "a comprehensive written compendium that contains information on all branches of knowledge". jgp TC 07:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
This is not a how-to. Kappa 21:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep but edit/expand. --Dr Archeville 14:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge, describing an aspect of the game is encylopedic, unlike a how-to which is what WP:NOT prohibits. Kappa 21:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep the article provides useful information that should not be included in the Shadowrun article to keep its size down. EvilCouch 05:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge, expands on info already in the shadowrun article. Kim Bruning 12:16, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep -- This doesn't really fall under the "Wikipedia is not a game guide" category, since the Shadowrun universe is primarily a pen-and-paper RPG setting, and therefore not something one can write a game guide (in the video-game-how-to sense) for. Pinball22 15:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete this cruft. Doczilla 05:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete of what possible use or end could this be?-Kmaguir1 08:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:00, 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. Herostratus 06:17, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] String Theory (band)

No evidence of notability. I put this up for speedy deletion (A7) but it was contested.  — Tivedshambo (talk) 05:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment - I'm really not sure about the reliability of the sources - can anyone offer any insight? WilyD 13:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, Boomkat is an online record store and Last.fm is a service that tracks what its user's listen to (even I'm on there!). I don't know about the others but they don't exactly scream notability ("Local review roundup", etc.). Skam is a notable label, but one split 12" on there doesn't cut it IMO. Recury 14:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Marginal, but I suspect that the releases add up to notability. -- TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 16:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Wobblyhead records has other notable artists in their roster: Casino vs. Japan. Numerous other bands in the IDM Musicians category have fewer releases or references than this band and are notable enough to have entries. Compare: NNY, Ornament_(band), Flatline_Skyline. --Dactile 21:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per TruthbringerToronto. --Gray Porpoise 22:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JoshuaZ 21:12, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trissanju

This is a made up animation/series. There is *nothing* independent in google on this topic. (The only other non-Wikipedia mention was added to the Urban Dictionary by the a person with the same as one who heavily edited this article.) This is an extensive WP:HOAX. Of the persons who "vouched" for it on talk all had only one edit. I assume they have the same IP and I invite others to more throughly investigate. --Kunzite 05:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Auxillary articles included for deletion along with the Trissanju:

  • List of trissanju episodes
  • Sanjeev (anime)
  • Sven the Wise
  • Trissanju
  • Tristan (anime)
  • Delete all as this is hoax. Anime series on Wikipedia generally have at least 'some' Japanese text in them. At least original (japanese) name and character names, while this article doesnt even cites series title, even after saying this 'series' is restricted to Japan. For me, the fact that [AniDB.info AniDB] has nothing on Trissanju is reason enough that Trissanju is a hoax, but the fact there is nothing on google and no Japanese words just confirm it. Shinhan 10:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all the scaryness, delete! Interesting how certain epiosdes are banned in the UK despite the BBFC knowing nothing about it... Shiroi Hane 17:22, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:03, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Invisible Master

The subject of this article appears to be pure original research. No independant sources on the web have been found to verify it, and the one non-web source that was provided in the article appears to be nonexistent itself - see Talk:Invisible Master. Bryan 05:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Book also not found in out-of-print search. On talk, the article creator says it is discussed in several internet forums, which are not reliable sources. - Mgm|(talk) 08:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, sounds like OR nonsense. Jefffire 08:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete seems to be unverifiable, unsourced (no trace of the book mentioned) O.R. Dlyons493 Talk 16:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. This looks to be WP:HOAX to me, but it's certainly WP:OR. Erechtheus 23:47, 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. - Mailer Diablo 14:38, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BA (Hons) Film and Television Production at York St John University

Proposed deletion of this Bachelor's level degree from a UK university. Not notable and no notability asserted. This is one of hundreds of Bachelors courses are offered in every University around the world, and this article would appear to fit into WP:NOT indiscriminate collection of information. Ohconfucius 06:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete with honours per nom. Yomanganitalk 11:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. JPD (talk) 11:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination.--Isotope23 16:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 16:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete per nom - Blood red sandman 17:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. It doesn't even seem worth merging into the article for this university. Ladybirdintheuk 10:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete Scarykitty 06:20, 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. - Mailer Diablo 16:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ato Generalao

Possible hoax in what I'm guessing is Tagalog. If I read this correctly this is about a basketball player affiliated with the Minnesota Timberwolves (where he was just recently added to the "not to be forgotten" section). So I don't know nothing about the Wolves roster, but if there is or was a player of that name on the team Google should know about it (and it doesn't). There was a Philippine basketball player named Willie Generalao (who played for the Barangay Ginebra Kings), but I can't make out any connection. Unless there's a typo or someone can translate and source this, I'd say delete as unverifiable. ~ trialsanderrors 06:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Possibly a hoax and not in English... JPD (talk) 11:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, WP:BALLS. I don't need to know Tagalog to know that some of the claims in this article are totally fabricated. Ga average siya og 70.3 ppg... if that means what I think it does, then... yeah right. --Kinu t/c 19:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per all above. Erechtheus 23:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --MaNeMeBasat 14:20, 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. - Mailer Diablo 16:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] B.I.A.C.

Delete article per WP:OR. Subject is a secret society whose information is potentially unverifiable as per WP:BAI Ohconfucius 06:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, OR and unverifiable to boot. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. - Mgm|(talk) 07:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless someone comes forward with something that negates WP:OR. Erechtheus 23:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, because it seems like a probable hoax. I have never voted in one of these before, but I feel the related article Ashford Williamson Fitzsmore should also be looked at (but I do not know how to list it here) Jlittlet 23:25, 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. Petros471 12:45, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] STUDIOdesign

Non-notable company, does not meet WP:CORP. Prodded but tag removed. LambiamTalk 06:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Weak delete per nom. Article could assert importance if it is more than "Guinness used us once". --Dhartung | Talk 21:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • delete per nom. Mukadderat 18:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, does not meet WP:CORP. Herostratus 04:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Does not meet any of the three criteria for notability listed in WP:CORP. Insufficient sources per WP:V, and reads like WP:ADVERT. --Satori Son 04:56, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Leroy_C._Zignego

Someone tagged it, but didn't finish the nomination. - Mgm|(talk) 07:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Most of this article, after the first paragraph, was copied from the article about a separate, unrelated person, John E. Jones III. The actual subject, Leroy C. Zignego, appears to have been a civil engineer, but he apparently did not meet the notability standard of WP:BIO. Although the article's creator inserted a "Page not done yet..." message at the top of the page, that was in March of this year, and the article's creator has not returned to fix the article since then. If the subject really is notable, someone would have to fix the article to establish that and remove the unrelated material. --Metropolitan90 07:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, I'm sure it's better to have no article than a portmanteau of two people. --Dhartung | Talk 21:43, 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 wasSpeedy Delete as vanity by User:Dijxtra. ColourBurst 22:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Old School Eric

This was prodded and deleted; the author immediately recreated it. This person completely fails WP:MUSIC: as far as I can gather he is not even a recorded artist, just a guy who makes mixtapes. -IceCreamAntisocial 06:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete obvious vanity - ALL links points to youtube.com. RN 10:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as subject does not meet WP:MUSIC and if this is a recreation, it could be listed as a speedy G4...--Isotope23 16:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Salty Delete - CSD:G4, Not remotely notable, vanity page. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 16:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I added speedy deletion tag per vanity page and non-notability criteria. Antonrojo 18:10, 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 Keep. Catchpole 09:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] B-Factory

this page relates to a machine used to generate sub-atomic particles. proposed deletion or merger into a suitable article, such as meson or particle physics. Ohconfucius 06:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep. It might be a stub, but it's perfectly verifiable and a legit article subject. If you absolutely must merge, then AFD is not the place to post it. - Mgm|(talk) 07:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep This stub is definately verifyable from reliable sources. Merge if you want per Mgm but the subject matter is clearly encyclopediac - Peripitus (Talk) 11:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Stub is not a criterion for deletion, but expansion. WilyD 13:08, 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, simply because noone can find any sources even asserting this person exists. I looked myself and I can't seem to find anything that isn't WP mirrors. No prejudice against recreation if sources eventually appear. --- Deville (Talk) 03:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kumaranalloor Mani

Fails WP:BIO and WP:V --Nonpareility 15:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Fails WP:BIO and generates <100 hits on Google. --Nishkid64 16:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. Practicer/performer of ancient, dying art in India; seems to be part of developing info on Mayilattam. Keep for more time for info. Perhaps someone from Portal:India could help... - CobaltBlueTony 16:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- GRBerry 00:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - He is one of the few masters of Mayilattam Bakaman Bakatalk 19:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - Well known and notable among performers of traditional arts in South India _Doctor Bruno__Talk_/E Mail 13:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete without prejudice of recreation if his work can be shown to be verifiably important or notable. As is, lack of reliable sources to demonstrate verifiability violates Wikipedia policy. -AED 01:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and delete into Mayilattom. The article is unverified and likely to remain a stub.-- thunderboltza.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK 12:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  • The edit history of merged material needs to be retained for attribution purposes. Therefore, merge and delete is not a valid combination. - Mgm|(talk) 07:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete then. The article contains no more information than that already provided in Mayilattam. Despite living in this part of the world, it is very hard to verify the notability of a person involved in this nearly obsolete art form.-- thunderboltz(Deepu) 07:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I am abstaining but a query to those who suggested keep. Are you guys familiar with this person, as google does not seem to give a single hit that is not a copy of the wikipedia article ? Tintin (talk) 06:35, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Request to admin Can we keep this open for a couple more days. I'll try to ask around about this person.Tintin (talk) 06:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
This AfD from 30 August 2006 has been relisted to achieve consensus. Please add further comments below. Thanks -- Samir धर्म 06:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: An excellent example of non-Western English-language content. --AStanhope 12:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless sourced. If sourced, keep. Dlyons493 Talk 16:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep if sources can be provided in order to combat WP:BIAS issues. Otherwise delete. RFerreira 18:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete.nn.-Kmaguir1 08:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep provide sources, otherwise delete. --MaNeMeBasat 14:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete if the person is "famous", there should have been no trouble in finding references by now. In any case, there is no problim to recreate the article when the verifiability concern addressed. Mukadderat 18:37, 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 a7, no assertion of notability. I think Antonrojo meant to say he *listed* the article for speedy deletion. NawlinWiki 18:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alabama Circus

Proposed deletion of vanity page of non-notable band, whose membership does not appear stable. no sign that it passes WP:MUS: no tours, no CD or hit single, no article in allmusic, 18 unique out of 80 Ghits, of which 6 relevant, including wiki. The others are mostly ads placed in search of musicians (drummer & guitarist) Ohconfucius 06:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Their bio also says they were formed in 2006. Can't find any evidence it passes WP:MUSIC either - Mgm|(talk) 07:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I speedily deleted per WP:MUS Antonrojo 18:15, 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 keep and relist. I note that this article has been expanded quite substantially. Due to this and the procedural, advise relisting. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alan Craig

Alan Craig (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Procedural error This is AFD #2 for this article. Prior discussion is in the history of this AFD; see the closed original AFD here. GRBerry 02:14, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

A local councillor, which is not a claim to notability, who once said something pithy about the Bishop of Southwark. And that appears to be about it. I'm not convinced this has any purpose other than to disparage the Bishop of Southwark, since the author's only other contribution is to the Christian Peoples Alliance article. Cruftbane 21:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete, falls far short of WP:BIO, in addition to WP:COATRACK problems. --Dhartung | Talk 21:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, local politician with no coverage, no other features of note. Sandstein 22:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, per nom. -- Kleinzach 01:05, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom Keeper | 76 16:13, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete totally nn. Tiptopper 20:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep I have just performed a complete rewrite of the article. This shows that he is a former leader of his party and has easily received significant press coverage in national publications such as the BBC, The Guardian and The Telegraph. I would ask that those who have made their opinions above have another look at the article which now easily meets WP:BIO. Davewild 20:56, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Easily passes WP:BIO as newly demonstrated by the improvements made by Davwild. Is the subject of secondary reliable sources, head of a notable political party and a councilor in a major London borough. --Oakshade 01:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Leader of a party anyone has ever heard of might be better :o) Cruftbane 08:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
WP:IDONTKNOWIT is not a reason to delete an article. The BBC, The Guardian and The Telegraph have heard of the party which by all accounts translates to all the people who read/watch those media outlets (millions) have heard of it. --Oakshade 03:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete: Local politician - Fails WP:BIO for Politicians. Identifying him in the CPA article is completely appropriate, however, IMHO. --Sc straker 03:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Being the subject of multiple secondary reliable sources fails WP:BIO? That's the core criteria of both WP:NOTE and WP:BIO. --Oakshade 03:47, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

This is when in the conversation the procedural error was noted. GRBerry 02:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cultural inhibitor

del. neologism by a single author. Bordering on original research. Poured from the same barrel as recently deleted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ideological nomadism. `'mikka (t) 06:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete looks like a sociological term desperately trying to catch on. Danny Lilithborne 07:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as a poorly defined neologism invented by a single, vanity-pulished author. Quote from the lead: "Cultural Inhibitor has been defined as a culture [...] which [...] imposes unfavorable limitations on people and society". Well, that just about includes every culture there ever was. --Thorsten1 09:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete original research definately. All three articles ( this one, Ideological nomadism and Subsistent worker) seem to be in the same vein as the musings of a single non-notable source with no reliable sources- Peripitus (Talk) 11:23, 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 16:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Subsistent worker

del neologism by a single author, the same one as for Cultural inhibitor neologism. Poured from the same barrel as recently deleted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ideological nomadism. `'mikka (t) 06:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete It's a sociological term created by a non-notable author. Danny Lilithborne 07:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete, not an established term: 4 unique Google hits out of 10, all seem to be mirroring WP, none make any sense. Not that it matters, but the concept itself doesn't make much sense, either - most people are "persistently one or two paychecks away from falling into dire financial situations that would cause their quality of life to decline". Better covered in working poor. --Thorsten1 09:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete original research definately. All three articles ( this one, Ideological nomadism and Cultural inhibitor) seem to be in the same vein as the musings of a single non-notable source with no reliable sources. Peripitus (Talk) 11:24, 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 16:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zarosaki

Group of folks who apparently color manga scans. Seems to fail WP:ORG test for notability (yes, I know it's not official guideline, but that's the category this subject fits into). NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 07:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Nogwej 12:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Despite the grandiose claims, this isn't an NPO, it's a group of fans who enjoy colouring other people's work in. Now, I have nothing against colouring other people's work in -- it's one of the things I do for a living -- but I see nothing to suggest that the people who do it are important enough to fall within an encyclopedia's scope. It's possible that the activity of colouring in manga and illegally distributing the coloured version might deserve an article, as we have similar articles on other copyright-infringing activities like fansubbing, fan translation, and fanfics, but the individual groups involved in such things rarely merit dedicated articles. — Haeleth Talk 13:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn, fails WP:V. Recury 14:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. -- NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 06:36, 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, see e.g. this link on Gbooks which shows that Shuker's book does make the reference. This term (which we've all heard anyway, but of course this doesn't cut it WP-wise) is a popular music term referenced in a scholarly work on popular music. Thus it easily satisfies WP:V and WP:N, and I'm sure many more sources can be found with more work (by, perhaps, the "keep" commenters below?). Also, can I take the opportunity to point out that Google Books is extremely strong? --- Deville (Talk) 03:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Teenybopper

Teenybopper was nominated for deletion on 2005-03-22. The result of the discussion was "delete". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teenybopper/2005-04-03.
Teenybopper was nominated for deletion on 2005-05-26. The result of the discussion was "no consensus". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teenybopper music.

Wikipedia has grown since this article was last the subject of an AfD, and I believe this article, especially in the tone in which it is written, has no place on Wikipedia. Mitch 07:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Oh, and the previous concensus was delete, but the article was not deleted. Sorry for what appears to be a double post, but this is the second time this has gone through an AfD, and I don't know how to prevent that. Mitch 07:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as blend of dicdef/POV. Most people dress the same way and express similar opinions as people around them. --Thorsten1 09:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I'd prefer a redirect on this one. Not sure where though... RN 10:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep sourced, encyclopaedic. Poorly written isn't important here, but may be of interest to Cleanup. Could use better quality sources, but that's generally part of cleanup WilyD 13:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment, not to nitpick, but this article isn't sourced at all.--Isotope23 15:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
      • It does list Shuker as a source. WilyD 17:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment, OK... but who/what is "Shuker" and when/where in 1988 did he make the statement attributed to him in this article? Maybe this is just a case of very lousy sourcing and citation... but personally I don's see a (sur?)name and a year as sourcing. It needs to be tied to an external source, or at least Wiki-linked so any other reader could figure out who made this statement, when, and in what context.--Isotope23 19:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment nevermind... see below.--Isotope23 19:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
        • ... but gives no clue as to who that is. For all that we know, that could be simply a friend of the editor who wrote that (Clarehodder (talk · contribs)). (It's probably Roy Shuker, but the point stands: This isn't helpful to readers who don't already know of Roy Shuker.) Uncle G 19:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
          • It's a standard citation style. While I'd never let a good article or featured article get away with it, it does cut the mustard at AfD, as far as I can tell. WilyD 20:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
            • This is quibbling at this point, but it's only standard when you have a bibliography at some point in your work... regardless, I made the sourcing clear. That should take care of some of the WP:V problems.--Isotope23 20:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
              • Yes, the sourcing is definitely much better now. WilyD 20:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
            • No. As Isotope23 points out it is not a citation. It's just a pointer to the actual citation, which in that style is located in a bibliography (or, in Wikipedia parlance, "References") section. See Wikipedia:Harvard referencing for how this works. To cut the mustard at AFD the source must be locatable. "Shuker (1998)" really provides no information to someone who doesn't already know what the source is, because it's just a pointer to the actual citation, rather than the actual citation itself. It's only enough to locate the citation itself, not enough to locate what is actually being cited. The actual citation, giving the name of the author, title of the work, publisher, and so forth, was never added to the article. Uncle G 00:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
              • No, what is it is Poorly Written including the citation - and Poorly Written isn't a criterion for deletion. WilyD 11:45, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
                • I don't think anyone is arguing deletion based on sourcing anymore, but a "citation" that doesn't actually tell you the source is more than "poorly written"... it's unverified. It's a moot point now, but I'd argue to delete any article that tried to pass that off as sourcing or verification.--Isotope23 17:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Tenative Delete This is one of those "I know it exists, but it is not WP:V. I imagine it could be WP:V sourced, but an precursory look turned up no reliable sources... and since it has been tagged since May 6th, 2006 I think 4 months is enough of a reprieve. If sourced by the end of the AfD then it should be kept, but if not WP:V sourced by the end of the AfD, it should be deleted.--Isotope23 15:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment struck above. I found a source for this that was a bit more appropriate than a last name and a random date & added it along with a biliography. I've added cite tags to everything else that was not sourced. No opinion, though all unsourced stuff should be pulled.--Isotope23 19:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Granted, cleanup and some better writing could be used but that's not a reason to me to delete it. If we delete this then why not delete valley girl or sections of, if not the entire, goth article? Dismas|(talk) 20:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and hand to maintenance. It's a valid cultural concept (subset of adolescence), especially as it's largely obsolete/historical. Needs better and more sources, though. --Dhartung | Talk 21:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep The term is notable for sure, but it might be hard to maintain an encyclopedia article about it. Danny Lilithborne 23:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
    • As far as
  • Keep The article is sourced and notable. Needs cleanup though.
  • Delete There seems to be nothing here that could not be covered in Youth culture or Youth subculture, or even Adolescence.Jlittlet 23:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, nor is it a dictionary plus some dates and cultural comment.-Kmaguir1 08:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
    • By dictionary plus some commentary do you mean Encyclopaedia article? WilyD 04:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep and expand. Highly noted term. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and {{sofixit}}. Highly noted term with 312,000 search results on Google. RFerreira 20:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep I am aware of numerous times I have read and heard the term and am sure with time and effort the subject will expand and be a valuable addition here.--Bhires 19:20, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:05, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jorum

Was speedied twice before. Once for being a one word entry, the second time by me for being a page that doesn't assert the notability of the subject (with a forum being treated as a group of users). This version seems to be different from the previous two, but it still fails WP:WEB miserably. Delete. - Mgm|(talk) 07:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Jorum is actually a forum for the alumni from Sha tin government secondary school(STGSS) in Hong Kong, it is not just a normal forum but a place for socialization of STGSS graduate, it can be regarded as a meeting place for the STGSS alumni —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eqman (talk • contribs)
  • Delete, a forum for one particular school only is hopelessly non-notable. JIP | Talk 10:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn forum. Lots of forums are meeting places for people who share some real-life connection. That doesn't really matter here. Perhaps we should consider protecting from recreation. Recury 14:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Preserve, To all fellows of the wikipedia, it is a new era of Wikipedia that there is a group of people who have a real-life connection and would like to leave their real record online. Its notability comes from the fact that it is the first time that there is a group of people by showing the real record of private life without hiding anything leaving to the future generation a way to know their past.Hksick
    • How can this be verified? JIP | Talk 08:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, this does not meet the criteria at WP:WEB.--Isotope23 16:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not an IRC yellowpages. Also, article title same as a more high profile project which lists 200 educational institutions as members...compared to 20 students. I find it odd that there isn't a speedy deletion criteria for pages that have been remade several times with the same content as previously deleted articles. Antonrojo 18:24, 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 16:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Narutrix

Apparently some sort of anime music video. Fails WP:NOTFILM miserably. NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 07:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. I think it's pretty obvious that we don't need an article for every AMV made, and I can't really see how this one is especially notable even within that field. --Rankler 10:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Recury 14:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete Well, to state that it fails WP:NOTFILM miserably is an overstatement. It won the Anime Music Video contest in 2004 and a google search shows more than 600 hits. So it passes the google test but I am not sure whether the above mentioned contest is a notable event in the field of Anime Videos. The award could be classified as a minor one, so it fails WP:NOTFILM, but only just. --Siva1979Talk to me 17:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Comment - the Amecon AMV contest is not a notable event - most anime conventions have such contests, and Amecon is neither especially large nor particularly known for its AMV contest. It's the biggest UK con, but the top British AMV makers tend to submit their work to the big American conventions instead. Ironfrost 18:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Comment - Well, thanks for enlightening me on this point. --Siva1979Talk to me 04:55, 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 what am I doing here? Grandmasterka 19:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bobby Vitale

Alright, I'll bite. Even if this article is completely true, I don't think he is notable as Briana Banks' ex (association does not confer notability) nor do I think he meets the (albeit proposed) WP:PORNBIO standard. Delete barring cited evidence of notability. Grandmasterka 07:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep. What part of the "performed in over 418 titles" are you missing? This obviously meets the proposed WP:PORN BIO guidelines. RFerreira 18:49, 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. - Mailer Diablo 16:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zenkaikenny

Little-know YouTube fandubber. Fails WP:BIO. NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 07:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Also nominating the following for deletion:

  • Sonic's PlayHouse

as it is one of the person's own creation, and has no notability asserted. –NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 00:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - his 15 minutes here are up. No assertion of importance in the article.... just another youTuber - Peripitus (Talk) 11:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Look at the history - it's a vanity page. You can't use youtube to bootstrap yourself into an encyclopaedia. BTLizard 12:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Good point - I've prodded his other creation and despammed it - Peripitus (Talk) 21:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete. This guy clearly does not meet WP:BIO, and the vanity just makes it worse. Erechtheus 23:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Kbja 06:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not impressed. Might become notable later on but for now he is no body.-- Marwatt 13:36, 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. - Mailer Diablo 16:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Super Cosplay Warriors Ultra

Anime fan-game. Fails WP:SOFTWARE; 19 Google hits for "Super Cosplay Warriors Ultra", all of them anime forum posts. NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 07:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Also now nominating

  • Super Cosplay Wars Ultra

as this article appears to be describing the same game. Googling this name gets 630 hits, all of them either mirrors of the Wikipedia article or more forums posts. –NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 05:49, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Funny title at least. Recury 14:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • clenaup. Strictly speaking, the game is a dojin soft, which probably falls under Wikipedia:fancruft instead of software. This game is also somewhat popular among Asian (especially HK and Taiwan) countries. (34800 hits for Chinese name "超級Cosplay大戰U".) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SYSS Mouse (talk • contribs) .
You mis-report the google hits. There are only 340 unique hits out of the 34,800. Most of those are forums and blogs. --Kunzite 02:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Delete What does dojin mean in English? It basically means "vanity press". (i.e. In Japan the term is used to refer to amateur self-published works, including but not limited to manga, novels, fan guides, art collections, music and video games. Some professional artists participate as a way to publish material outside the regular publishing industry.) Should wikipedia keep articles about small self-published works? It depends who wrote it. If Jun'ichiro Koizumi were to publish a dojin fan manga, it would. But if Taro Yamada (山田太郎 Yamada Taro?) with his friend Hanaku... not really. This is unsourced, original research on a self published work that is not suitable for Wikipedia. To top that off, there are 19 English google hits and 340 hits with the Chinese name. It's not a keeper. --Kunzite 02:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - I started the Super Cosplay Warriors Ultra page and realised that I got the name of the game wrong. Super Cosplay Wars Ultra is the correct name. However, I question whether the 'Super Cosplay Wars Ultra' should be deleted. I'll admit, as far as I am aware, the game has a small englsih speaking fanbase, but game is wildly available for download on English game sites (for one unverified source on download statistics check http://www.caiman.be/gamestats.asp?nr=1528) and the wiki article is about the only english guide around (few exceptions). That's my opinion anyway. Lenny_Reason 9:37, 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. - Mailer Diablo 16:37, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] D and K Radio Show

I speedied this yesterday as the podcast was listed on podcast directories relatively recently and didn't appear to have much listeners. I checked Podcast Pickle and Podcast Alley and it didn't get much comments or even a top 100 rating on either. IIRC, only 6 or 7 shows done so far. As far as I'm concerned it doesn't make the cut with well-listened to podcasts like The DragonPage or MuggleCast, to name a few. Delete. - Mgm|(talk) 08:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete if this is recreated content. Otherwise, delete as NN podcast. Also fails WP:VAIN. Resolute 12:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom... or speedy if it is a recreation.--Isotope23 16:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delte per nom. Erechtheus 23:54, 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 Speedy deleted as non-notable and recreated content. --Nlu (talk) 06:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Keith Harrison

This biography of a cameraman has been previously been speedily deleted five times (db-bio), but has been created by 3 users (who aren't single purpose accounts) and 1 IP in its entire history. I'm a little hesitant to speedily delete it a sixth time AND protect it from recreation without community consensus so I've sent this to WP:AFD for a 2nd opinion on whether it may or may not meet Wikipedia:Notability (people) with more research. --  Netsnipe  ►  08:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete - CSD G4. MER-C 08:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Apparently the vidcast he works for (Diggnation) is notable. Let's just merge and redirect to avoid recreation as a separate article. I suspect all creators are a fan of the vidcast and told eachother to recreate the article. - Mgm|(talk) 09:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to Revision3 Corporation. It probably keeps getting recreated because there was a bold redlink for him in that article. Recury 14:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Delete is also OK with me if it is protected from recreation. Recury 16:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete Most of the info came from the revision3 website almost verbatim (copyvio?) However, I'm sure if it is deleted, it will re-appear. JungleCat talk/contrib 15:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:BIO. Diggnation is notable; its director/cameraman is not.--Isotope23 16:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Keep. Have you watched any of the Diggnation episodes? ... please do, and you will note that Keith Harrison is specifically called out by the co-hosts for topic discussions in many of the episodes. And he has physically appeared in at least a dozen of the episodes. He is also not only the cameraman, but does all the editting of the Diggnation vidcast. Without him, there wouldn't be a Diggnation vidcast. Treelovinhippie 06:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Smerge into the Revision3 article, and I'm not 100% sure about all the other people listed there. Some of them are notable outside the vidcast, but not all. --Dhartung | Talk 21:51, 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. - Mailer Diablo 16:37, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Accipiter RPG

NN online forum, fails WP:WEB. Much of article written by User:Accipiter RPG, against spirit of WP:AUTO/WP:VAIN

  • delete Percy Snoodle 08:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, fancruft at best (authorcruft at worst). Worst of all, having skimmed the whole article, I still have no clue as to what "Accipiter RPG" actually is... --Thorsten1 09:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, the article reads like they are trying to use Wikipedia as a webhost. "Sorry, the server is down." Uh, go away. Recury 14:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Daveydweeb (chat/patch) 00:34, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • delete not an article. Is that forest made from pot leaves? 01:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Both of the textures in the image are GIMP's stock fill patterns, actually, unless I'm mistaken... --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete for failure of WP:WEB. Daveydweeb (chat/patch) 08:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, doesn't say why the thing matters. Some RPG forum. Article says they're having slight problems keeping people around. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete per nom Altair 17:29, 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. Feel free to merge. Petros471 12:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arrau Medal

delete award from The Robert Schumann Society. I never knew how many sites picked up content from wiki until I started looking for the society. "Robert Schumann Society" scored 79 unique out of 1140Ghits. "Robert Schumann Society" + duesseldorf scored 58 unique hits out of 106Ghits. The vast majority are from sites which take content from wikipedia. The organisation's own website is hosted on aol and has no Alexa rank. The Robert Schumann Society may have some important patrons, and a 25 year history, but little presence on the web, which could be due to cultural/systematic bias. Little appears to be verifiable. Thus unable to judge importance of the Society or the award. The society's page has been blanked out as copyvio of the society's site. The award has no web visibility. 2 unique Ghits for "Arrau award", both were for award winning recordings by Claudio Arrau. The Award could be merged with the Society's own page. Ohconfucius 08:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep The three recipients of the medal listed are certainly notable, and there seem to be numerous references on the web to both Perahia and Schiff as winners of it. BTLizard 11:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • The Robert-Schumann-Gesellschaft in Düsseldorf publishes a scholarly catalogue of Schumann's works, a series of critical editions of his compositions (Neue Ausgabe sämtlicher Werke, 1991-) and other Schumann-related publications - this can be verified through your favorite online library catalogue. It also appears that they arrange (or have for some time arranged) an annual Schumann festival with extremely notable people like Murray Perahia, Dietrich Fischer-Dieskau and Olaf Bär participating (2000 festival, claimed to be the seventh). That the website is on AOL is not really relevant, as the notability of the Society is not based on its web presence. I notice that the article on the Society itself is currently a copyvio. I would suggest restarting that page as a stub and merging the medal with the society article. up+l+and 15:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Medal. The society may be notable, the recipients are notable, that does not make the medal notable. Herostratus 06:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jan Morgenstern

Commercial/vanity entry, no notability established. 12,000 Google results; however, the vast majority are about other people with the same name, the few-and-far-between references to this person are mostly found on discussion forums etc. Thorsten1 09:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - non-notable composer. Text in the article appears to be copied from [here]. [IMdB] has him having nothing else of note and I can find no news articles outside of the ones about Elephants Dream. Peripitus (Talk) 11:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Take a look at the Last.fm wiki entry history[23]; the WP article is in fact the original. qwe 07:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep Delete - Speaking as the one who started the article, I am not Jan Morgenstern, nor am I connected to him in any way, personally or professionally. Thus, it is not a Commercial/vanity entry. Notability could be disputed, I suppose; I started the article because it was redlinked on Elephants Dream. He has also written the music for Blender's SIGGRAPH demo reels for the last few years. I also searched Google for "Jan Morgenstern" (including the quotes) and surfed through the first hundred or so results; for the most part, they all refer to the same person. I'm not entirely sure how that's classified as "few and far between". Cheers. qwe 07:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
What you need for the article to be notable is something that satisfies the Composer section of WP:BIO
Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a musician or ensemble that qualifies above.
Has been the subject of a biography published as a book, or has several articles by at least 2 different authors in the peer reviewed publications.
Has had a work used as the basis for a later composition by a songwriter, composer or lyricist who meets the above criteria.
Has written a song or composition which has won or placed in a major music competition not established expressly for newcomers.
Has been listed as a major influence or teacher of a composer, songwriter or lyricist that meets the above criteria.
and I cannot find that he satisfies any of these - Peripitus (Talk) 07:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. qwe 20:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --MaNeMeBasat 14:50, 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 keep, invalid nomination. Feel free to merge it if you wish, but just do it, don't start a proposal — especially in an arena that is specifically not for merges.--SB | T 05:55, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arrested in Shanghai

propose to merge to Rancid's album Indestructible. Fancruft per WP:NOT indiscriminate collection of information. Each band has songs which are special to it, but that alone is not reason to have an article on each one. This is not a hit song/single, and does not meet notability criteria in the WP:SONG guideline. Ohconfucius 09:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Merge content into band/album article per nom and delete this one without redirecting (we can't have redirects for every song ever written). --Thorsten1 09:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • No, we only have redirects for the ones we have info about. Please note that the edit history of merged content needs to be retained per the GFDL. Therefore, merge and delete is not a valid combination. - Mgm|(talk) 11:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delisting. Proposed mergers do not belong on AFD. Please visit WP:PM instead. - Mgm|(talk) 11:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Comment @Mgm: I'm not sure I get what you mean here. My idea was to take what meaningful information we have (i.e. basically, that this band has a song about Tiananmen Square) and put it in the article for the band, if anyone cares enough to do it. I really don't think that we need to preserve the edit history of this particular stub in order to be allowed to do so. As it stands, Arrested in Shanghai is not a valid article, and its subject does not qualify for any article per WP:SONG. Stating that some information from it might be used in another article in an AFD nomination doesn't make the nomination a proposed merger. --Thorsten1 11:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Your nomination starts with the words "propose to merge" so you might understand why I thought that was the idea. But yes, the history needs to be retained. See WP:MERGE. - Mgm|(talk) 20:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
For the record, it wasn't "my" nomination, I merely supported it with a clearer vote to delete. As for the rest: If there is really no other way, I repeat my vote to delete this without salvaging any content, which was just an attempt at compromise, anyway.--Thorsten1 21:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Comment I would not oppose deletion per guidelines, or how this AfD is supposed to work. However, there appears to be useful content, and thought someone would want to transfer the content prior to deletion of the page. Or perhaps the content could be re-created. In any case, it doesn't warrant its own article. Ohconfucius 03:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • delete nonnotable song with trivial article content. Mukadderat 18:50, 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 speedily deleted (CSD A7) as text book example of a vanity page. - Mgm|(talk) 10:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rachel Hunt

Biography about a person not deserving of a place on Wikipedia Dukeseee 09:57, 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 16:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vincent Lam

Doesn't even come close to passing Wikipedia:Notability (people). Deprodded because "EVERYONE in the league knows him.". Ricky81682 (talk) 10:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment I just want to note that this article has also been userified at User:Vimlam34. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, the referenced comment says "He's really famous in our football league" without even saying which league. --Thorsten1 10:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment It's probably something to do with Rosary ASA, which is the only connection to him. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment Note that Rosary ASA isn't all that notable either, so I'm speedying that article. ColourBurst 05:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per notability. --B.d.mills 10:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity article on school soccer coach. JPD (talk) 11:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- JPD (talk) 11:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Scottmsg 20:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. – Elisson • Talk 20:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. BlueValour 21:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Angelo 18:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - students eh? Clearly non-notable. SenorKristobbal 23:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Subsequent update: please note that I've written up an article on a different Vincent Lam as of October 9. I'm making this note here because one person has already tagged the new article as a CSD G4 on the basis of this AFD; please note therefore that the article now present at the title Vincent Lam is not the person or the article that was discussed in this AFD. Bearcat 17:45, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] LaRosa-Knoopich effect

This seems to be nonsense. Ladybirdintheuk 10:35, 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 of the debate was Keep as no consensus. El_C 10:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Baseball in the UK

This article seems to fall squarely under WP:VSCA Wesmills 11:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete There may possibly be scope for an article on this subject but this self-serving tosh certainly isn't it. BTLizard 11:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

*Delete. I'm completely with BTLizard. It's a viable topic. I can see an article on it. But this isn't it. --Woohookitty(meow) 12:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep. Article isn't pretty now but it's a start. --Woohookitty(meow) 01:45, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, although the subject could be notable, the article in its current form is pretty much beyond help.-- danntm T C 13:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • keep per my rewrite (which itself could do with a rewrite by someone more knowledgable about the subject!) Jcuk 16:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Kappa 21:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Reluctant delete, I like some of the facts here, but I'd rather see this topic listed on WP:WPBB as a future expansion need. It definitely has potential. Also FYI, someone has added this page and also an external link about "Irish baseball" to the main baseball article, so if (when) this gets deleted, there's a cleanup there as well. -- dakern74 (talk) 21:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I think this will teach Jcuk a valuable lesson: never attempt to improve an article on AFD. Kappa 21:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep (Jcuk's rewritten, non-advertisement version, that is . . .). The article needs cleanup, sourcing, and expanding, but it's a plenty legitimate topic. ScottW 22:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep Jcuk's version per ScottW. Nice way to fight the spammers, but this article still needs quite a bit of work, particularly with references. Style is an easy fix. Irongargoyle 23:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup. The rewrite's a start anyway, and it's a perfectly notable topic. BryanG(talk) 03:16, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Sure, there is one interesting case of Derby County's Baseball Ground, but is there anything truly notable or encyclopedic about the subject? I say no. Considering the current state of baseball in Great Britain, I can't foresee any expansion on this small article. Lazybum 06:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. If baseball is played in the U.K. in any sort of organized way it should have an article. I'm not going to deny that this particular article is in need of cleanup, but the topic is certainly worthy of inclusion, what with Wikipedia not being paper and all.–♥ «Charles A. L.» 13:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, unless it can be merged elsewhere.-Kmaguir1 08:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: Unless some refs and cites are added. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or Merge. It can be merged into the main baseball article, under the section titled Popularity. Then again, it doesn't really seem to be that popular nowadays in the UK anyway.--Nishkid64 00:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or Merge per above. --MaNeMeBasat 14:47, 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. - Mailer Diablo 16:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mccoy, jonny

An unnecessary article that provides fictitious information about someone called Jonny McCoy(like Andrew Lloyd Webber's adaption for Goblet of Fire...).There is no information about this person on the net.It's nonsense Bugtrio | Talk 11:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

  • 'Delete' as per nom. BTLizard 11:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete...professional lookalike? Doesn't sound notable to me. —Scott5114↗ 14:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Thinly veiled joke/hoax. My Alt Account 15:34, 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 Keep. Thε Halo Θ 12:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] School of water business

NN. Only 668 ghits of water business%22&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8 Computerjoe's talk 11:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Mealy-mouthed and incoherent. Fails to establish notability and badly written. BTLizard 12:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, manga series which has run to at least 12 volumes [24]. AFD is not here for cleanup or to promote bias against non-English language topics. Kappa 21:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I see a problem here. If the only claim to non-notability is the English google search, then it's systemic bias. The ja google search trumps the english one, with 251k or so hits. There's a JA interlink to the series, which means it'll eventually get echoed. It also got converted into a J-Drama. Lastly, it's serialized in Young Sunday (ja), which is a seinen comic magazine under Shogakukan. ColourBurst 22:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Do not nominate articles concerning topics which are most popular in non-English-speaking countries if you don't even know how to search Google in the correct language. Nomination is yet another example of flagrant systemic cultural bias. --Rankler 09:13, 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. - Mailer Diablo 16:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Haunting Of John Horest

Blair Witch-based fiction Nareek 12:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - yep, no citations; looks like fiction. I like the bit about the raccoon crossing the street, though. BTLizard 13:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per the above. Uucp 14:42, 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 16:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] LiteraryMagic.com

Spamvertisement from a non-notable website/magazine created in 2006. Please see WP:WEB and WP:SPAM Zephyr2k 11:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Pure spam - only there to host a link to the website. And created by someone calling themselves LMeditor. Is there a barnstar for shamelessness? BTLizard 12:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Alexa rank 4,474,338. I didn't know there were that many websites in the world. Uucp 14:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Erm, you never noticed how Google notes how many websites it indexes? Well over 4000 million. - Mgm|(talk) 20:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Literary zines need to have some history to warrant listing. - Mgm|(talk) 20:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom.. Let this article be literally magicked away! --Richhoncho 23:28, 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 16:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Monstein effect

This doesn't even meet the relevance threshold for pseudophysics. One person's effect, not reproducable by others, no full page ad in The Economist, no DIY kit sold for astronomical prices, no physicist cared enough to do a rufation. Delete. --Pjacobi 12:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete It doesn't exist, and the fact of its non-existence isn't news either. BTLizard 12:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete only a few non-trivial google hits. This term seems to be used by very few people. Uucp 14:46, 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 16:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Los suenos resort

Sounds like an advertisement meant to attract tourists. Even if it has numerous google hits, this doesn't seem to be the kind of thing people will hope to find in an encyclopedia. Zephyr2k 12:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Not notable and just a peg on which hang a link to a commercial website. Spam, in short. BTLizard 12:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per the above. Uucp 14:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as spam. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 17:52, 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 to American Numismatic Association. Petros471 12:55, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Young Numismatists of America

Appears to be a non-notable branch of an organization. It might be worthy of a merge to American Numismatic Association but there's no much in here that seems worthy of a merge. Google hits of about 2,700 but not much of that is outside coverage from what I can see. Delete as non-notable and unsourced. Metros232 12:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - if this article is to be believed these people aren't even notable to themselves! BTLizard 13:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. It sounds like a notable youth organization operating on an international scale, albeit primarily in the United States. Numismatic publications such as Coin World and Numismatic News restrict access to much of their online articles to subscribers only, which is why outside coverage by these publications doesn't show up on Google. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 19:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: Okay, "sounds like a notable youth organization" doesn't prove its notability nor does it address the issue of it being unsourced. Metros232 11:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge or keep.-Kmaguir1 08:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: Why? Metros232 11:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to American Numismatic Association. There is a real concern about lack of third party coverage. Despite Truthbringer's argument about Coin World and Numismatic News, the fact is that there are tons of numismatics content on the web but relatively few mentions of this association [25]. Pascal.Tesson 14:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: Keep it. I am a member of this group and I feel that they are small but expanding. I would alos like to point out that they where recently mentioned in Coin World and that most of the info. in the article is on their website (ynaclub.org)

numismatist18 05:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Merge not notable outside its parent organization.--Peta 10:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Luke 17:20

The article is only stating the contents of the verse. Seeing that the chapters of the Gospel of Luke (for example "Luke 17") redirect to Luke, I find it odd to find a verse that has an article of its own. I believe delete is a better option rather than redirect as the odds of someone searching by verse is very small. Zephyr2k 12:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - Apparently quite pointless. I notice the originator has no other contributions. They must have had something on their mind, but what it was is a mystery. BTLizard 12:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete this ain't Wikisource. If the author (or anyone else) adds more content, then I'll reconsider. WilyD 13:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and WilyD. This is more appropriate for Wikisource.--Isotope23 16:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as there's no content. If actual content is added I'd be fine with keeping. JYolkowski // talk 22:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete there's no sense on having an article for each Bible's verse! --Neigel von Teighen 22:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. As Jyolkowski said, I'd embrace appropriate content in an article like this one. In fact, there likely should be several verses with encyclopedic articles written about them. I'm not convinced that this verse would be one of them, and I know that this is not the article to establish that trend. Erechtheus 23:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. We don't need a page for every Bible verse. --Supermath 22:48, 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 Speedy deleted G7 per author request. NawlinWiki 13:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] L is for labour, L is for Lice

I created this as a redirect but i cannot remember which show did this memorable sketch. I am therefore unsure whether it was in The Fast Show or something else like Harry Enfield. This is hopefully not misguided unless someone can redirect it to the correct show. Or something similar. Simply south 12:29, 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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 16:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] White and Nerdy

It was initially believed that this was going to be released as the first single off of "Weird Al" Yankovic's next album, Straight Outta Lynwood, but it was not. It is not known if it will in fact be released as a single, so I think the article should be deleted. If it turns out it is a single later, the page can be recreated Joltman 13:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - as a general rule we shouldn't have articles on events that haven't happened yet, anyway. BTLizard 13:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strongly keep - Yankovic has filmed a full-length music video for it and Chamillionaire (the artist being parodied) has confirmed it will be a single. Besides, there are many songs that are not singles that have articles on Wikipedia. --Elvis 14:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, confirmed single. Failing that merge as appropriate. Kappa 20:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. --Gray Porpoise 21:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep The song is not the first single, but Chamillionaire has confirmed that it is the lead single. This is of course largely a matter of semantics, because Volcano Records doesn't release singles. Anyway, the song is certainly the lead song from the album, and apparantly is available at Chamillionaire's MySpace. Also, it has been confirmed that there will be a music video, which I find a much more appropriate measure of this song's notability. Maxamegalon2000 01:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep --Brand Eks 03:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep all songs by Al Yankovic. —freak(talk) 05:55, Sep. 6, 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.–♥ «Charles A. L.» 16:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, seems to have enough outside confirmation that it'll be released as a single in the future. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 02:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, crystal ball gazing, indiscriminate.-Kmaguir1 08:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per freakofnurture. There are few, if any, Weird Al songs that don't warrant articles. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per freakofnurture and Maxamegalon2000. Michael Greiner 19:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep Even if it's not an official single (and all signs seem to indicate that it is), it's still a popular artist's parody of another popular artist's hit single. It is already generating a significant amount of buzz from fans of both Weird Al and Chamillionaire, as well as popular music devotees in general. Mikibacsi1124 01:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Why delete something that will be created again in the near future when it is released? Luckyherb 12:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I see no problems with the article. --Falcorian (talk) 15:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep This has been creating quite a bit of buzz, as has been stated, and has had a very positive reception amongst fans (of both Yankovic and Chamillionaire). It is not crystal-ball-gazing, as the song already exists, and has been streaming on Chamillionaire's MySpace page. It appears to be a significant Yankovic single, and as many other of his singles have their own articles, I don't see why this one should not, either (it has more information than some of those other ones, as well). --Twilightsojourn 07:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep --Karafias 03:03, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep, it's already available for listening on chamillionaire's myspace and references wikipedia. I would find it funny, however, if a song about wikipedia lost in a VfD. --TIB (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 Delete as spam by User:Herostratus. ColourBurst 22:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Telstra Pre-Paid Plus

Tagged with {prod} in April (Wikipedia is not a how-to guide) and August (spam advertisement) Scott Davis Talk 13:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - spam. Should have gone months ago. BTLizard 13:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete -- probably worth a small mention in a Telstra related article, but this article is nothing more than a brochure. -- Longhair 13:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete. It's a shame that stuff like this can survive so long even when prodded.--Thorsten1 13:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Scott Davis Talk 13:40, 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 keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chak Jhumra

The article is 2 sentences concerning who is likely to win in a non-notable election a year ago. No encyclopedic value discernible. Storkk 13:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - breathtakingly pointless. BTLizard 13:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - pointless Bugtrio | Talk 13:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's a geo-stub that deserves to stay. I've replaced the pointless sentences. --Mereda 14:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Comment - If User:Mereda wants to flesh the article out a bit more, I wouldnt mind a keep. I know nothing about the place, just nominated because the article was total hogwash. It's not quite a stub yet, but still - it might have some potential. --Storkk 14:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Have another look. Quite apart from WilyD's fairminded point, there's been an internationally notable event in the town. --Mereda 16:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per the common law. Every Cherry Valley, Arkansas has an article if its in the States, no matter how nothing a town it is. Same applies here. WilyD 16:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Comment - Yes, I entirely agree with you now that it has a real page (i.e. now that Mereda has made a stub). To see why I nominated it, please look at the pages history. --Storkk 01:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per WilyD, article is being improved. RFerreira 18:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep the rewrite Dlyons493 Talk 20:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Kappa 20:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as rewritten. The best outcome of an AFD discussion is an improved article. GRBerry 03:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep if rewritten with some more details about the place. But if more importance is given to the famous "Blasphemy Event" then its better to have a seperate page for that event. Marwatt 12:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Definitely looks like significant enough city for article. Keep expanding. LotLE×talk 01:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  • keep and please keep expanding geo stubs are important here Yuckfoo 17:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per the above. --Myles Long 21:49, 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. While the raw total is only 9-6 Delete, some of the Keep commentors sort of got caught up in the user-request issue and not the notability issue. Those that did suggest Keep on notabily mostly did not do so very strongly. Herostratus 04:35, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ellis Duell

I originally speedy deleted this article because the apparent article subject requested deletion. From the talk page:

This page, supposedly about me but with my name misspelled, first came to my attention because it includes a mention of one of my sons (name misspelled also). Besides being a violation of his and my privacy, and besides being rife with inaccuracies, the article is about someone who is not a public or notable figure in any way. While I once chaired a nonprofit board, I have not done so since 1984, and there are thousands of people in the US who have also chaired a board. I request that the page be removed. --E. M. Deull 13:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I was not quite sure what to do at that point. I probably should have gotten some advice about how to handle requests for deletion from article subjects, but I just went ahead and deleted it. However the article creator, Smeelgova, requested a more above-board deletion process, which I will happily oblige. There are probably policies about this, but I do not know them. Therefore, I abstain, and request that users experienced in this kind of situation help determine what to do. Thank you. --Fang Aili talk 13:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep - I don't think we should pull content just because the subject asks us to - that wouldn't be acceptable behaviour for an encyclopaedia, and I don't have much truck with arguments about privacy. On the other hand if there are inaccuracies in the piece they should be sorted. Keep and clean up as necessary. BTLizard 13:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete - Notable subjects requesting deletion of their articles isn't a reason to delete them (otherwise Angela Beesley would have gone 3 or 4 times). There is a question about notability though and if it is kept it would need moving to the correctly spelt title. I'm also not sure that this isn't a subtle attack page - it seems to raise questions about the use of his legal firm by the NGO (undue weight afforded this area considering the size of the article?). Yomanganitalk 14:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as not meeting WP:BIO. Chairman of the board of an NGO is not generally a notable position; in a non-profit, this position may not even be particularly important in practice (even if it is important legally). I also agree with Yomangani's suspicions about a possible attack. bikeable (talk) 14:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Privacy issues are not relevent, as any unsourced content should be expunged, and any sourced content isn't private. That said, still looks like delete per failing WP:BIO, but I'll reconsider if anyone really wants to argue it. WilyD 16:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - I am in agreement with user BTLizard's statement above. Inaccuracies should be cleaned up and corrected, but the article itself should be retained. To this point all material was compiled from other readily available sources in the media at any rate, so the privacy issue should be taken up with said historical references.Smeelgova 16:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - although bios shouldn't be deleted just because the subject asks for it to be removed, in this case, that isn'r relevant as the article fails WP:BIO. Furthermore, it does appear to be a subtle attack page as others have pointed out. Wikipedia is not a forum for venting disputes. -- Whpq 17:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete tried to throw it on the wall, and none of it sticks.-Kmaguir1 08:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - The misspelling seems to have been done in good faith, as the National Labor Relations Board made the same error. Allegations of bring "rife with inaccuracies" were unspecific. Errors can be corrected and are not a basis for deletion. Ellis Deull was notable enough to be mentioned in two published articles about the Hunger Project: Giambalvo, Carol (January, 1988). "The Hunger Project: Inside out". Spiritual Counterfeits Project (SCP) Journal. Vol. 8, No. 1; and Gordon, Suzanne (December 1, 1978). "Let them eat est". Mother Jones. p. 40ff. Kat'n'Yarn 07:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. Nothing in the article demonstrates notability, though I could imagine that notability might be there: if you believe you have rewritten to demonstrate notability, let me know, my vote might change. If it is to be kept, move it to the correct spelling. And it does currently read like an attack piece: if it is to be retained, it will need a substantial rewrite. - Jmabel | Talk 02:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Can someone, anyone please explain what the "attack" is? Kat'n'Yarn 03:11, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep If this gets merged into The Hunger Project and deleted because he's not noteable, I wouldn't have any serious problem with that. However, I don't think that it can possibly be deleted because it's an "invasion of privacy." If someone is the chairman of the board of an organization, it's certainly not an invasion of privacy to say that he's the chairman of the board of an organization. --Descendall 04:14, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and refine/correct as required. I detect no privacy breach in the current article. As for notoriety/notability, we can revisit the issue if WP:BIO ever achieves a consensus on the concept. -- Pedant17 03:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Fails to meet WP:BIO and based on that, as well as other factors, I am of the view that this article is of a nn. individual. --Wisden17 19:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Wisd.--Peta 10:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Decision? This is well-past the five-day discussion period. Is anyone going to make a decision on it? Kat'n'Yarn 19:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep I would say his notability is borderline but The Hunger Project is notable and being the first president does mean something. Agne 16:53, 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 16:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Throttle 3

Page features no credible links or indication of any sort of notability... In addition, the same user who created this article also linked it on the Game Maker article itself meaning it is very likely a vanity piece. Thus, I move that this article be Deleted. Lankybugger 13:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Delete as NN game-construction-kit product. From the author's site[26]: "Apparently, somebody thought Throttle 3 was noteworthy enough to make a Wikipedia article for it. I have a feeling it'll get deleted quickly though, since I doubt there's a high demand for my work." Not to discourage creatives, but you're right ... --Dhartung | Talk 21:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Daveydweeb (chat/patch) 00:34, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • delete hobbyist projects made with game construction kits. — brighterorange (talk) 01:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nothing credible to suggest that this is notable or verifiable. Since it was made with Game Maker, I'm guessing this probably isn't a commercial hit.. so I see no reason for inclusion. Daveydweeb (chat/patch) 08:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, per WP:VAIN. --Supermath 22:44, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] William Rollo

Contested prod. Possible hoax biography. No relevant google hits for the subject with "Vietnam" or with "Peter Vardy". An earlier version of the page claimed association with Steve Irwin (the claim was inserted after Irwin's death, see diff) and links were inserted in the Irwin article several times by the originator, User:rollonet. No google hits for the subject with "Steve Irwin" either. Requests for references ignored. Mr Stephen 13:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

FYI, here's the Steve Irwin article with the claim included (first paragraph). Mr Stephen 13:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Longhair 14:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Does not assert notability in any way, anyway. Jefffire 14:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, probable hoax. --Dhartung | Talk 21:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, doesn't meet notability or WP:V. I did some research last night but wasn't able to confirm any of the claims. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 01:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Do not Delete I found some informative text covering his involvement in the Vietnam War. Proving the validity of this webpage. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.6.138.34 (talk • contribs) .
    • Comment Saying you "found some informative text" that validates the page is not enough. You need to actually cite sources which we can then verify. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 19:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Do not Delete I've been investigating William Rollo, sorry for not providing sources. I will do that soon! Rollonet 11:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Like this source, perhaps, Rollonet? There's an interesting question on that page, "whats your wikipedia address, i wanna see this." I'm very curious to see what sources you wish to show us...there's also no Australian WIlliam Rollo's on Factiva or the Australian New Zealand Reference Centre and no relevant Ghits. That's kind of funny for someone you call "famous". Sarah Ewart (Talk) 19:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. I note that a user named Rollonet wrote an article about someone named Rollo. --Roisterer 13:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - either a hoax, vanity, CV padding or all three. Completely non-notable person failing WP:BIO - Peripitus (Talk) 09:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Don't delete - I met William Rollo in an inspirational speach he did at my skool. he's real!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.160.144.90 (talk • contribs)
    Anonymous vandalised this page. [27]

Jefffire 17:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nominator, fails the everything test. RFerreira 23:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Have just removed a bogus link to him from Tony Blair's biography. There's something promotional going on here. The Golux 12:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete -- somebody's playing games at Wikipedia. - Longhair 12:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete -- A teenager is amusing himself here. See also: Special:Contributions/58.160.144.90 Jim Douglas 16:13, 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 NO CONSENSUS TO DELETE. Herostratus 22:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of ley lines

Not really a list, even less an article. For sure unreferenced. --Pjacobi 13:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep I don't see the grounds for deletion. It just needs editing. --Mereda 14:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
WP:NOR? --Pjacobi 14:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep though not really a list. Plenty of documented work on ley lines even if it is a rather "alternative" subject. However the article really does need some work. I guess it could be a merge with parent article but that would make that unwieldy Nigel (Talk) 15:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete fails WP:V and (apparently) WP:NOR. There are 2 citations in this article; one is a dead link and the other makes no mention of the term "ley lines" in relation to the location listed. If this somehow get's sourced before the close of the AfD, someone hit my Talk Page and I will reconsider, but right now this isn't referenced and has been tagged since April 20th, 2006. I think that is a reasonable enough time to allow for supporting citations to be added. I can't even support a merge at this point because that would add unsourced info to another article...--Isotope23 16:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - concur with User:Isotope23 -- Whpq 16:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Please keep. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.196.47.186 (talk) .
  • Delete per Isotope23. Dlyons493 Talk 20:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep or Merge to Ley line, which could use some examples. List serves a purpose as an example list for Ley line, where it is the first item in the "See Also" section, however it serves that function fairly poorly in my eyes. GRBerry 03:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, this should really only be done if the article is sourced though.--Isotope23 03:41, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alex Popov (architect)

Fails WP:Bio DXRAW 14:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep Seems notable enough by the list of awards and publications he has been featured in or his company. We have an article on the RAIA so their awards presumably are notable. The publications also seem to signify some notice at least in Australia. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 15:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Seems to have enough significant awards --ArmadilloFromHell 19:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep award winning architect. As per WP:Bio could be seen to have made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field. and made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field. --Golden Wattle (formerly known as Arktos) talk 19:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Golden Wattle (formerly known as Arktos) talk 19:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Popov is a pretty well-known architect in Australia, has worked on some major projects and won many awards. I have to say I'm not a big fan of AfD nominations which say "fails WP:BIO" with no explanation as to how. Also, can we disambig from the Russian swimmer? --Canley 00:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep The RAIA is Australia's leading architectural organisation and he has won several of their awards. Capitalistroadster 03:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment If people want to fix it up by adding. The links above and more info about what projects he has worked on then i will consider changing my view. DXRAW 05:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - the article lists awards and commendations and several works. Not sure what you are looking for here. At the moment concensus is 5 keep to one delete. Any improvements to the article would be worth while but the issue with deletion of a biography is not content but notability, could something be written - the answer is yes - the bare bones are there and it is waiting for improvement from an interested editor or editors.--Golden Wattle (formerly known as Arktos) talk 05:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment Also note this article was nominated for deletion less than two hours [28] after it was created. To DXRAW, I think using cleanup tags to question its notability might have been a bit more appropriate, don't you? I just can't see the "good faith" in such a nomination, and I think it was not unreasonable of User:Archifile to question your motives. --Canley 09:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment I did not even notice when it was created. Sorry about that part. DXRAW 10:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Seems notable enough as per policy. Marwatt 17:48, 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. - Mailer Diablo 16:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ENLO

Completely nn political 'group' with no verifiability, no sources, and a speedy and prod tag both removed by an ip who has only edited to the pages created by the original author of this article Mnemeson 14:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - appears to be either made up or so small as to be google-proof. Artw 14:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete as CSD A7 if possible. Zephyr2k 15:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - per nomination. -- Ratarsed 13:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless sources are found to back up article. -Royalguard11(Talk)(Desk) 04:15, 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. Herostratus 05:59, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alternate medicine

Contested Prod. We already have an article on Reiki, a very extensive one. This is self-promotion for a particular teacher and practitioner, promoting her, outlining and promoting her courses. The author, Rekhaa Kale, receives 180 total Ghits, 76 unique, which does not seem to make her a notable practitioner. Fails WP:VAIN, WP:BIO and frankly, WP:SPAM. Also, it's a dreadful title. -- Fan-1967 14:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC) Fan-1967 14:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete It's a double, and the title is misleading, and it appears to be spam. Artw 14:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Alternative medicine - no need to merge any content though. WilyD 16:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Redirect is reasonable, but first this article and its history should be deleted. Fan-1967 16:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I really don't see a pressing need to delete the history, but I won't be sorry to see it go, either. Making it a redirect necessitates deleting the article's contents (which is slightly different in practice from deleting the article). WilyD 16:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • My understanding is that retaining the history is normally only appropriate on a merge. If none of the content is kept, its history is unneeded. Fan-1967 16:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, fair enough. I've never really inquired deeply into the mechanics of how redirects from AfD are done. WilyD 16:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom -- Whpq 16:54, 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 16:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Live simply

non-notable website per WP:WEB - CobaltBlueTony 14:42, 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 16:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proctocracy

Neologism; WP:OR. Prod removed by third party without comment. --Merope 14:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Weak Delete Seems to be getting some hits on major blogs (ala dailykos.com), but nothing discusses the use of the terms itself. Fails WP:NEO. Irongargoyle 23:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, neologism. Pavel Vozenilek 03:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Wait until it is as old as Pornocracy, then it will get WP-fähig. Pavel Vozenilek 03:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Agree with the above comments. --Richard 08:54, 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. - Mailer Diablo 16:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Justguys.net

Spam. Was prodded by me, prod was endorsed, and article was recently deprodded by an anon IP.—Scott5114↗ 14:54, 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 16:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trozalie

Contested prod. Appears to be a hoax.

  • Delete as per my nom. Dlyons493 Talk 15:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete created by Gt40loz and claims "the name loz is blatantly amazing". There should be a speedy category for this, but since there isn't, I'd advise ignore all rules and speedy anyway. Yomanganitalk 17:29, 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. - Mailer Diablo 16:58, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PCP Series (Music)

Totally unnotable musician who appears on YTMND. - Hahnchen 15:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

  • "While the page did not generate many hits"... fails WP:MUSIC - Delete RN 16:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete appears to be here mainly in order to promote a YTMND. Guy 13:32, 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. - Mailer Diablo 16:58, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Local local television

non-notable company that fails WP:CORP Zephyr2k 15:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Nonsense.--Bugtrio | Talk 15:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. --Nishkid64 15:47, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:37, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of newspapers featuring Sudoku

Renamed to Sudoku by country

Totally unmanagable list, not helpful. Listing every newspaper that features Sudoku is like listing every newspaper that features crosswords or a chess section. If this was a rare specialist puzzle found only in select publications then maybe. But this is a mass market everyone can do type of puzzle which is found absolutely everywhere. - Hahnchen 15:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. See WP:LC. --Nishkid64 15:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom.--Bugtrio | Talk 15:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unmaintainable Dlyons493 Talk 16:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as listcruft. Not at all maintainable. -- Whpq 16:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Should have been deleted last year when it became hopelessly unmanageable. Cool Hand Luke 17:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. As much as I use the word listcruft, I hate doing so, but it is clearly an apropos assessment of this article. --Kinu t/c 19:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep but restrict to the first major newspaper in each country. Kappa 20:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. What good would that do? You are just proposing to shorten the article? Read WP:LC and you'll see why this page should be outright deleted. --Nishkid64 21:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
    • That would enable it to show how sudoku spread around the world while answering the objections in the nomination. Please don't insult me by directing me to read WP:LC. Kappa 22:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
      • If you wish to explain the increasing popularity of Sudoku, you should do so in a paragraph or two in the main article. There is no need for maintaining this cumbersome list. Lazybum 06:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, listcruft. Pavel Vozenilek 03:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, listcruft. --Shuki 06:16, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Kbja 06:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Whpq. Lazybum 06:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Cloth Ears 14:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: The article was renamed to Sudoku by country at this point. Kappa 15:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. At one point this seemed like a good idea for an article, but Sudoku has become so common in newspapers that the article is no longer needed. --Metropolitan90 02:46, 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. Herostratus 06:01, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Punk Science

Nonnotable comedy troupe NawlinWiki 15:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Deville (Talk) 04:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Does not appear to be notable. Deli nk 20:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Arbusto 23:32, 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 Nomination withdrawn. ZimZalaBim (talk) 22:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Paraguay supermarket fire

Non-notable event. This is not WikiNews. ZimZalaBim (talk) 15:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment: many much less notable events have article on WP. Pavel Vozenilek 17:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, then go flag them for lack of notability. Existence of other less notable articles does not necessarily make this one notable enough. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 18:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Hmm... We have things like Sampoong Department Store collapse. But that is interesting due to its engineering angle. Just a fire is much less encyclopedic. The way the article is now is a news item, not an encyclopedia article. OTOH if this happened in Los Angeles we'd have a huge article on it... No voteAfdIsNotAVote(TM) yet, convince me :-) Weregerbil 17:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Article adds little to the mention at August 2, 2004, which seems sufficient for a non-remarkable news event. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 18:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I disagree with the nominator in stating that it is a non-notable event. It was highly notable in Paraguay when it happened, and it's fairly rare for news from this small country to make worldwide headlines. I would argue however that being notable and verifiable are not sufficient criteria for the inclusion of "news events", as they are inherently verifiable and notable on some scale. I will agree with the nominator in stating that this is not WikiNews, this is an encyclopedia, and the only "news events" that should be getting their own articles here are ones that have some kind of far-reaching impact beyond the scope of the event itself. Arkyan 18:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. "the only "news events" that should be getting their own articles here are ones that have some kind of far-reaching impact beyond the scope of the event itself." Is that a new policy? Were can i read about it? It would result in the deletion of most events articles. I would belive that hundreds of people killed would "have some kind of far-reaching impact". --Striver 20:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
lol, did you read the article? ""Once [they're] organized I gave them the tools so they become activists to change the laws in terms of building construction, fire regulations, prosecution of the people who locked the [supermarket] doors. All the pressure points."--Striver 20:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Not sure what you're laughing at here. Regardless, I don't see much of a good faith effort at creating an encyclopedia article here, since you simply copied the content from this CNN story [30], and then inserted stuff about William Rodriguez. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 20:37, 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 no consensus. Petros471 13:02, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comparison of wiki farms

This is a second nomination. It was previously nominated under List of wiki farms. This article in its self reads like an advertisement, it doesnt represent a npov and shouldnt feature reviews on the wiki providers them selves. I suggest turning this article into a soft redirect to Wiki:WikiFarms. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 16:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, Wiki farm already has a link to Wiki:WikiFarms. --Pjacobi 16:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, Wiki:WikiFarms goes to a list many years old and out of date. I actually saw wikipedia's list from a mirror on a different site that was up to date. I forgot what the site was, but somewhere on wikia they had it. If this article goes, there needs to be a link to the up to date mirror. Anomo 16:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, none of the reasons in the nom is in WP:DEL. Well, I have this gut feeling saying the article must be deleted, but that's irrelevant. --logixoul 17:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep delete as we're not a business directory or review repository. It's inherently POV and otherwise problematic. --Dhartung | Talk 22:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • keep, this article is clearly NPOV as it only tells the reader the features of each wiki farm.Taida 01:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: How is "fast setup" npov? It's a user rating and POV in the sense i may think there fast setup is slow. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 11:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
      • "Fast Setup" is a fact. It is not a user rating. The article just says that this wiki farm is faster then the rest.--Taida 22:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Who says its faster? Hence it is pov user rating. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 22:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: if this is kept add ample warning about obsolence and unreliability, like similar "comparisons" have Pavel Vozenilek 03:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, While not perfectly NPOV yet, it could be if someone was willing to spend the time. Um, not my time, but someone's time. I think it would be worth having around, though, better than just a listing of them. The soft redirect doesn't quite seem like it's what we'd want.150.243.64.10 19:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep useful in terms of information. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 17:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: That's not a reason for keeping. --logixoul 10:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I see the concerns, but it's a useful page. Could it be transwikied? To WikiIndex perhaps?--Singkong2005 talk 03:50, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: It shouldn't. The page is encyclopedic content and so belongs to Wikipedia regardless of whether it's at WikiIndex. --logixoul 10:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete no evidence of notability. Its also a violation of WP:NOT.--Peta 09:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: Wiki is notable, therefore Wiki farm is notable, therefore Comparison of wiki farms is notable. BTW WP:N doesn't have a criteria for notability of list pages. --logixoul 10:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
      • What makes the list notable? What makes warrants an inclusion in the list? What warrants having POV in the list? thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 11:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
        • What makes the list notable? The fact that it lists items of a notable type, namely wiki farms.
        • What warrants an inclusion? Notability as defined in WP:N.
        • What warrants having POV in the list? Nothing, fix it if you can/want. --logixoul 11:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Not all websites listed there meet notability for inclusion, also the page you've quoted is a proposal. Why does wikipedia need a spam list? thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 11:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Not all websites listed are notable, yes. Please remove the ones that aren't. The page I quoted is indeed a proposal, sorry. See Wikipedia:Notability (web) instead. Wikipedia doesn't need a spam list, and with united forces we can keep the spam out of the content. --logixoul 11:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy deleted as CSD A8 WinHunter (talk) 01:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Motive Hardcore

Doesn't meet WP:V or WP:MUSIC -Nv8200p talk 16:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete under A8 -- I added the appropriate template. If it does not qualify or cannot be deleted under that provision, delete per nom. Erechtheus 00:12, 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, fails WP:V --- Deville (Talk) 04:17, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gino

This article, when stripped of its original research (which is 95% of the current content) will be nothing more than a dictionary definition of a slang term, which itself has an unclear definition. Hamiltonian 16:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment I'm pretty sure you could write a pretty decent article on the subject (this isn't it, though). There's a lot of editorialising, but that's not really AfD's concerned. That it's unsourced is, howe'er. WilyD 17:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The term Gino is used in exactly the same context as the term Goth. Keep.

  • Keep I totally disagree. While the article needs cleanup, the term 'gino' is *not* simply a slang term. It is representative of a sub-culture in the cities mentioned. For example, if "goth" can be an entry, than "Gino" cannot be deleted. I don't know how one takes it off deletion, but I am totally against it. The problem is on the "original research" clause, but don't know how to get around that, I could edit it myself but wouldn't have a published source. Posted 5 September 2006
My problem with the article, for the record, is not anything other than the "original research" problem. --Hamiltonian 18:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Unless you can find reliable sources to get the article past the ultimate criterion of verifiability, it will be deleted no matter what you do. If you introduce reliable sources into it, give it a bit of a POV scrubbing, then the outcome of this discussion will most likely be keep. The problem with the article is that it is fraught with original research which is a big no-no. If it can be fixed, it'll be kept. If not, deleted. But if it's deleted you can always recreate it at a later time once you've found reliable sources (which I'm sure exist). WilyD 17:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Anecdotally speaking, much of this article is true. This is one of the major sub cultures in Toronto. I do not think it warrants deletion. Obviously, it needs cleaning up. However, this is not just slang, but a real cultural phenomenon. Nlsanand 18:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
    • As another buddy from taurrana, I agree with you that it's mostly true (though with heavy editorialising). But unsourced, unverifiable articles can't be kept just because they're true. That is policy WilyD 18:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep as it is a real phenomenon (I've heard of it even in the US thanks to the internets). But the OR needs to go. Find some sources and write a decent stub.
  • Delete This information, although popular in the local area, is not verifiable. There is no historical content (that's verified) or any references what so ever. --Zandarx talk 04:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. If anyone from the area knows it is true, why should it be verified. The OR could be limited through the use of words such "generally thought of", thereby no longer requiring deletion. This requirement for cold hard facts on a social phenomenom is not really fair and is limiting the ability of Wikipedia to meet user needs. Sources should not be required for something that is obvious. Nlsanand 04:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
      • That reasoning is spread between WP:V and WP:OR. Sourcing is required for everything. WilyD 11:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. --MaNeMeBasat 14:48, 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. - Mailer Diablo 16:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Bisexual Chronicles

Prod removed without comment. Promotion for little-known book, published by POD publisher lulu.com. One google hit outside of lulu. Fan-1967 16:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 20:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Erechtheus 00:13, 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. - Mailer Diablo 16:58, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tim Ward (musician)

Non-notable by himself (barely notable in his band) -Nv8200p talk 16:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete, basically empty, just a small list and a picture.--Andeh 17:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Vanity. EVula 17:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Personally I couldnt give a damn, but if the band is notable, dont wiki guidelines say all members are automatically notable? For the sake of completeness, the band have released over three albums (three of which are on a record label with a Wiki entry). Jcuk
I don't think there are any guidelines that state that (please provide a link if you have one). Having an entry on Wikipedia does not make the record label a major label or one of the more important indie labels. -Nv8200p talk 03:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete. Vanity and no apparent claim of notability (do we really need to know what brand equipment a non-notable musician uses?!). LotLE×talk 01:37, 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 17:01, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Warriors of Wrestling

This is listcruft. A page of wrestling results isn't needed for Wikipedia. RobJ1981 16:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep, list of TV episodes, failing that split into articles for each match and categorize. Kappa 20:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete. This is nothing but a results page for a TV show. The only way it should stay is if it's changed into an article about the show itself. TJ Spyke 23:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Its just results. Nothing too informative. Overlordneo 02:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not Google. No reason for list entries such as this to even exist. Deputy Marshall 03:49, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete - Fancruft, listcruft, or markcruft, take your pick. - Chadbryant 11:24, 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. - Mailer Diablo 17:01, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kusipää

en.wiki isn't a dictionary of Finnish slang ccwaters 16:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete as {{empty}} and juvenile {{db-vandal}}ism. Weregerbil 17:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete Pavel Vozenilek 17:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator. Not necessarily vandalism per se, but this is not presented in an encyclopedic fashion. RFerreira 18:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, already mentioned on Finnish profanity. Prolog 19:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Prolog. Erechtheus 00:14, 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 Speedy deleted as empty and borderline vandalism; nothing worth merging either, and we have interwiki links and Wiktinary for this. Ahemhem. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 17:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pieru

en.wiki isn't a dictionary of Finnish slang ccwaters 16:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Speedy delete Wikipedia is not a (Finnish) dictionary. Antonrojo 17:21, 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. -Bobet 11:08, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wendy Van Horne

Non-notable political candidate. Never been elected nor held office. Fails to meet criteria for WP:BIO. --Suttungr 17:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Support Antonrojo 17:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I would argue that as a candidate for statewide office (for which an election article exists), for an official political party with a ballot line, she would have met WP:C&E. But since she's dropped out of the race, that doesn't hold anymore. -David Schaich Talk/Cont 17:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete the article doesn't cite reliable sources. WilyD 19:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Don't delete Though questionable since she dropped out, she did fit all the requirements to have an article before that. Is tehrer a policy on candidates who drop out? Alex 12:41, 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 redirect to List of buildings in EastEnders, if someone wants to merge something from the history, it's still there. - Bobet 11:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Dagmar

All the information is already on List of buildings in EastEnders, the fictional building was last known as The Dagmar in 1988, and I don't think it needs its own article. Trampikey (talk to me)(contribs) 17:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy redirect to List of buildings in EastEnders. Nominating duplicated articles for deletion is a waste of time. I was literally about to do it but the AFD notice was there 2 seconds before I got there so I couldn't redirect it. By the way, the information wasn't duplicated until you duplicated it today! A simple merge and redirect is all that was necessary. -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 17:15, 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 17:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recipe4Living

non-notable per WP:WEB - CobaltBlueTony 17:14, 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 CSD G1, A1. --- Deville (Talk) 04:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shizz clutch

At best, this is a neologism. There are no references to determine whether anyone actually uses this term and term returns 5 google hits, the first of which is this article. Antonrojo 17:16, 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 17:05, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Robert bruce keys

Fails WP:BIO. I could only find one pertinent mention of "airdustrial"[31] and one mention of his book[32] Nonpareility 17:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete interesting but non-notable. Dlyons493 Talk 20:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Valrith 21:00, 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. --- Deville (Talk) 04:38, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Design for Diversity

Does not pass WP:CORP and has no reliable sources as explained on talk page. Weregerbil 17:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


Tagging the article for sources ("unreferenced" and "articles lacking sources") seems a better option than deleting it altogether when there are reasons to think that it is a legitimate article even if there is an issues with Criteria for companies and corporations.
Copied from the article's discussion page: "The source for this article is the company's website and the Wikipedia profiles of its partners. As for the lack of notability, this company does not indeed fulfill the criteria listed on the WP:CORP page, however, it is to be noted that Design for Diversity has only just been founded, which limitates the opportunities for written material about it. What is of interest about this company is its socially responsible ethos and its unusual (for a company) level of community engagement (through sponsorship) as well as the uniqueness of its services and who the people founding it are. Two of the partners are recognised designers while a third is a well known UK activist and former politician (see linked wikipedia entries). Zefrog 15:32, 8 September 2006 (GMT)
Do you have any reliable sources that explain the notability of this company? Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable. How a company promotes itself is not a reliable source nor does it add notability. Wikipedia is not a parking ground for company ads in the hope that the company some day becomes notable. Weregerbil 16:01, 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 11:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Camp Risk

Non-notable. Used WP:ORG as basis. Does not meet WP:V either -Nv8200p talk 17:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete As a possibly religious camp, WP:ORG might be appropriate, as a possibly private business, WP:CORP might be appropriate. Either way there is no evidence or assertion in the article that the camp meets either criteria. Additionally, we have no references to any sources, much less independent, reliable ones to meet the notability tests. We also have advertising tone, but that isn't a reason for deletion. GRBerry 03:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:V. No sources provided whatsoever, much less credible, third-party ones. --Satori Son 02:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:05, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nicola Tappenden

Non-notable person. This is the second time I've nominated this article in less than a week; last time, I suggested that it be protected from recreation, but instead someone ignored the open AfD and speedily deleted it without protecting it from recreation. As a result, it's back.

History:

  1. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicola Tappenden
  2. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicola Tappenden (2nd nomination)
  3. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicola Tappenden (3rd nomination)

I propose we Delete and Protect the article (but, if possible, keep the Talk page; it outlines the fact that the article has been deleted several times before, and that should be where any request for unprotection should be made). Maybe it'll happen this time... I'd be happy if it was speedily deleted (as it is a recreation of a deleted article, it can be), as long as it is protected from recreation; if that doesn't happen, I have no doubt that I'll be submitting 5th, 6th, and 7th nominations (at this rate, by the end of the month). EVula 17:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete and Protect as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 21:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and Protect per nom. Valrith 21:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete and protect per nom. Yomanganitalk 23:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per norm. Marwatt 18:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete and Protect per nom. --Satori Son 21:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete and protect. Why are we having this discussion? — CharlotteWebb 15:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and protect per nom. 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. - Mailer Diablo 17:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stu Pflaum

Vanity and non-notable Rkevins82 17:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per above, but doesn't seem speediable, removing speedy tag. NawlinWiki 18:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:AUTO and WP:VAIN. VoiceOfReason 00:30, 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) 04:43, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Body essentials

Non-notable company, fails WP:CORP, no sources given or likely to be found. Lots of Google hits for "Body essentials", but few referring to this company. May be advertisement. Prod removed by author. Delete Huon 17:29, 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 Keep. Catchpole 16:12, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of X-Play characters

Opps - not sure what happened there - I did enter a reason but the script I used didn't seem to carry it over. I don't agree that it's notable - sure there are 300 episodes but I don't see any evidence that they are notable in any wider cultural sense - I also don't see much evidence of WP:V. --Charlesknight 18:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Highway 17:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. (1) You've offered no reason for deleting the article. (2) Now that I've discovered it while checking AfD nominations, I find it very interesting and well organized. X-Play has had more than 300 episodes, certainly more notable than many other things with detailed entries. Doczilla 18:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:LIST, WP:FICT, or failing that split into separate articles for each character and categorize. Kappa 20:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:FICT and Doczilla's second point. BryanG(talk) 03:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep *Only* 300 episodes?! This show is considered one of the best shows left from TechTV. Elmer92413 07:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, but trim. It seems like it's currently trying to mention every single character who's ever appeared on the show, which seems to border on listcruft. It might be worth trimming it down to characters that have appeared on more than one episode. Kickaha Ota 14:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep It is a bit long, but it's a popular show on that network, and the characters are a notable feature of the show. Maybe a multiple appearance rule would be fine as per KickahaOta. GumbyProf: "I'm about ideas, but I'm not always about good ideas." 04:23, 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. --- Deville (Talk) 04:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lee charles kelley

Vanity page. Recommend deleteion and/or userfy. cholmes75 (chit chat) 17:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep Successful author ([33]) Article badly needs cleanup and move to proper title. Fan-1967 18:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Cleanup as per Fan-1967 Dlyons493 Talk 21:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment I've done that now. Although I nearly stopped on reading his home page Our Chihuahua, Tiki, was an emotional wreck ... Dlyons493 Talk 21:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
      • I said he was a successful author. I didn't say he was a good one ;-) Fan-1967 00:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Rather than a simple vote, Dlyons493 has given us a reason to vote keep. Well done. --Richhoncho 18:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Agreed. Nice work by Dlyons, and I withdraw the nomination. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 18:23, 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. - Bobet 11:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I, Science

Student science magazine launched only in 2005. Not notable enough. Zephyr2k 18:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. It asserts winning an award, but the award is local and will not qualify the article for WP:ORG. Without that, there is no content. ColourBurst 20:10, 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 Nomination withdrawn - Yomanganitalk 22:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Baryonx

Misspelling, article already exists. See Baryonyx. Húsönd 18:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Note: Article Baryonyx does not mention that another spelling exists.--Húsönd 18:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirects are cheap. If someone misspelled it to make this article chances are they aren't the only one, and it can't hurt to have a fairly easy misspelling for what is obviously the same thing simply redirect. Arkyan 18:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, that might be a better option. Is there a procedure for retreating this nomination so that I can proceed with the redirect?--Húsönd 19:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy redirect per above. Kappa 20:34, 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. - Bobet 11:13, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Music4Uonline

Non-notable; fails WP:CORP. 38 Google hits [34]. Author has been spamming repeatedly [35] [36]. Haakon 18:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Apologies for seeming to spam - I had no intention of doing so. I created the music4uonline page in response to the fact that various of our competitors receive mention here, something which we feel is unfair in a business setting. I have no problem with what I wrote being dramatically slimmed down, or entirely re-written by someone else, but I do not feel that it is fair to remove it altogether, as long as our competitor's pages remain in existance. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hezza1506 (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia has no obligations regarding fair business. We write an encyclopedia, which covers notable subjects. Your competitors may or may not be notable -- if they're not, they should be deleted too. But if they are, that does not mean every other similar company has to be covered as well. Encyclopediae are not yellow pages. Haakon 08:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I totally appreciate this, and although I would prefer to see a mention remain here, I have no real problem with the page being removed, as long as this does not leave us without representation in a location where some of our competitors are represented. I do notice that one that was in existence yesterday has been removed (YCD Multimedia Ltd), but if you look at the 'similar companies' section on Muzak, or at the DMX Music page in general, you will see catalogues of competitors for whom I can see no real merit in their having a mention if we don't. Muzak is a different matter - their name is synonymous with a music style, and I can therefore see a perfectly good reason for its existance here on Wikipedia. In short, if you do intend to remove the music4u page, please also remove those of our competitors - the market is complex enough without advantages being given in neutral zones on the Internet. Apologies to anyone who has been angered by my post - I saw our competitor's pages, and felt that we required a mention too. Hezza1506 09:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

You have no right to "representation" here. The other articles have to be evaluated on their own merits. You are more than welcome to nominate them for deletion if you can demonstrate their lack of notability. Haakon 09:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Apologies for the fact that I have evidently annoyed you - this was never my intention. Nor do I feel that we have a 'right' to representation, I was simply trying to explain what made me create the page in the first place. I would happily nominate them for deletion, except that a) I am clearly biased and it seems as unfair to them as I would consider it to be to us, b) as you have probably gathered, I am not well versed in the 'rules' of wikipedia, and would not therefore know where to start in suggesting their removal and c) much as I would like to have the time to spend learning about the ins and outs of the site, I don't have - I have a company to market, and wikipedia is not on my list of priorities for marketing - for obvious reasons. All I ask is that when considering this for removal, people also bear in mind the presence of other sites of equal merit (or lack of merit, as the case may be). Hezza1506 09:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Vote: Delete. Hezza, if you'd care to do the legwork of assembling a list of links to the entries you feel are questionable and post them to my talk page, I'll be happy to look them over and NFD them if they are of a similarly inappropriate vein. That's not to say I can or will delete them, but I'll put it up for discussion if I find them to be in the same spammy vein as your article. NB: Please stop adding your company's information to the Music Licensing page. I worked hard to create it, and others have worked hard to add to it, and I'd like for it to remain useful information rather than an advertisement. I would respectfully suggest that anyone looking on a Wiki for a vendor for services like this is probably not the most astute businessperson in the world anyway - there are far better resources to find commercial services.lowgenius My Talk Page 18:24, 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. --- Deville (Talk) 04:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Advent Project

This is an unheard of band, which has not received outside recognition of being notable. Sadly, there is a claim (albeit a weak one) to notability, so it cannot be speedied. 4 unique google hits for "Advent Project" +"Kid Keith" -- Where 18:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete I still think it merits speedy. Claim to notability is they're going to record an EP and send it to record companies. All the google hits are for myspace.com. Nowhere close to WP:MUSIC. -- Fan-1967 18:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Google hits

There are 6 unique hits on google now. Although this still isnt impressive it shows we are slowly growing—Preceding unsigned comment added by Issueskid (talk • contribs)

  • Authors note

We have never made any major charts, however we reached No5 in the Genoma unsigned charts. Anybody intrested in computer music may be intrested to discover Genoma is run by the official music tech magazine, (a magazine devoted to created music).—Preceding unsigned comment added by Issueskid (talk • contribs)

  • Comment The Genoma unsigned charts do not seem to exist outside of myspace.com ([37]), which is not a Reliable Source. Who puts them together, and what value they may have, is at best unverifiable. Fan-1967 15:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Genoma may not exist out of myspace, however Music tech magazine does. Music tech magazine are the company who run the Genoma charts and they are a professional music creation magazine that does hold weight in the real world. Surly this counts for a slight achievement—Preceding unsigned comment added by Issueskid (talk • contribs)
On talk pages and in discussions, please sign your posts by typing four tilde's (~~~~) at the end of your entry. It will translate to your user name with the date and time.
  • Very slight, since the charts aren't published in the magazine, only on myspace, and don't seem to be republished, or even much noticed, anywhere else. The Music Tech website itself contains no references at all to Genoma. Being listed on a webpage that is (presumably) somehow connected to a magazine is not the same thing as being covered in that magazine. Fan-1967 19:47, 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. - Mailer Diablo 17:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of fanon by series

This article does not cite its references or sources, largely because in most cases no reliable sources exist. This appears to eb the gathering ground for trivia which are rejected in other articles as unverifiable, speculative or in other sundry ways fancruft. If anyone can suggest a better home for this fandom then please do. Guy 19:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as unverifiable, unweidly, unmaintainable, etc. Anything that is both notable and verifiable should be in the article about the series/whatever the author(s) are fans of. We have category:Fan fiction to group what already exists on this. Thryduulf 21:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Thryduulf. --Sparky Lurkdragon 22:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:OR by definition. Danny Lilithborne 23:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete For all the reasons above. However some fanon should be added to their respective series' page (The very very few with citations). Stupidhumanzz 00:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Kbja 06:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, indiscriminate collection of unverifiable trivia. — Haeleth Talk 10:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, it is not sourced and most if not all of it violates OR. I would also recommed keeping an eye on Fanon (fiction) because the list orignated from there and was spilt about a month ago. I would not be surprised if someone tried to add it back on that page. --My old username 02:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • It's futile to try and fix this. Either keep it or delete it. Jack Cain 16:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
    • If you are talking to me I am not asking to fix it. I was suggesting watching the article the list was split from to make sure it was not recreated there. --My old username 23:00, 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 17:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of fictional characters on the autistic spectrum

Obviously a violation of WP:NOR, WP:NOT and a lot of it is just assumed or ex post facto armchair diagnosis of a fictional character - something that is obviously crazy. Original article deletion vote: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional characters on the autistic spectrum Belly Flop Patrol 18:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Strong keep: The article is only supposed to be used for fictional characters that have been described by the authors as being on the autistic spectrum. It is not suposed to be used for speculation or original research. I have removed the unsourced entries from the list. Q0 19:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - sourced, encyclopaedic. Not sure what else, but it's pretty good per WP:LIST - if there's an unsourced entry you can always excise it, but AfD isn't cleanup. Please don't treat it as such. WilyD 19:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep:There are a few bad entries so remove the bad entries, don't throw thee baby out with the bathwater.Sith Lord 13 22:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, just like last time. Pburka 13:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Note that the nominator may be a sock puppet. The account was only created yesterday and has only been used to post AfDs and topless pictures. Pburka 23:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: After Q0's edit it seems to now be well sourced. I don't see the point in removing it. Raoul 17:49, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep, per all of the above comments. --Supermath 22:41, 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 claim of notability.. Shell babelfish 22:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] YCD Multimedia Ltd.

No claims of notability; fails WP:CORP. Wikipedia is not the yellow pages. Haakon 18:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete - no notability is asserted. Thryduulf 21:48, 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. - Mailer Diablo 17:10, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kodron Productions

Advertisement. Company was only founded in 2006. Article seems to be mostly announcing upcoming films. Zephyr2k 18:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom - this seems like advertising. Thryduulf 21:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --MaNeMeBasat 14:52, 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. Petros471 12:47, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yellow Second

Non-notable per WP:MUSIC -Nv8200p talk 18:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Thryduulf 21:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Deville (Talk) 04:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. They seem to have released a record with Floodgate Records, which I could imagine is enough to push them over the bar in WP:MUSIC, but I have no idea what kind of label Floodgate is. --- Deville (Talk) 04:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. They did release one record on a major indy label, if Floodgate is that, which I'm not sure. They did play around the country, in clubs, whether these clubs are major venues or not I don't know. They might marginally meet WP:MUSIC, but meeting WP:MUSIC does not require a Keep, it just means that a Delete is not required. They no longer exist. They will be utterly forgotten in five years. Delete. Herostratus 04:18, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:10, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ms. Brooklyn

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball Blood red sandman 18:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. ---Charles 19:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - nom isn't good, but failure of WP:V is a good reason to delete. WilyD 19:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:V. Most of the sources I find are for blogs, message boards, etc. Unless something that meets WP:RS reports on this, WP:NOT a crystal ball as to possible names. --Kinu t/c 19:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to Atlantic Yards. The official Atlantic Yards Overview and a recent New York Times article are reliable sources for the name of "Miss Brooklyn", not "Ms.". (Ms. and Miss are often confused with each other, of course.) As the height of the proposed building is being debated, it would be best to merge for now. Tinlinkin 03:50, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] THE EAGLE (CSA-B)

Vanity -Nv8200p talk 18:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Note that this AFD also involves the nearly identical article The Eagle (CSA-B). The one in the header has received some editing during the AFD, the other has not yet at this time. GRBerry 03:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. The one-sentence mention already at the school's article is sufficient. The rest (i.e., a list of current staffers) is essentially unencyclopedic vanity. --Kinu t/c 19:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Student newspapers are influential and important. Many staff members at student newspapers go on to become prominent professional journalists or politicians. This article needs to be expanded, but I think that notability already exists. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 20:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
    Do the math. Say for the US, as I can't generate realistic Phillipine numbers off the top of my head. 50 states (plus territories, etc...) * 100 high schools for state (intentional low ball estimate) * 12 staffers (this page has 11, 12 makes rounder numbers) = 60,000 staffers of school newspapers per year. We don't get that many new prominent journalists or politicians per year, lets estimate high at 6,000 in the U.S., of which we'll say 50% worked their high school newspaper (odds are higher for journalists than politicians, but there are more prominent politicians than journalists), so 3,000 per year. This means 3,000 of 60,000 or 5% of high school staffers go on to become prominent. The intentional biases are to make that number too high. I find 5% extremely unconvincing. I think without the biases the likely real ration is 0.5% to 1%. This argument is totally unconvincing to me, but was certainly original. GRBerry 03:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • DElete. Honestly, I do not believe students newspaper are always notable. The article does not establish its notability. SYSS Mouse 21:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Student newspapers are influential and important, just not this one in particular. --Musaabdulrashid 03:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or Smerge to the school's article. The concept of a student newspaper is encyclopedic. The individual one has to prove it on its own merits, and there is neither an assertion of such merit in the article nor any use of sources of any kind. GRBerry 03:56, 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. - Mailer Diablo 17:10, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Champion

This article was deleted following an AfD last year. The creator of that first article has written a new article on the same topic, mostly covering the same points. However, it is not identical to the previous article. The rewrite makes no new assertions of notability, and even notes that Champion no longer holds the two elected positions he previously did. Warofdreams talk 18:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Smells of vanity -Nv8200p talk 18:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment if the positions make him worthy of an article, having lost them doesn't count against him - this is an encyclopaedia, not a news service. You don't "lose" encyclopaedic value. That said, I haven't formulated an opinion on the encyclopaedic value. WilyD 19:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Okay, "Delete' no reliable, third party sources. WilyD 19:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as unverifiable, unnotable. Valrith 21:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as unverifiable, unnotable. I was a KCL student at this time and anyone (like me) who wasn't seriously into the intricacies of student union politics and sub-politics won't have come across him. --Cloth Ears 14:21, 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 further discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/THE EAGLE (CSA-B). Punkmorten 20:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Eagle (CSA-B)

Vanity -Nv8200p talk 18:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment: This is essentially the same article as THE EAGLE (CSA-B). Perhaps the two AfDs should be merged? --Kinu t/c 19:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Indeed. Punkmorten 20:44, 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 Speedy delete, no claim of notability.. Shell babelfish 22:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] International Gamer's Alliance

Google shows 1 unique non-wikipedia result. Non-notable website that fails WP:WEB Zephyr2k 19:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. I would also like to mention their forum which has 27 members. Punkmorten 20:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • speedy delete per CSD:A7, notablity is not asserted. Thryduulf 21:55, 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. --- Deville (Talk) 04:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FiberTech BrainChip a780

Hoax -Nv8200p talk 19:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete its either a hoax or an advert, neither of which belong on Wikipedia. Thryduulf 21:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, although a {{prod}} would probably have served, as the user has only edited this and hasn't touched it since it was created. Yomanganitalk 22:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete. It clearly violates WP:HOAX. The only result on Google for it was to the Wikipedia page. --Supermath 22:35, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] John Rowswell

Does not meet WP:BIO -Nv8200p talk 19:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep. Please see the references in the article. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 21:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. He is mayor of a significant-sized locale (~75,000 people); the relevant criteria from WP:BIO is "Major local political figures who receive (or received) significant press coverage". I think the three references in the article (the other doesn't seem particualrly relevant to the Mayor, just the city) just about qaulify, but not by a huge amount. Thryduulf 22:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Cannot imagine the grounds for deletion here; this is the elected representative of a sizable city. -- Visviva 15:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. He's the mayor of Sault Ste. Marie of course. All mayors should be kept. -- Earl Andrew - talk 03:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Sault Ste. Marie should be big enough to meet WP:BIO. --Supermath 22:32, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:47, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Kristi Yamaoka

This page violates all the guidelines for a BIO article. The majority of the article isn't even about the subject, but rather what happened to her. The Google results initially used to prevent AFD reveals no other stories outside of the ones just after the accident in March. There have been no substantial changes in content for over five months, and the subject hasn't been newsworthy since three days after the accident. The article was justified then by others because she was on the news and The Today Show, and she has since faded back into obscurity. The apparently important NCAA meeting that was also cited as upcoming also failed to make the news, and the results also failed to make this article. Thus, there were no real repercussions from the event, and what we are left with is a vanity article about a person who is noteworthy because of what happened to her rather than because of something she did that was of any real substance. MSJapan 19:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the article is just too long. It should be a brief entry due to the coverage it got at the time.--Hatch68 19:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

  • You should expect a biographical article about a person to focus on what makes them newsworthy, encyclopaedic, whatever. That's not a flaw in thsi case, just indicates that the article isn't "complete". Lack of completeness is not a criterion for deletion. Saying she's noteworthy because of what happened to here rather than what she did reeks so strongly of POV I'll just disregard it entirely. The article is sourced, and vaguely encyclopaedic. "Encyclopaedic value" isn't something you lose, so the failure to develop argument is one I also find unconvincing. Thus, I'm relucktantly forced to conclude we should keep the article, even though it's a real Whiskey Tango Foxtrot. WilyD 19:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • NOTE:This article has been nominated twice for deletion by the same user as is making this nomination for deletion. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kristi Yamaoka and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kristi Yamaoka (second nomination). --Durin 20:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: Nothing has changed since the last two nominations to make this person less notable than they were before. I restate my objections to this deletion as before;
My comments from the first nomination: "Plenty of people with considerably less fame have articles on them in Wikipedia. In Yamaoka's case, shes' been the subject of media attention from a broad range of major media outlets, including ABC, NBC, ESPN, CNN and hundreds more. She received a call from President Bush and also appeared on The Today Show. It isn't just the accident that made her famous, it's her actions afterwards that made her famous. The ban that you note may be overturned is in effect for the NCAA tournament, not just the MVC women's tourney (which is not over, it's still going on). Try searching for "Kristi Yamaoka" at http://news.google.com/. This generates more than 500 news article hits. Wikipedia:Notability (people) specifically states as a test for inclusion in Wikipedia, "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events". Having nationwide news attention, getting on The Today Show, getting a call from the President, etc., well exceeds that criteria. "
My comments from the second nomination:"WP:BIO clearly states "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events". Given all of the press attention, appearance on a number of TV shows, a call from the President of the United States, and ONGOING press coverage, the article clearly passes this requirement. The above statement that there is no news of her since March 11th is false as she's been mentioned in the Chicago Sun-Times and The Independent and been on the Ellen Degeneres Show of late. This article passes WP:BIO. If it doesn't, then a broad range of articles will need to be put up for AfD. For a sampling, see Kenneth Pinyan, Carlie Brucia, Brian Wells, Kayla Rolland, Mathias Rust, Jeremy Glick (September 11 attack victim), Randal McCloy, Roger Olian, Jason McElwain, Karen Louise Ellis, Pamela Rogers Turner."
Nothing has changed regarding this person's notability to possibly conclude the invalidity of the prior AfDs. People can and are notable for singular events in their lives. If she just fell and was hurt, no big deal. Lots of cheerleaders fall. Injuries are commonplace. What made this person notable was the fact that she continued to perform her cheerleading duties from the stretcher. THAT is what drew all the media attention. That is what made her notable. Not her fall. Much less the fact that her fall caused a nation-wide temporary suspension of similar moves is plenty enough on its own to make it notable. MSJapan has made no convincing argument that this person is any less notable now than she was at the time of the event. How many AfDs does this article have to endure? Enough is enough already. --Durin 20:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or possible merge to cheerleading. Subject fails the 100-year-test pretty clearly. Punkmorten 20:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • comment. I agree and disagree with the first and third comments. Rodney King is an excellent example of a bio to keep despite the fact there is little info about him as a person. I do think that notability can have a shelf life, although I think it's more on the order of 5 to 10 years than six months. On the other hand, clearly every person who is mentioned by name by major news media due to an accident does not pass the notability test. If this article passes into the realm of notability it is due only to the novelty of her injury. I don't think this is a good practice since Wikipedia is not Fark.com/AFHV Antonrojo 20:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Meets following from WP:BIO.
Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events
The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person. (Multiple similar stories describing a single day's news event only count as one coverage.)
"100 year test" is not reason for exclusion. -Nv8200p talk 21:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Punkmorten. The more time that passes, the less notable this person becomes... Valrith 21:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep per all above, and as a protest against people renominating articles until they get the outcome they want. Jcuk 21:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as per previous discussions. Catchpole 21:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I'm not really against renomination, but perhaps it would be a good idea to put a time limit before an article can be renominated again. I agree with Valrith that as more time passes, the less notable this person becomes. But still, it passes WP:BIO and deserves to stay at the moment. Perhaps one day, things may change. Zephyr2k 21:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I guess we could nominate it for deletion 100 years from now :) Punkmorten 21:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
      • But if the editors are paying attention, it'll be retained. People do not "lose" encyclopaedic value. Good today, good forever. This isn't Wikinews. WilyD 11:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep holding my nose. For now, she's got just as much reason for an article as Paris Hilton did a few years ago. If Yamaoka gets her own reality show next week, or becomes a cheerleading reform advocate, or something more enduring than falling off a pyramid, she'll be in for good. If she disappears, this is a shoo-in for a renomination in a year or so (don't need to wait 100...). --ishu 21:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Much as I am inclined to delete as never likely to pass the 20 year test, it does seem to be worthy of keeping at least a year longer per Ishu. If it were not for the AACCA recommendations, I would vote delete without hesitation. Ohconfucius 03:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:BIO, as several detail above. I stumbled onto this vote when I was looking up something similary fatouous that had been in the news, and Wikipedia is where I turned to get more info, because it is encyclopedic (i.e., comprehensive). Xsmith 00:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Shortly after the fall, The American Association of Cheerleading Coaches and Administrators declared a temporary ban on basket tosses and 2 1/2 high pyramids (the same type of stunt Yamaoka was involved in that precipitated her fall). This temporary ban was to extend for the rest of the season for all cheerleading events, including the NCAA tourney. See [38]. Following AACCA's July meeting on updating safety rules, they issued a press release modifying the rules regarding these same types of stunts requiring the presence of mats if on a hard surface and may only be done during half time or following a game. See press release in MS-Word format. Thus, MSJapan's assertion that there were no repercussions from the event is incorrect. Regardless, the larger reason for Yamaoka's fame is not the fall; plenty of cheerleaders fall. The reason for her fame is her actions after the fall, in continuing to cheer when strapped to a stretcher. That's what prompted all the press coverage, appearance on media outlets, call from the President of the United States, etc., not the fall. --Durin 13:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
    Comment:I still frankly think that too much stock is being put in certain events - for example, I know someone who was personally at a Presidential bill signing, made the local news as a result, and received numerous phone calls from the President at the time. They don't have a WP article, nor do they deserve one. It also concerns me that available information was not added to the article in a timely fashion. If the meeting took place in July (it was stated as April in the article, and that meeting not having occurred yet was a key reason AfD #2 did not pass), why did it take until AfD #3 in September to find and add the relevant information, thus undermining this AfD as well? How can someone be notable enough for WP when the article doesn't even have a DOB for her (which is because it wasn't mentioned in the whopping three days of media coverage)? How notable can she be when no substantial changes have been made to the article since a week after the accident? While I suppose at this point there is no reason to continue with the AfD, these are questions that I think really need to be considered when thinking about the appropriateness of this article for WP. MSJapan 18:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • We do not base deletion policy on whether or not all available information is added in a timely fashion. It simply isn't a criteria. Not having a date of birth is also not a criteria for deletion, and not a criteria for determining notability either. We don't have birth dates for Ptolemy and Pythagoras either, but we're not about to delete those articles on that basis. The issues you raise here have no bearing on how notable she is. The issues you raise have to do with the completeness of the article. So long as an article isn't a sub-stub, we don't delete it on any basis of completeness of an article. --Durin 18:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable. Outcome of rules debate may result in a viable article subject to appropriate title and referencing.ALR 13:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, nothing has changed since the last two nominations to make this person less notable than before as already said. RFerreira 20:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete not notable. --MaNeMeBasat 14:54, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, nationwide news is always notable. bbx 15:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep This is the third time this same user has tried to delete this article. Seano1 19:30, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Though this article could stand some fixing up, it does add value to Wikipedia. --Kamoranakrre T. Eyaelitenan 06:22, 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. --- Deville (Talk) 04:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MSB FTW

  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}}

Non-notable forum, does not meet WP:WEB. Prod removed without reason. Wildthing61476 19:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't know what that code was at the top of the page so I took it out. I'm kinda new to Wikipedida and didn't realize that deleting the code would take out the message on top. I thought it just stayed there itself. Anyways, I feel this article should stay. MSB FTW is very successful and has over 210,000 posts since January, which is very impressive. The board has become even more popular lately, too. The board was slow during the first month of creation or two, but now the board averages well over 2,000 posts per day. Note: Please don't get mad if I did this wrong too. I think I got this edit right though MetsRule 20:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment Please read WP:WEB, nowhere in that criteria does it state that popularity (or non-popularity) is important. What is important are reliable sources or major web awards. Without those, it would be a delete. ColourBurst 20:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, the site doesn't seem to meet WP:WEB. Hosted on Invision, only about 100 members. No WP:RS indicating any sort of notability otherwise. --Kinu t/c 20:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


The Board also compiles a lot of current events and is not a sole time waster, there are many worth while discussions that go there and I feel as if the it deserves to be recognized by wiki. Wiki is a favorite place for people to link information on MSB FTW. And if any worry should arise, wiki is not being assosiated with any porn.Nevoso Inverno 20:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)Nevoso Inverno


Aww...come on...no special exception because we asked so nicely?  ;) 20:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)~~VUTB —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.132.147.124 (talk • contribs)

  • Speedy Delete. Others may disagree, but I feel as though NN online forms fall under the groups section of CSD A7. Irongargoyle 23:22, 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. - Mailer Diablo 17:11, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mental Disorders in Mass Media

Non encyclopedic article. Looks like a student work copy/pasted onto the site. waffle iron talk 20:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Strong delete, appears to be an essay in violation of WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. --Kinu t/c 20:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as an essay. --Gray Porpoise 21:04, 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 17:11, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blake Van Leer

Doesn't seem to fullfill WP:BIO, seems to be vanity, as the article lemma and author are the same person (see my user talkpage) --Jestix 20:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh boy here we go again, We have Shazbot who is a member of an online gaming guild who dislikes a guild I'm in and harasses the members of that website a long with myself. Then we have Jestix who deletes or reverts every single ligit edit or article I add. I'm sure there is other articles you can find that really need to be deleted and are wasting wikipedia space. Since I can't seem to do anything about it, I will just play your game and continue to readd the article. If you delete my ip address, I own two office locations, two water front homes. I'll just keep readding them again again. Not just for kicks, but because your unfair and need to get a life. Best Regards,Blake911 04:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Dear BLake, please note that I'm not an Administrator and have not the power to delete pages, all I do is to nominate them for reviewal by the widely spread wikipedia community. Don't you realize that in most the cases they are unanimously? --Jestix 05:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Lock, @closing admin, since the author already announced he will keep readding the page because he feels it unfair the wikipedie community doesn't find him encyclopedic noteworthy, I would suggest to lock the lemma instead, if the discussion results into a delete. --05:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I have noticed that it is unaimously decied due to the fact many members from an online gaming community have decided to follow or watch my articles and edits. Again I'm just getting the hang of wikipedia and realizing, it appears to be a website that anyone can log on and edit, delete, alter or add false information posted by other people. Sometimes it can be helpful.... but I only use it as a last resort because you can post completely false information here......sure it will probably be editted and corrected, but not immediately. In some cases important or notable information is even editted or deleted.

Blake911 06:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories don't really accomplish anything. Contrary to your belief, not everyone disagreeing with you is a member of what you seem to think is a guild of epic proportions, able to garner massive support on Wikipedia to squelch the voice of a small new user. Shazbot85Talk 06:45, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Shazbot do you ever give up? haha don't you have anything better to do than to be a shadowclan puppet?

  • Delete, Fails WP:BIO. Subject doesn't qualify for notablity at this time. The Bethling 09:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment

Found several links making the article more than qualify for notability.

Actor Database Listed here

Below the belt show Has him listed as well a long with other celebrities.

Ali and Jack morning show Also listed here on a popular national talk show.

Maryland Newspaper Has him listed as well in several articles.

Movie company Has him listed in several pilots. The movie company is known as Metropolis Pictures and it's owner as well as the company is listed on the internet movie database IMDB

Thordice 19:39, 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 MO CONSENSUS TO DELETE. Herostratus 04:38, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chamber of Furniture Industries of the Philippines

Non-notable organization/corporation; fails WP:CORP. Valrith 20:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:CORP. Thryduulf 22:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Trade associations and their trade shows have significant reference value. I added some references. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 05:34, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep. Some credible, third-party coverage, so WP:V met. Squeaks by WP:CORP, since the service it provides (the furniture show) "has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself." Meets WP:ORG, as proposed, since its activity is "national ... in scale and information can be verified by a third party source." --Satori Son 17:00, 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. Notable with the community is not really easy to verify, and nominator has hard numbers. Herostratus 06:04, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Collarme

Non-notable website (alexa rank today 8142, 3 mo. avg. 5399); no evidence of satisfying WP:WEB Valrith 20:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete there are no cited sources. Without external coverage we can't verify much beyond it's mere existence, which is insufficient. Guy 20:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and Guy. Thryduulf 22:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - it's notable within its community (admittedly, sexual perverts). - Richardcavell 00:16, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
That's fine, if you can prove it. Truth by assertion usually doesn't hold up... Valrith 00:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry that I haven't a library of BDSM academic journals at my house to pull citations from. - Richardcavell 00:28, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:05, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Natalie Bookchin

Rescued from speedy, but does not appear to be especially notable, although I'm no expert on what constituted notability in the art world. Herostratus 20:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Neutral as nominator. Herostratus 20:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
    • If I can find resources online within the next weeks about her contributions to the art world, will there be a a re-consideration to keep this article?—Preceding unsigned comment added by CyberPuke (talk • contribs)
      • The next weeks? Herostratus 21:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment AfDs only stay up for five days, so "the next weeks" is too long. How long does it take to do a rudimentary google search though? ColourBurst 21:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, probably Doing the "rudimentary google search" I suggested earlier, sources: [39] [40] [41] [42]. That's a start. ColourBurst 21:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and comment I found the article as non notable so I tagged it for a speedy Delete. The nonnotabilty is confirmed by the author of the article who said on the article's talk page, "Natalie Bookcin is an comtemporary media artist who have made contributions well known to the art world, but not known to the public." Also please sign your post on talk pages by using four tildes (~). Michael Greiner 21:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC) Changing vote to Weak keep. Michael Greiner 20:22, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't think a single user's opinion on whether somebody's notable, especially since he/she is not familiar with the notability policies, constitutes as confirmation. Otherwise it would be really easy to sabotage the AfD process. ColourBurst 21:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I was just quoting the the article's author. Michael Greiner 21:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I was referencing the quote from the article's author when I said that ("single user" refers to the author of the article). I mean, just because somebody, even the author of an article says somebody's not notable doesn't mean he/she is not. ColourBurst 21:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, borderline as member of RTMark and involved with the gatt.org prank. --Dhartung | Talk 23:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I think her case can be made better as an academic than as a well-known artist. She is the co-director of a major art program. In reply to Greiner's comments, I think assuming that wide public knowledge of a figure is the only route to notability is a dangerous path to take. Substantial recognition within a field is the best way to deal with academics, and if we don't accept that we will have to throw a LOT of important scholars out. As you can see on Google scholar, her work has attracted considerable attention. Passes WP:PROF. Irongargoyle 23:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Maybe this link will bring further enlightment to who she is. http://www.fondation-langlois.org/html/e/page.php?NumPage=289 Cyberpuke
  • Keep not brilliant article, but notable enough for major exhibitions. LotLE×talk 20:04, 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. - Mailer Diablo 17:12, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mughalstan

Does not conform to WP:N. Is just a creation of a well known hate-site. Babub→Talk 20:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Strong Delete: Fails WP:V, not supported by credible sources (only sources come from Internet forums, news groups, or sites that repeat the forum posts as "evidence"). --Ragib 20:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Passes WP:V in my book; see [43]. Definitely seems like a notable concept too; distasteful as it may seem, Wikipedia is not censored. It will need some attention to keep it in line with WP:NPOV, though. --Ginkgo100 talk · e@ 21:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Interesting that you provide this reference. If you read the reference, you'd find it listed under Pages thought to be fake. Also, NONE of the links put under the first mention in that page work. Therefore, it fails WP:V quite easily. NPOV isn't an issue here, Verifiability is. Thanks. --Ragib 21:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, the site you've mentioned classifies it as fake. Babub→Talk 21:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. The source cited by ginkgo100 is more than good enough. Moreover the notability of the reported website lies in the fact that it is one of the very few (about <10) websites banned by indian government. And 'course, Wiki is not censored.--nids(♂) 21:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Time and again, I ask everyone to show a single reference to this. I really don't care what is banned and what is not. Right now, all the arguments shown is that the banned site (which we can't really verify) had all proofs of the issue. Well, show me a reference ... at *this* moment. That the issue is mentioned by almost no other sources (except the "banned" "all-encompassing" source) is yet another proof of the thing being non-verifiable. WP:V triumphs all other policies. --Ragib 21:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
If just a homo sapien said that he saw it, then it was definately not verifiable. But when google cache shows it, there is a difference.nids(♂) 21:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Google cache is not a reference. --Ragib 21:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Also, see Wikipedia's stance on Reliable sources, which states : Posts to bulletin boards, Usenet, and wikis, or messages left on blogs, should not be used as primary or secondary sources. This is in part because we have no way of knowing who has written or posted them, and in part because there is no editorial oversight or third-party fact-checking. In addition, in the case of wikis, the content of an article could change at any moment. and also A self-published source is a published source that has not been subject to any form of independent fact-checking, or where no one stands between the writer and the act of publication. It includes personal websites, and books published by vanity presses. Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. --Ragib 21:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is a very relevant article as it is a stem from extremism which is very prevalent in the world today. Though Mughalstan is probably specious and very unlikely to happen, I think this article should stay as it contains an idea advocated by some. Thanks. Jdas07 21:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but where is the proof? Where is the reference? It's not good to say you saw it but can't show it to us now. Wikipedia is also not a primary source of ideas. --Ragib 21:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Three out of five of the sources on the article work. Thanks. Jdas07 19:18, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Have not seen any indication that the idea is notable - e.g. a subject of publications in a number of WP:RS, have a sizable amount of supporters, etc. We do not have to popularize ideas that exist only on a few fringe internet forums abakharev 02:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete please, I cannot see ny way that this could be neutral. --Musaabdulrashid 03:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per --Ragib --Shyamsunder 15:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I don't care about neutrality as much as verifiability. Agree with Ragib fails WP:V. Where are the sources? --Antorjal 03:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Ragib. --Gurubrahma 05:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete no verifiable sources. I don't think any of the sources identified to date meet WP:RS. An offensive topic can stay, but an unverifiably sourced offensive topic cannot -- Samir धर्म 05:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as unverified and non-notable, as it would be easy to find good sources if this was a notable plan, even if idiotic. "The idea of Mughalstan comes from the belief that all the lands, once conquered by the Mughals, should belong to their descendants." Yes... that makes perfect sense. In that case, they should not object to Italy/Rome reclaiming their conquered land, which besides Southern Europe, would include Egypt, Palestine, Israel, Turkey, Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Kuwait, parts of Saudi Arabia and the choicest parts of Northern Africa. -- Kjkolb 05:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Samir -- Lost(talk) 07:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete on a couple of grounds, 1 Verifiability and 2. Notability. Haphar 10:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete (without prejudice, in case WP:V can be satisfied). Like others, I am not satisfied with the reliability of the sources we have. There seems no doubt the idea exists and is notable enough to create some amount of fuss on the internet, but to satisfy WP:V we ought to be able to find a reliable discussion of it in a proper, non-partisan scholarly publication or at least some major serious news media, talking about the idea and its proponents, and not just agitating for or against it. The page quoted by Gingko100 is a start but it's basically also just an amateur website for all we know. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Ragib. Original research with comments such as "Khalistan, the Sikh Nation of Sufi Muslims. The Sikhs or Nanakshahis are followers of the Muslim Sufi saint Guru Nanak; hence Khalistan is a natural part of Mughalstan." that make the article appear comical. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 18:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: A useful resource for the Mughalstan concept and movement.--ISKapoor 20:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
As mentioned above, something that can't be verified is never a useful resource. See WP:V. --
  • Delete per Ragib and Samir. —Khoikhoi 23:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Ragib. Besides the article itself has inherent lies such as "immigrant Muslims and have been historically referred to as Mughals". I dont know but I do have a Masters Degree in Indian History and I have never heard of such absurd concept or thought. Marwatt 12:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. BhaiSaab talk 01:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Ragib. This would be clearly notable if it were verifiable. However, at present this looks like a neologism at best. Qball6 02:27, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

Note - The article is not a soapbox for the creator (myself) or any other editors personal views. Its documentation of the Mughalstan ideal. I am an ardent hater of Mughalstan.Bakaman Bakatalk 02:18, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

  • comment-This is exactly the point, the article is a soapbox for directing hatred against the "ideal of Mughalstan" which has no documentation to begin with, other than a web forum post and an angelfire site. As said below, if this really were a prominent idea it would have a lot more coverage. Also, it is a bit disruptive to post comments like this at the top of the AfD entry, they should be moved to the bottom to preserve the flow of the debate. Musaabdulrashid 06:35, 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 speedy delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bernardhus Van Leer

Does not fullfill WP:WEB, Blake van Leer, some familiy member, seems to be adding his whole familiy tree to wikipedia. --Jestix 20:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete them all per A7. --Ginkgo100 talk · e@ 21:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per A7 and probably copyvio from Transactions and Studies of the College of Physicians of Philadelphia (July 1970 edition). I've tagged this apropriately. Thryduulf 22:06, 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 deleted as copyvio after being listed for a week on WP:CP. --RobthTalk 16:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Van Leer

No encyclopedic notability to be seen. --Jestix 21:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete per CSD:A7 - no notablity is asserted. Thryduulf 22:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as only a few family members are even borderline notable, so this has no utility. --Dhartung | Talk 00:18, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • keep Wow if this isn't notable we need to do some serious deletion of kimo the local street fighter and really start to clean house with all the useless garbage on wikipedia. There is a lot more than few family members who are way over borderline notable. If you would please direct yourself to the family tree link. You will notice that even today students have to write essay's on Van Leer family members. One family member is even a former georgia tech president. Another was a member of the Jesse James gang. Another was in Cosmopolitan Magazine. Another was the founder of ATO frat house. This article needs to stay.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Blake911 (talk • contribs) . (a van leer familiy member)
  • I would be inclined to not delete this article out of hand. Family articles like this raise some interesting questions:
    1. Can a family be notable when few or none of its members are notable? (I would say yes, just as a band can.)
    2. Is a family a good way to group people? (I would say sometimes. If a family fortune or business or hereditary title is the common thread.) That is not the case here, though. What is the connection between Hans Vollers and Johann Balthasar von Löhr? None, really.
    3. Could this article be replaced by a category? (Maybe some family articles can, but not this one.)
However, WP:NOT a geneology site, there is much material here unsourced and probably very difficult to source, and some that is openly speculative ("It is believed..." "Would probably have...", etc.). Nevertheless, all things considered, I would tend toward keeping the article. Herostratus 05:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
    • The notability discussion aside, familiy articiles starting with a member of this familiy copying content from their homepage to wikipedia is a VERY wrong start for a proper article if you ask me, especially regarding NPOV --Jestix 06:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
    • What IMHO really speaks against a grouped familiy tree is, since one member is currently aggressibly adding person after person of this familiy to wikipedia, with seperate articles we have the wikipedia tools of AFD to determine person by person if he is notable or not. If there is a familiy tree I fear it will go down to any newborn baby to mementioned by that guy, and when we remove it by revert this will very likely result into revert wars. --Jestix 06:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep the name for disambiguation Almost any surname is non-exclusive so "Van Leer" is needed like we need Rothschild. (I'm thinking about maybe adding a short article on the Dutch charity, Bernard van Leer Foundation [44] which is active globally in child rights.) Any worthwhile family article, like Rothschild family (see the redirect too), is probably written after good encycopedia articles have been established on the individuals. The content of this article isn't enough yet for a decent "Van Leer family" article, but can it be improved? The enthusiasts ought to try to work first on worthwhile individual articles. The Georgia Tech guy looks OK to me as a start. Mereda 07:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikify — President of Georgia Tech 1944-1956 is established by this www.library.gatech.edu link. Who also makes the NC State University College of Engineering Time Line as Dean of Engineering.Bernard Van Leer foundation This website speaks for itself by showing Bernard Van Leer is more than noteworthy. Samuel Van Leer and many others seem to be more than noteworthy. I suggest keeping this because it's already more than noteworthy and other Wikipedia users will most likely contribute to this article.

Thordice 21:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Incendiary Delete Get rid of this vanity swill. Blake Van Leer wants his entire family on Wikipedia. I have family members that are actually of note on Wikipedia, not because I wrote an article on them, but becauser they actually are notable independent of my opinions. Simply because a single family member is noable, that doesn't mean the family name should be plastered on Wikipedia. If this is kept, I demand family geneology pages on both the Forrest and Dickens families. (I'm bewwing sarcastioc, please don't creat them or I'll delete them. Shazbot85Talk 21:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I agree with Mereda's comments. I did click the redirect Mereda provided us with and the Rothchilds article is noteworthy. Perhaps someone can contribute more details.

Waargboom 17:44, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete I really wasn't sure about this one, although some of the members of the Van Leer family might have claim to Notabilty (such as the Former Ga Tech president), I don't think the Van Leers, as an entity, qualify. When I think of notable families I think of the Bushes, Kennedys, Rockefellers, etc. Maybe that's too high a standard, but the article and my (admitedly limited) research just don't seem to establish them as being notable as a whole. --- The Bethling(Talk) 03:44, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete CSD A7. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 03:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Samuel Van Leer

Yet another Van Leer that popped up on September 4th written by Blake(van Leer)911 --Jestix 21:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete per CSD:A7 - no notablity is asserted. Thryduulf 22:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete NN. Shazbot85Talk 23:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, appears to have been a militia captain in the American Revolution, but that's all. --Dhartung | Talk 00:17, 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 22:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rangefinderforum.com

non-notable forum, doesn't meet WP:WEB Akradecki 21:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Response: Rangefinderforum has 6,000+ registered members, receives 10,000 unique hits per day, is the world's largest forum dedicated to rangefinder cameras and have broken several world-firsts such as photos of the upcoming Leica M8. It has also held photography competitions featuring what can be accomplished using a rangefinder camera - with prices sponsored by well known photographic equipment vendors. I claim that this site IS significant and deserves a place at wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Camerabuff (talk • contribs) 21:27, 5 September 2006
  • Comment Please read WP:WEB. There's no criteria that states that the popularity of the site has anything to do with its notability. Anything to indicate the site's notability other than referencing what a reliable source writes is original research. ColourBurst 21:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I am quite sure that RFF has been mentioned and featured in a number of photography magazines, but I don't have any references handy. Devisualize 22:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, unless someone can find references to add that show notability. Valrith 21:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Defence: This is the world's premiere site for users and collectors of rangefinder cameras. How is that not considered notability? Comment: With that argument for deletion how can you allow articles like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fredmiranda to be around considering that that site is a very generic site without the unique focus that RFF has? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Camerabuff (talk • contribs) 22:01, 5 September 2006
    • If you had read WP:WEB you'd understand. There are 3 bullets under "Criteria for Web Content", and this article gives no evidence that the site satisfies any of them. Oh, and I have now nominated Fredmiranda for deletion; thanks for pointing it up... Valrith 22:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Thank you for bringing that article to our attention - it has also now been marked for deletion. Thryduulf 22:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Thryduulf 22:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Why are the articles on photo.net and smugmug not deleted yet? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Camerabuff (talk • contribs) 2006-09-05 22:49:44
  • Delete per nom. Naconkantari 23:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. RexNL 23:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Response: Again: Why are;
  • allowed on wikipedia taking the rules that you quote into consideration? Some admin care to answe? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Camerabuff (talk • contribs) 23:18, 5 September 2006
  • Asking why this article is up for deletion when YouTube and Flickr aren't... that's a joke, right? Anyhoo Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 23:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, despite the amusing comparisons raised above. I always love it when the one-man computer shop asks why his company is being deleted when Microsoft is allowed to stay. Fan-1967 00:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Let's not get carried away here, I think there is still a difference between a one-man computer shop and a user community with a couple of thousand users. Devisualize 08:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Response Instead of deletion, change into redirection to rangefinder camera instead, in accordance with note 2 of WP:WEB which that "Websites or content which fail these guidelines but are linked to a topic or subject which does merit inclusion may be redirected to that topic or subject rather than be listed for deletion." Rangefinderforum.com is really the #1 internet resource for rangefinder cameras, so I think this is applicable. I've fleshed out the entry on the rangefinder forum there and put most of the relevant content from this page in there, I think a redirect is the cleaner solution. Devisualize 08:37, 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 Speedy deleted per author request on talk page. Thryduulf 22:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Final Fantasy A+

Not notable enough to have its own article. I believe this article was deleted at least once in the past. ~ Hibana 21:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of Final Fantasy deletions. Hibana 21:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. - Fx21 21:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. I'm quite sure it was deleted before. Hilarious movie, though. Axem Titanium 21:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. -RaCha'ar 21:54, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rules of Settlers of Catan

From WP:NOT

Instruction manuals - while Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places, and things, Wikipedia articles should not include instruction - advice (legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, video game guides, and recipes. Note that this does not apply to the Wikipedia: namespace, where "how-to"s relevant to editing Wikipedia itself are appropriate, such as Wikipedia:How to draw a diagram with Dia. If you're interested in a how-to style manual, you may want to look at Wikihow or our sister project Wikibooks

Wikipedia is not a how-to guide or an instruction manual. Yes its a popular much loved game, but the rules have no place on wikipedia. Crossmr 21:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Delete per WP:NOT. I'm not sure this can be transwiki'd to Wikibooks. ColourBurst 21:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOT], if it is acceptable at Wikibooks that I would not oppose a transwiki. Thryduulf 22:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, I'm pretty certain that game manuals are covered by intellectual property law. --Dhartung | Talk 00:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOT, as quoted in nom. Percy Snoodle 15:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, and re-edit to remove excess detail, or Merge back into Settlers article.--SarekOfVulcan 03:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, per WP:NOT. I doubt that it can be transwikied. --Supermath 22:28, 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. - Bobet 11:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scott Kerr

The band he was a leader of, Five Iron Frenzy, seems notable but he isn't. Thryduulf 21:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment. Why isn't he notable? I would say that being the leader of said band makes him notable. --EndlessVince 02:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Second. Chewbacca1010 18:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

    • comment. Notability doesn't come by association. The lead singers of many (most?) bands are not considered notable enough for their own article and there are very very few managers who are more notable than the lead singers. If this manager is an exception, this article does not explain why - as per the spirit of CSD:A7 every article must make it clear why the subject deserves and article. Also, c.f. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam Tudhope - an article about the manager of Keane (a more notable band than Five Iron Frenzy) has been nominated for the same reason and is heading towards a delete outcome. Thryduulf 18:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:V. All articles are required to have "credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." This article has been here for a year and still has no sources at all, much less sufficient ones. --Satori Son 02:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. Jaranda wat's sup 01:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Starbucks complex

Contested prod. Made-up phrase. —EdGl 22:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Delete I see the page was nominated for quicky and prod before. Does not appear on the google results, probably a joke. -- lucasbfr talk 22:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, attempted astroturfing of a protologism. No WP:RS indicating this usage. --Kinu t/c 22:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete As the editor who placed the speedy tag on the article, I acknowledge that it was a borderline patent nonsense candidate. However, I don't think I need to have the Starbucks Complex to be picky enough to want this thing off of Wikipedia forthwith. Fails WP:V, WP:NFT, WP:RS, and WP:HOAX. Irongargoyle 22:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Previously tagged as patent nonsense (CSD G1). Tag removed by page author with edit sumary "the page needed to be created". PROD'd w/ made-up and non-notable. Removed wt/ explanation. Googling "starbucks complex" gives me 40 unique hits, almost all of which refer to it as part of a larger building, and none as a personality disorder.

Btw, I noticed the CSD template says authors should not remove that template themsleves, instead adding the hangon template & explaining why on the talk page. Did that violate procedure, or is that irrelevant in this case because it doesn't quite qualify as patent nonsense? TransUtopian 23:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense for me, deleted Jaranda wat's sup 01:59, 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 speedy delete. --- Deville (Talk) 23:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dara Khatib

An Encyclopedia is for Information that can benefit anyone, and can help them out in certain situations such as reports for school. I am not familiar with this 'Dara Khatib', and judging by this article, I'm not susposed to be. 'Dara Khatib' just sounds like your normal everyday person. This 'Dara Khatib' does not sound like someone worth mentioning in Wikipedia (In all respect possible), as it is really not going to benefit your average person.

Delete as I have nominated this article. Alan 22:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete under WP:CSD A7 Yomanganitalk 22:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete Per Yomangani and so tagged. Irongargoyle 22:48, 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 Keep. Catchpole 09:15, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Frühstückstreff

Is this really notable enough to have an encyclopedia entry? I'm also vaguely disturbed by the fact that User:Schultheis is pretty much the sole contributor when the CEO of the company's "CEO/Founder" is Klaus Schultheis; it's probably reasonable to assume that these are, in fact, the same person. Schnee (cheeks clone) 22:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep pending verification of sources by someone who can speak german. "vanity by itself is not a basis for deletion, but lack of assertion of notability is" (from WP:VAIN). If the books, awards, and articles are legit then this is an easy keep. --Daniel Olsen 23:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - the German citations seem legit to me (I speak German), and come from regional-level newspapers which I'd have no hesitation in deeming reliable sources. The awards section is perhaps a bit shakier (one of the 6000 most important German websites, although it's been one for 4 years, so perhaps that counts). That said, the article passes the first criterion of WP:CORP with flying colours as far as I can tell, so it looks safe. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - agree with BigHaz - awards section isn't that notable, nor are the books as they are "web addressbooks" for Germany, but online refs allow it to pass WP:CORP easily. Yomanganitalk 23:24, 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. Petros471 12:59, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Browns restaurant

Small 14-unit brasserie chain with no special notability. Doesn't meet WP:CORP

  • Delete as per my nom. Dlyons493 Talk 23:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Does not appear to be an advertisment, and is a chain that is fairly well known in the UK. Daviegold 09:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:V. All articles, even new stubs, are required to have "credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." None at all here. --Satori Son 02:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Here is a link to their website. It appears to be a legit restaurant chain http://www.browns-restaurants.com/index.html Daviegold 15:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Verification is not really an issue here, there can be no real doubt that they do indeed have 14 locations as their website claims. Small restaurant chains do not seem to meet WP:CORP, though. Herostratus 03:15, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Exactly. When I said that there were no proper sources, I meant to verify notability, not existence. Although arguably self-published sources don't pass WP:V. --Satori Son 03:25, 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 Mr.Z-man 17:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of crossovers on Lost

List of crossovers on Lost (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Not even half as comprehensive as it should be, and it takes a bit of OR to say "Hey, there's character X in character Y's flashback!" Will (talk) Will (talk) 16:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Reluctant delete Although very interesting, I agree with the nom's rationale. This topic is better suited for fan wikis, for example http://www.lostpedia.com/wiki/Character_connections is more updated and comprehensive. (Although I'd say that the table makes it easier finding the connections than the list on lostpedia.) – sgeureka t•c 14:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Covered well enough within individual episode and character articles. •97198 talk 10:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep While crufty, it is useful, and is not original research. –thedemonhog talk • edits • box 22:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETE. The raw total is 5-3 Delete. One Keep commentor has five edits, non (except here) since May. If, for the sake of argument, we discount that and add the nameless original nominator, it shifts to 6-2 Delete. While the Keep commentors make good points, they don't refute that it doesn't meet WP:WEB, which is a pretty strong point. Thus, Delete. Herostratus 06:13, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Photo.net

non-notable usenet. AfD started by another user, but didn't finish process. I agree with delete Akradecki 23:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Fails WP:WEB - nothing to suggest why this site is notable. Thryduulf 01:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. One of the most well-known photography sites/user communities/image galleries. I've heard of the site a lot of times outside of Wikipedia. Has a notable founder (Philip Greenspun). Google says 39,600 incoming links, Alexa ranking 1,719. Need I continue? --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. You need not continue, but you could add a claim to notability per WP:WEB to the article, along with WP:RS to back it up, as required by WP:WEB. Failing that it's a delete, Alexa or not. Sandstein 21:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Ergh. Don't take it that way. =) For the record, I'm not an active user of the site.
      I have my highly practical "web notability gut feeling" thing: 1) have I heard of the thing outside Wikipedia? Often? 2) Does it appear to have tons of user after a short scrutiny? 3) Does it appear to be well-established (long history, frequently linked to/discussed about, etc). The rationale being that generally, WP:WEB seems to follow from this - a famous site gets media recognition etc. I was merely trying to hint that yes, in fact, it's a big site; yes, it's probably worth doing the kind of research you're suggesting. My point being, it probably qualifies; if it had more of the material you're asking there, we wouldn't be having this debate.
      It's just that personally, I don't have a clue myself on where to begin researching for the notability issues. Like I said, I'm not an active user of the site, and know little about them. So, if anyone who uses the site and actually knows anything would bother to dig these issues up - I'd hate to see this thing die right here because it doesn't have sources or references now... --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 08:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
      • I quite understand your gut feeling (although I can't verify it because photo.net is down as of now), but I'm reluctant to keep a not-very-good, vanity-laden article because of it. We can agree, I think, that a delete verdict should not be a barrier to the recreation of a well-sourced article, but per WP:RS, we shouldn't bother to have an article until someone can be bothered to do the research. Sandstein 07:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. The software behind photo.net was packaged up and given away as the free open-source ArsDigita Community System, which then served as the foundation for thousands of other online communities worldwide. The experience that the programmers and publisher had running photo.net were shared with thousands of people worldwide in free online books such as http://philip.greenspun.com/seia/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.163.250 (talk • contribs)
And that's not a claim to notability under WP:WEB, nor is it sourced. Sandstein 04:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
That's a dead link, and possibly an argument for the notability of "Travels with Samantha", but not for photo.net. Sandstein 07:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete for failing WP:WEB - lacks multiple third-party non-trivial articles about it, no national awards. The reason Google isn't the final arbiter of notability is because it's not entirely accurate on its face: Yes, you get 4.4 million general hits from "photo.net", but only 80 are distinct hits, and of those 80 most don't have anything to do with Photo.net. Most of these are similarly-named sites like aircraft-photo.net, and so, and this says a lot about the notability. Yes, the traffic on the site is good, but that's not notability either (it's not a popularity contest). See WP:WEB for guidelines to improve the article. Tychocat 11:18, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Tychocat. --MaNeMeBasat 14:59, 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 Keep. Catchpole 09:18, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Smugmug

non notable photo-sharing system, fails WP:CORP and WP:WEB Akradecki 23:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

    • Upon further checking, Thryduulf is correct in his note below...there are enough external independent references to meet WP:WEB, so I'll withdrawn the nom. Akradecki 03:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • weak keep. I'm not sure that WP:CORP is apropriate here, and it appears to meet the "multiple, non-trivial referencs" criteria of WP:WEB. That said it does read like a PR piece and does need cleanup if kept. Thryduulf 01:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep May need cleanup, but appears to have a fairly strong verifiability. Kevin_b_er 05:45, 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, no valid reason for deletion provided; nominator seems to lack knowledge of the fundamentals of deletion discussions.--SB | T 06:07, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MacDade Mall

This shopping center is not sufficiently notable. The most likely claim of notability is that it may be among the last of Pennsylvania's indoor strip malls, but there is no source for that claim cited. Erechtheus 06:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment. What is an indoor strip mall? A strip mall is generally a group of stores which are next to each other on a single city block but with no indoor passageway from store to store. So I can't visualize what an "indoor strip mall" would be. --Metropolitan90 07:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. Search me. I was just rolling with what the article stated. Erechtheus 07:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • The article's claims of notability are relevant only to speedy deletion (and even then only if it were an article on a person or a group). The criteria to use here are WP:CORP. Looking for non-trivial published works about this mall I find this, this, and this. Please look for and evaluate sources. Uncle G 11:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. I strongly disagree with your suggestion that it is necessary to look for and evaluate sources. I do agree that WP:CORP applies, and I think it is clear that the article fails that criteria. Note that the Flickr link is essentially a personal blog and that the medical article is not about the mall -- it just mentions it as other articles mention an address. We don't need an article about every street in the nation just because they happen to be mentioned in articles, do we?Erechtheus 16:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
      • If you disagree with looking for sources, then Wikipedia is not for you. Looking for, reading, evaluating, citing, and using sources is what we do here. If you want to argue that something fails the WP:CORP criteria, then you need to show that you looked for sources and came up with nothing that satisfies the criteria. Uncle G 21:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment. What I disagree with is the notion that any sort of deletion (be it a speedy, a prod, or an AfD) requires that you do anything more than look at the face of the article. There is no significant assertion of notability in the article as I nominated it, and there still is not sufficient notability established with the revision done by TruthbringerToronto. Erechtheus 22:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
          • What I disagree with is the notion that any sort of deletion (be it a speedy, a prod, or an AfD) requires that you do anything more than look at the face of the article. — Nominators should do the research. Nominators who do not do the research make bad nominations. Nominators who assert that they shouldn't even have to do the research are bad editors. Good editors do the research, which results either in the article getting better (with sources being added to it, for example) or in a good nomination that explains what attempts were made to look for sources and what was, or was not, found. For other editors' views on this subject, see WP:OSTRICH. Uncle G 23:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
            • Comment. I strongly disagree with WP:OSTRICH, which is nothing more than an essay. I would suggest that using such an essay to label others as bad editors is a significant violation of WP:CIVIL, which is an official policy.Erechtheus 23:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
              • An explanation of what constitutes bad editing is not incivility, any more than explaining that an editor who vandalises is a bad editor is not incivility. An editor who disagrees, especially one who "strongly" disagrees, with the idea of looking for sources is an editor that one should strive not to be, because that activity is a fundamental part of the project. Uncle G 09:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as a notable failure. I added the references cited by Uncle G to the article. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 17:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, even with coverage, this is still just a run of the mill mall... and at least in my opinion, it isn't even all that notable as a failure.--Isotope23 19:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, as none of the items introduced are reliable sources about the mall. Further, malls are businesses, and the article contains neither evidence nor an assertion of meeting WP:CORP, the relevant standard for businesses. GRBerry 01:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as long on claims, short on evidence. ~ trialsanderrors
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, — CharlotteWebb 23:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - as failing WP:CORP - the references cited don't feature the mall as the subject (I'm discounting Flickr as it is essentially just a photo specific blog), and I've been unable to find any that do. Personally, I agree with Uncle G that nominators should make an effort to do a little research before nominating - editors often put a lot of work into articles and I feel it is disrespectful to nominate without a little background checking, but there is no policy that says you must do this, and putting the onus on the creators to defend their articles is a valid approach too. Yomanganitalk 00:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. I don't rely on just creators to defend. Other participants are welcome to defend. I understand that the process-centered approach I favor is not universally loved, but I do thank you for recognizing its validity. Erechtheus
  • Delete per above comments re WP:CORP. Pan Dan 04:18, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, the references demonstrate that the mall has been the subject of multiple independent coverage, which enables a verifiable, NPOV article to be written, which is the point of the criterion. Here's another source where the mall itself is the subject: (watch out for popups): http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=17129959&BRD=1725&PAG=461&dept_id=45529&rfi=6. Kappa 23:32, 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. - Bobet 10:56, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My Camera

Delete. I removed the speedy deletion tag from the page because the author seems sure that the band is notable. It doesn't seem very notable to me, though. --דניאל ~ Danielrocks123 talk contribs Count 23:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


  • Thank you for acknowleding me. This band has had a great effect on the local music scene, it has sparked kids interest with its Originallity, Quality, and Popularity. It has paved the way for more local bands to start and for kids to broaden their horizons here in Idaho. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nonny1991 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete. I wish the band a successful future, but as of now it doesn't even come close to WP:BAND. Pan Dan 00:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - fails WP:MUSIC. If they make it big and meet the requirements, then hey. Now? Sorry, no. Tony Fox (arf!) 00:34, 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. Petros471 12:48, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Norma Gonsalves

Non-notable local politican. Wikipedia:Notability (people) states that political figures are notable if they "[hold] international, national or statewide/provincewide office or [are] members of a national, state or provincial legislature," none of which apply to Gonsalves. Her article lists numerous awards, but the only one which produces more than five unique Google hits is the New York State Senate Woman of Distinction Award, which still only produces 150. "Norma Gonsalves" produces 146 unique Google hits and zero Google News hits. -Elmer Clark 23:41, 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 keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:32, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Omaha North High School

The page is NN. The article is simply an informative article about a high school. The high school is of no note, they have recieved no special recognition, no news coverage. Shazbot85Talk 23:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Pan Dan 01:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and allow the cleanup tag to do its work. High schools should be considered notable by default. Erechtheus 01:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. as usual. Gazpacho 01:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep — The state football championships satisfy the proposed WP:SCHOOLS criteria for at least two regional championships. It also satisfies my personal notability criteria. :-) — RJH (talk) 21:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Withdrawn I withdraw nomination in the face of obvious consensus to keep. Shazbot85Talk 21:49, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • speedy keep this please the school has a tradition of excellence in football and nominator has withdrawn Yuckfoo 06:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • KEEP If it is an encyclopedia with almost everything, then I think a high school would be considered in the 'almost everything'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.59.166.6 (talk • contribs) 04:05, 10 September 2006
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was already deleted as CSD A6 - attack page. GRBerry 04:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mary Beth Stone

Delete. Clearly an attack on some nn middle school student's English teacher. --דניאל ~ Danielrocks123 talk contribs Count 23:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

This clearly not. Mrs. Stone is a locally and regionally famous English teacher who has been mentioned in many publications throughout the southwestern Connecticult region. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.44.172.57 (talk • contribs)

  • Delete per nom. If our anonymous friend can add reliable sources backing up the claim of notability (to say nothing of rewriting the article from the attack page it is), then it might be a viable keep, but until then - just no. BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 00:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Thinly disguised attack page. No indication of notability. Fan-1967 00:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

She is famous in many area newspaper articles written about her. There have been calls for her resignation, etc. I do not know if such articles exist online, but I shall look.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.44.172.57 (talk • contribs)

  • Comment. Even if this teacher is well known in the area where she lives, she is not necessarily notable enough for an encyclopedia article. Also, please place four tildes (~~~~) after your comments so that they can be attributed to you. --דניאל ~ Danielrocks123 talk contribs Count 00:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as NN. No hits in Connecticut papers in Lexis. 1 hit on google--at ratemyteachers.com. Entire article is unsourced and most of it is unverifiable. A funny piece, but if false or exaggerated, not so funny to Mary Beth Stone. Pan Dan 01:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete and block perpretators. This is the kind of thing that Wikipedia is not for. Danny Lilithborne 01:34, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete "nationally known"? Hahaha. TJ Spyke 03:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I would also say WP:BJAODN but I doubt I would laugh at reading it again --Musaabdulrashid 03:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: Strictly an attack piece, with completely unsourced criticisms. Should be deleted as quickly as possible.Hal Raglan 03:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong and Speedy Delete as attack page, and unverifiable per WP:V. Ohconfucius 03:48, 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.