Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 September 7

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

The result was delete. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 00:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Muslim Guardian

Non-notable website, alexa ranking of 2,000,000, no reliable sources on this, doesn't meet WP:WEB or Wikipedia:Verifiability. Xyzzyplugh 23:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per lack of WP:RS to meet notablity requirements. Arbusto 00:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete of non-notable website. Somehow, most of the edits by new user seem to be attempt to increase hitcount of personal website. Jcam 00:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, no evidence from reliable sources that subject meets WP:WEB. --Kinu ^t/_c 01:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete ugh. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 06:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Looks just like another racist, derogatory and argument enciting article.--John 99 h 06:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment...and none of those are reasons for deletion. John 99 h, please read Wikipedia:Deletion policy and WP:BIO and try to frame your reasoning in light of the relevent guidelines and policies at Wikipedia.--Isotope23 13:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - does not assert notability. MER-C 08:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Cannot find mainstream mention, low number of google hits for three year old website. Can be relisted if it gains notability. Seaphoto 05:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn.--MONGO 09:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom—(Kepin)^{RING THE LIBERTY BELL} 12:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Aude (talk contribs as tagcloud) 14:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete--ChaplineRVine^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 17:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete cruft factory, see also WP:NOT for why this shouldn't be on wikipedia--I-2-d2 17:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete. per above

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

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

The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) 12:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] International Council for Accrediting Alternate and Theological Studies

An "accrediting" group from India that lacks WP:RS and WP:V information on what it is, has 116 yahoo hits (including wikipedia mirrors), and was created by Lord Eddington (talk · contribs) in Feb. did not make any other edits. There has been plenlty of chance for this to be verfied, but it only gets white washed. According to the article on Education in India, this group is not a recognized accreditor.) Arbusto 20:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete The less attention given to an accreditation mill, the better. Actually, a redirect to Accreditation mill might be better, but gets into POV territory. - Richfife 20:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: The schools tied to this:
  • Scofield Graduate School (Modesto, California) (Johnson C. Philip is the chancellor who is based in Kerala, India)
  • Calvin School of Apologetics and Theology (Kerala, India) (Johnson C. Philip is the president who is based in Kerala, India)
  • Trinity School of Apologetics & Theology (Kerala, India) (Johnson C. Philip is the president who is based in Kerala, India)
• Interesting connections. Arbusto 21:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete seems to be a just-about-verifiable but insignificant accreditation mill. Guy 13:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete there is no news sources, no goverment sources, created by a fly-by the night user, nothing verifiable, and nothing to demonstrate why it is notable. We don't need a flood of unverifable fake-academic places ran for profit. Can anyone demonstrate this is 1) real and 2) it has accredited schools not tied to the founder? CaliEd 16:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Nickieee 20:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Hornplease 05:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or redirect per Richfife, if that seems ok. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 06:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete for lack of reliable sources. --MCB 06:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - as it stands, this article appears to be only concerned to assert the non-notability of its subject. How odd. BTLizard 08:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

 This AFD started on the 3 September page. It was relisted on the 7 September page by the original nominator with no rationale in the edit summary. Please add new discussions below this notice. GRBerry 01:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I put that I relisted these for more opinions here[1]. Arbusto 02:34, 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. (aeropagitica) 13:01, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trinity School of Apologetics & Theology

An unaccredited"school" that offers free courses, and charges for "admission fees." It brings up 149 yahoo hits, including wikipedia. Fails to meet notablity ot verfiablity. Article created by someone who made three edits. This is violates WP:AD and fails WP:V and WP:CORP. Arbusto 20:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment what about the other articles in this category? User:Yy-bo 21:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

What category? Arbusto 00:35, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Keep We generally keep articles on colleges, we often keep articles on diploma mill so that people can learn that they are diploma mills. I don't know if the commentor meant Category:Unaccredited institutions of higher learning or Category:Unaccredited seminaries and theological colleges, both of which are on the article, but that we have both says something about the degree to which such articles are kept. GRBerry 02:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: We often keep notable diploma mills. This one has no notablity. Has anyone written about this place other than the creator of it? Arbusto 02:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete appears to be a just-about-verifiable but insignificant diploma mill. Absent evidence of notable "alumni" claiming status of degrees from here, we probably don't need to give it the oxygen of publicity (or indeed take on the inevitable headache of policing neutrality). Guy 14:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete There is nothing notable or verifable. I can set up this type of "school" and promote on wikipedia in a similiar way. No news sources, alumni, academic standing, accreditation, and so on. CaliEd 16:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. It may be unaccredited, but it is very verifiable. Silensor 03:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Is it unaccredited? I originally sourced it that way in the article because I couldn't find proof it was. I have seen nothing from any source other than the founder and operator of the school. How is this wiki worthy? How many students attend? How many have graduated? What degrees are offered? Arbusto 04:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete for lack of independent reliable sources needed for verifiability. Without such sources, there's only two potential outcomes for the article: it has unverifiable promotional material for the school, or its used to included unverifiable attacks against it. Neither is acceptable. Currently we're using "source by omission", which means a Wikipedian (in violation of core policy) makes factual claims based on the *absense* of information. This is unacceptable. We can only state something (like say something is an "unaccredited school") if a reliable 3rd party sources has made such a statement. We can't do original research, without violating policy, which sadly we've done by labelling this "school" as we have. The reasons for deleting this, are somewhat similiar to the ones for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johnson C. Philip. --Rob 05:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete. I am surprised that there is no recognition or accredition in the country of origin, India. --Antorjal 05:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Rob. Nickieee 21:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. There is ongoing debate on this school which makes it very interesting to watch. From what I see the school has special accreditation with the Indian government. The information that some have brought makes this legit in my view. It can be verified very easily. Just contact the people in India rather than making spurious attacks. One may not like what they offer but it is not enough to remove the information. Looks like some have a personal axe to grind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.160.71.152 (talk • contribs) 28:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment The above "vote" was made by an anon. IP (207.160.71.152)[2], but linked the name "Pablo" (Note: That link went to the wikipedia article Pablo, not any user name)[3] to look like an established user. Probably the creator of this article/operator of the "school." Arbusto 14:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: The school does not have "special accreditation." The "accreditor" is ran by the operator of the school, which is not verfied by any WP:RS. See School accreditation and look at India. It is not listed as an accreditor from the Department of India's Education system.[4] A non-notable diploma mill accredited by the operator of the school. This violates WP:AD and fails WP:CORP. Arbusto 14:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Dylan 02:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Hornplease 05:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non notable non accredited school. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 06:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete --- Please don't let the fact that it looks like there are citations fool you. There are not. The article is unverified. --- WilyD 13:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

 This AFD started on the 3 September page. It was relisted on the 7 September page by the original nominator with no rationale in the edit summary. Please add new discussions below this notice. GRBerry 01:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I put that I relisted these for more opinions here[5]. Arbusto 02:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:V. 45 unique Ghits out of 393, the vast majority of which directories and a few other sites picking up wiki content. Appears that the only reals source of info on the organisation is the trinitytheology.org, which we are obliged to discount as unreliable. For an on-line and distance learning course, Alexa rank in the 643thousandsth appears well below radar for notability in any event. The fact that it is unaccredited is not all that relevant. Ohconfucius 01:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Delete There is no evidence to support the need for the article Tob55 09:40, 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. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 00:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] K&Q

Just a pub. Author claims the pub is unique because it has a laundrette in the basement and has bar billiards. Apparently this is not common in pubs nowadays, although I wonder where else I would find a bar to play this on. Utterly non-notable. Just like any of the other thousands of pubs in the UK. Delete.- Mgm|^(talk) 10:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC) Bar billiards is not played on a bar

• Delete - and now we get pubcruft! This information - such as it is - should be in the village's own article at Hamble-le-Rice. BTLizard 10:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Main claim to fame is not being featured in the BBC Television Series 'Howards' Way' . That's one way of putting a positive spin on things! Dlyons493 11:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete As non notable. Thε Halo ^Θ 13:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non notable. -AMK152 00:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Don't Delete - Merge - this can be added to Hamble's page as suggested above, rather than deleted! Mikewhitcombe 14:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non notable --ArmadilloFromHell 17:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Quote from article: The pub was not featured in the BBC Television Series 'Howards' Way' as other famous landmarks in Hamble were, but is an integral part of the village's many watering holes. This is the entire "fame" section. This doesn't seem to imply any faim. Completely non-notable. --דניאל ~ Danielrocks123 ^{talk contribs Count} 02:19, 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. (aeropagitica) 12:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Centre of Academic Excellence UK

Unrecognized accreditor of diploma mills. Brings up 15 yahoo hits including wikipedia. Arbusto 20:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete does not seem notable, does seem like PR Nigel ^(Talk) 15:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete not notable. CaliEd 16:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete not notable, simply attempt at PR and hit count increase. Jcam 00:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn. —Khoikhoi 04:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete fundamentally unverifiable (no reliable sources) Guy 12:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non notable. Thε Halo ^Θ 13:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nn. Robinoke 14:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. When I search for this institution I get 17,900 hits, not 15. The sources provided are reliable according to our Wikipedia:Reliable sources style guideline and the article is written in a neutral and encyclopedic fashion. Silensor 06:44, 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. (aeropagitica) 12:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scofield Graduate School

Unaccredited, no notablity asserted, and about 160 yahoo hits including wikipedia. Fails notablity per WP:CORP and WP:V. (I created the original article.) Arbusto 21:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. It may be an unaccredited graduate school, but I am not sure why you feel it fails notability or why it should be deleted. Silensor 03:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: There are hundreds of unaccredited schools in California alone. Without notablity or verfiablity, an unaccredited school article will become a bastion for unverified POV. I started the article because I thought the school was legitimate, but it turns out people with ties to it were simply spamming wikipedia. If this were accredited it would not need notable because we know students attend and it is verfiable. Without accreditation we need notablity to take that slack.Arbusto 05:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Yahoo and google searches aside, there should be some type of independent source to prove this is notable enough for an unaccredited entity. Nickieee 20:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per original author's comments. Jcam 00:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. It's not a community institution, which is the main reason for assuming school notability, and the article doesn't mention any specific notability. Gazpacho 01:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per author comments.--Antorjal 05:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete wp:v, author asserted, unaccredited ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 06:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete lacks sufficient external coverage in reliable sources to allow a verifiably neutral article. In other words, it's not notable. Guy 12:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per the lack of notablity, and WP:V concerns. Thε Halo ^Θ 14:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete -AMK152 00:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

 This AFD started on the 3 September page. It was relisted on the 7 September page by the original nominator with no rationale in the edit summary. Please add new discussions below this notice. GRBerry 01:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 00:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DawnOfMen

Non-notable PC game; fails WP:SOFTWARE. Valrith 00:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete "DawnOfMen" get 101 yahoo hits. Arbusto 00:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom --Wildnox 02:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I found 477 yahoo hits. Yet, the game does fail the guide stated in WP:SOFTWARE. Yet, it is just a guide and not policy. I support deletion since the game is still in alpha production and I haven't seen any information about this game on any of the more popular gaming sites. --Pinkkeith 04:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I'm normally lenient on this, but if its not yet in beta, its not yet notable. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 06:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Well, considering just what DOES pass for Wikipedia articles on games, I'm not sure delete is the answer. As it stands now, it's horrid, looking more like a blurb on a companies webpage ('Check back for more info later, etc), but that doesn't mean it doesn't have enough warrent to exist as a page. If someone could fix it... ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 12:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • consider this: if there's already sewage in a lake, do you dump even more in because it's already contaminated anyway? Garrett^Talk 01:11, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 20:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete for its violations of the crystal ball policy and per nom. Sounds like a cool game. Write up an article when it's done and it has attained some notability (and reliable sources that we can use to write an article within the bounds of NPOV). Captainktainer * Talk 02:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as vanity/advertisement by author of page. --138.88.84.36 18:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Delete This article should be deleted due to it seeming like an ad, but if its cleaned up, I see no problem with it. I know people are going to throw WP:Software, but there are many articles that warrant an article less than this one, just look at a lot of the games on List of open source games. guitarhero777777 23:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Daveydweeb (^chat/_patch) 03:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per SWATJester. Qball6 04:07, 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 (and rather speediable IMHO). —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 00:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Casanova Shamdil

Non-notable THB 00:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - an article on Casanova Shamdil, written by User:Cazanove Vazamie. Google search brings up 3 hits. Fails WP:BIO, WP:VAIN. --Daniel Olsen 00:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete Probably some sort of vanity article. Jcam 00:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as failing WP:V, no evidence of meeting WP:BIO. At least the article is honest about the comic and artist being unknown, per the Google search. --Kinu ^t/_c 01:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete From creators name, I assume this violates WP:VAIN. Does not even come close to meeting or trying to satisfy WP:BIO --Wildnox 02:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Kinu. —Khoikhoi 04:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete cartoons unknown and so is he. Should be quickly deleted.--John 99 h 06:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. JIP | Talk 07:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete. I feel sorry for Mr. Casanova but this is pure vanty. Marwatt 12:07, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as failing WP:BIO. Thε Halo ^Θ 14:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per vanity comments above 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. Metamagician3000 11:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tomáš Bezdeda

Fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC I think this person hasn't importance in any country Yoda1893 00:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep - he finished third in the Slovak equivalent of American Idol. Top ten finishers in the American version get articles, so I'd argue that the same is true of the same positions in other countries. BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 01:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep Has a record release from a major label, but I reject the conclusion that top 10 finishers on American Idol (and its clones) automatically confers notability. Granted, most of them have received considerable media attention and/or record deals, but being on a game show alone does not confer notability in any way. Irongargoyle 03:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Change vote per other Slovak idol deletion discussion here. Irongargoyle 13:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per BigHaz Jcuk 18:22, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep I'd rather have the more obscure American Idols contestants also out of Wikipedia but consensus is for them to stay and I do not see why slovak ones should be any different. Pascal.Tesson 20:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep Though I have some doubts about the Slovaks. The lady who came second claims on her website that she would like to sing professionally. Er, so she is not and it is not what is supposed to happen when she graduates from school? And Tomas here does not seem to look at the first page of his website a lot (anymore?), there is someone there using it to offer special services and the ads on his page are doubtful too. But they have a contract, and they were 2nd and third, so I guess what is sauce for the goose ...--Pan Gerwazy 22:24, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep BigHaz makes the good point that rules for notability ought to be similar across countries. I don't know a thing about Slovak singers or TV shows, but that's not a reason for me to oppose this article. This guy isn't very important, even in Slovakia, but Wikipedia with 1 million + articles has plenty of room even for those who fail to win Idol competitions on TV.

• keep per Pascal.Tesson. --mathewguiver 13:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, unless we're going to delete all the articles on people from the English language versions.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per the above comments. RFerreira 05:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 00:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Carweekly

Non-notable, not a current website THB 00:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete website which is "Under construction" Jcam 01:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Google finds 3 unique hits from other sites. Alexa has nothing. Nowhere close to WP:WEB. Fan-1967 02:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. JIP | Talk 07:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as failing WP:WEB. Thε Halo ^Θ 14:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per above. Readro 09:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Sango123 20:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Martina Šindlerová

Fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC I think this person hasn't importance in any country Yoda1893 00:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep - American Idol top 10 finishers are apparently notable, so the same could well go for a second-place finisher in the Slovak version. BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 01:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep Has a record release from a major label, but I reject the conclusion that top 10 finishers on American Idol (and its clones) automatically confers notability. Granted, most of them have received considerable media attention and/or record deals, but being on a game show alone does not confer notability in any way. Irongargoyle 03:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

comment - I'm not going to press the issue, but you could argue that a top ten finish in something like this passes the WP:BAND criterion of Has won or placed in a major music competition. That said, I know someone's bound to say that placing 10th isn't really "placing" in the proper sense of the word, but second in a nationwide comp could well be. BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 07:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment. That is a good point. I missed that WP:BAND criterion and so it probably should apply to 2nd and 3rd (although in my own anti-Idol POV I disagree with that criterion for WP:BAND in the first place), and I agree withyou that 10th is dubious at best. Irongargoyle 13:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment, how is it possible that two guys seem to have made fifth place in that Kazakh thing? Am I missing something, or is someone cooking the books to get them all in Wikipedia?--Pan Gerwazy 15:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep passes WP:MUSIC in multiple ways. WilyD 13:07, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep passes. I would say: 1st, 2nd and 3rd. Like at the Olympics. --Pan Gerwazy 15:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually, every olympic athlete passes WP:BIO WilyD 17:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Er... Pop Idol is not even remotely like the Olympics. Ohconfucius 02:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• Never said it was - but it is a major music competition, and that's even for WP:MUSIC (if you win or place. Don't know about showing) WilyD 13:47, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per all aboveJcuk 18:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - passes WP:MUSIC. Readro 20:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete For me, to say that she passes WP:MUSIC in multiple ways is a gross overstatement. I don't consider Pop Idol to be a major music competition, though it may come close, and arguably she was placed. I'd say she on the cusp of notability, so I wouldn't press too hard for a deletion but having been signed by Sony, and has just released her debut album, she will soon have name recognition per WP:BIO (through marketing and promotion) in this small country and possibly quite a few neighbouging ones too. Ohconfucius 02:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  • You can consider Pop idol an unimportant music competition, just as you can consider Paris an unimportant city. In both cases, though, any remotely disinterested point of view would realise that's simply false. Things like notability and importance really aren't subjective, as talked about at WP:N for instance. WilyD 04:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per all above Jdclevenger 04:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per all of the above. Suggest a speedy keep if the nominator will voluntarily withdraw. RFerreira 20:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. She passes WP:MUSIC, plenty of Google hits.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:40, 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. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 00:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Christian Faith and the Truth Behind 9/11

Article about a nonnotable 9/11 conspiracy theory book. This book is in exactly ten libraries in the United States. [6] GabrielF 22:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete As Per nom. It also fails the "Threshold standards" section of WP:BK. Tarret 00:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Per nom. At best, perhaps if there was a mention of Christian conspiracy theories on the 9/11 Conspiracy page, it might warrant a mention there. Jcam 01:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Per nom. I do agree that it might be noteworthy on 9/11 Conspiracy --Wildnox 02:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Per nom and Tarret --Mmx1 02:24, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. —Khoikhoi 04:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Maybe merge with 9/11 conspiracy theories, but not worthy of an article in an of itself.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 05:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - non-notable and content-free. BTLizard 08:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Per above--Peephole 13:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)----
• Delete per nom. Certainly non notable. Thε Halo ^Θ 14:07, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Mention of the book on the David Ray Griffin article suffices. No need for this spin-off article. --Aude (talk contribs as tagcloud) 16:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Delete since there is no real content to merge with David Ray Griffin. --Hyperbole 20:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC) Changing my vote to Keep in light of its publisher and unusually high Amazon rank. [7] #2,212 is really exceptionally high. Obviously, the article needs expansion, since it contains no content. --Hyperbole 15:33, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Wow...another Striver-cruft article...how surprising.--MONGO 09:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom—(Kepin)^{RING THE LIBERTY BELL} 12:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep fullfills Wikipedia:Notability (books), notable auothor, Amazon.com Sales Rank: #2,626, 29k google hits, notable publisher, reviewed in The Washington Times [8] and The Christian Post [9]. Fullills all criteria for inclusion. --Striver 13:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Just to be clear, controversy surrounding the book was noted in those articles, the were not book reviews. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 15:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

A controversy is better than a review. --Striver 19:33, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete--ChaplineRVine^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 17:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete cruft factory, see also WP:NOT for why this shouldn't be on wikipedia--I-2-d2 17:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Aaron 22:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and Aude. Morton devonshire 21:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Cruft which has failed to achive Notablity Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 22:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and above. 1ne 02:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and Merge into David Ray Griffin and Presbyterian Publishing Corporation. (Note: I just expanded the article a little to mention how controversial the book is amongst Presbyterians, but I still say it should be deleted.) CWC(talk) 15:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I've now merged everything useful into the Presbyterian Publishing Corporation in anticipation of a "Delete" decision. CWC(talk) 16:47, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom--Tbeatty 22:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep fulfills criteria for entry--Pussy Galore 04:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Tarret and per nom. These cruft articles have an AfD sock pattern of those who want to "keep". JungleCat talk/contrib 15:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment The same could be said of those voting for 'delete', who appear with some regularity on pages relating to what are, rather incivily, termed 'cruft' articles.--Pussy Galore 15:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Pussy Galore you seem somewhat offended by this. You have an interesting edit history. Also, other users are questioning who you are. Care to fill us in? JungleCat talk/contrib 15:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Certainly. I've listed myself at checkuser. What exactly is interesting about my contributions? What are you implying? --Pussy Galore 16:05, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Well, what kind of articles will you be working on or new pages would you like to submit? When I first signed up here at Wiki, it took me a while to find the AfD’s, etc. AfD “voting” is the bulk of your edits. Not that there is anything wrong with that officially. I am not the only one who has noticed this. If I were contributing nothing but AfD “votes”, some might suspect that I was a sock. But that is my thought on the matter. Cheers. JungleCat talk/contrib 16:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
        • Hopefully, you would then ask those users to show a little more Good Faith. --Pussy Galore 16:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

EDIT : Result from checkuser, "No malicous activity by this account"--Pussy Galore 20:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Crockspot 17:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. My scribbles are in more libraries than that, and no one claims I'm notable as an author. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I think they're gaming Amazon.com sales rank, by selling copies of the book among themselves. Withdrawing vote, though, as that sales rank is now less than 2000. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:15, 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 all. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 00:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Luna Brillante Publishing

Example of a vanity press publisher, fails WP:CORP.

I am also nominating the following pages for being only notable in conjunction with this publisher:

• Rita De La Torre
• Dark Dragon
• JC De La Torre
• Ancient Rising Crystallina 00:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete All per nom. Jcam 01:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete All One way to describe this would be a small publishing house with two authors. A more accurate description would be a couple who are self-publishing. Both books show an Amazon rank around 1.2 million, which isn't good. Fan-1967 01:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and weep at the hopeless vanity of it all I think it's worth pointing out in case someone had not noticed that the creator of these pages is Jdelator (talk · contribs) which is, ahem, suspicious. Pascal.Tesson 03:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• I figured we all knew who the author was (or narrowed it down to one of two, anyway) without looking at the user name. Fan-1967 04:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete all. per above ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 06:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all as per nom. --MCB 06:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all. Fascinating concept which is being done by an increasing number of companies, albeit more subtly. Dlyons493 Talk 11:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all all as non notable and failing WP:CORP. Thε Halo ^Θ 14:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all as vanity/nn. Carl.bunderson 17:59, 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 redirect. I've deleted the article to clean up its history and then re-created it as a redirect to Mike Scully as suggested. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 00:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Scully

Non-notable and probable vanity page created by the same user who created Carweekly. There are others who have "Micahel Scully" webpages, but none which fit this biography. Jcam 00:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete No Google hits to relate to this article and fails WP:BIO. Tarret 01:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Stripped of fluff, there's about one line of actual content in the article: graduated b-school and edits a website. Only claim to fame is non-notable website AFD'ed above. Fan-1967 02:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Simpsons producer Mike Scully. He's sometimes credited as Michael Scully. Zagalejo 04:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per Zagalejo ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 06:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per above. JIP | Talk 07:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect as suggested. BTLizard 08:51, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Boldly redirect Pascal.Tesson 20:36, 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. —Xyrael / 13:18, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 11 Minutes Ago

This film seems to be non-notable. I can't find any information about release. Andrew Levine 01:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete No indication of any distribution. Search finds very little, mainly IMDB and Wikipedia. Fan-1967 02:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above -AMK152 00:01, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The film is notable for its structure. The director has decided to abandon the conventions of film-making and split the film into 11 minute segments. If any other film has a structure like this, I've certainly not heard of it. I don't know whether it has a distributor or not but I really don't see what that has to do with notability. There are many articles about films on Wikipedia that have not been distributed, many not even completed. I think we should be more interested in uniqueness rather than how many people have seen it. Mallanox 03:38, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Splitting a movie into segments is hardly a groundbreaking innovation. In any event, a technical innovation still wouldn't make a film notable unless it had verifiably influenced more notable filmmakers. Andrew Levine 03:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Splittling a movie into exactly equal segments is incredibly unusual. Film making is as other artforms tend to be, organic. This is a complete departure. As a film student myself, I would expect to find a film that is organised in a unique way to be in an encyclopaedia. Also, how can a film made in 2006 be shown to have influenced anyone else? Are we to ignore the unique because it hasn't been copied yet? Mallanox 04:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
      • It's not really unusual at all. Playing around with time structure is one of the simplest student-film tropes. Dividing a movie into 11-minute segments of one shot each is exactly the sort of thing I'd expect from an independent or student filmmaker, even if nobody's done precisely that before. Besides, just doing something new without making any actual impact on filmmaking does not satisfy notability. Andrew Levine 05:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
        • This is not a student film, this is an established director. Please refer me to a film on Wikipedia that is an example of a film split into equal segments. Unless there is another to be an example of such a film making type, the notability comes from the fact that there isn't another. I ask again, do we ignore the unique because it hasn't been copied yet? Mallanox 12:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
          • I never said this was a student film, I said the concept is not far removed from the sort of thing student filmmakers would do. And it's not by an "established" director, but by a director who is not mentioned in any issues of the 72 film journals and entertainment news sources I searched on LexisNexis. There are countless films that play around with the structure of the narrative. And yes, as I said before, Wikipedia ignores an "innovative" film technique if it has not been the subject of imitation, influence, and critical examination. Recognition is what matters, not newness. It has to be recognized by the film community as unique. Andrew Levine 16:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
          • As for specific films divided into segments of exactly equal length, there's Lumière and Company. Andrew Levine 16:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
            • Replied on your talk page. Mallanox 20:54, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
              • I appreciate the friendliness, and I am sure you understand that I have nothing personal against you or your contributions to Wikipedia. The fact still stands that the film has not made even the smallest impact on the world of film, and even if it does represent a unique approach to film, then no critics, film journals, or film scholars have taken notice. It needs to be recognized as innovative and discussed in the media; until then, it is not even close to meeting WP:NOTFILM. I hope you continue to work with Wikipedia:WikiProject Film (and Wikipedia:WikiProject Filmmaking) in the future. Andrew Levine 21:03, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Uniqueness is not notability. This film has perhaps one, but not the other. Zetawoof^(ζ) 22:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment, an independent review of the film has been added to the article. Mallanox 23:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep Borderline notability. In it's favor is the fact that its cast includes actors who have at least done other recognizable work and it got review from a serious film reviewer.Agne 17:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Have any of these actors ever done significant work, though? The lead actor, Ian Michaels, only shows up as having held credited roles in a few other shorts - his only parts in significant movies and TV shows were bit parts like "Stoner #1" and "Guy in Chem Lab". Having a page on IMDB doesn't make an actor or a film notable. Zetawoof^(ζ) 19:51, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete, should wait until really notable to recreate. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 00:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 9/11 Synthetic Terror

One sentence article about a non notable 9/11 conspiracy theory book. This book is in exactly 37 libraries in the United States [10] GabrielF 01:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(books)#Note_on_notability_criteria. The book isn't available at my local bookstore either, and Borders incidates that it's out of print. [11] --Aude (talk contribs as tagcloud) 01:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Obviously a hate provoking article that quite clearly looks fake.--John 99 h 06:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - content-free and advertising. BTLizard 08:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Calling this a "a hate provoking article that quite clearly looks fake" is a bit of a stretch... What it is though is an article for a book that demonstrates no importance or notability and as it is out of print there is slim chance it will become important or notable in the future. For that reason it should be deleted with no predjudice against recreation if by some odd chance this book becomes notable in the future.--Isotope23 13:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Per above--Peephole 13:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)----
• Delete Wow...a book about conspiracy theories! Zippity-doodaa.--MONGO 13:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as yet another non notable 9/11 conspiracy book. Thε Halo ^Θ 14:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: appears to fall short of the notability criteria. -- The Anome 15:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - I'd say merge into Webster G. Tarpley, but there is no real content here to merge. --Hyperbole 20:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and merge any relevant material to Webster G. Tarpley.--Jersey Devil 21:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. -AMK152 00:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above arguments.UberCryxic 04:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom—(Kepin)^{RING THE LIBERTY BELL} 12:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep 47 k google hits certanly fullfills Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(books)#Note_on_notability_criteria: "there is no dictum against any book that is reasonably spread or otherwise well-known or remarkable."--Striver 13:33, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment perhaps more to the point is about 500 unique hits. Not that bad actually but certainly not 47K. Also please note that it is pretty much consensus that the note on notability that you cite is very much insufficient. See the working proposal WP:BK. Pascal.Tesson 07:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete--ChaplineRVine^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 17:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable. Pseudotumor 17:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete cruft factory, see also WP:NOT for why this shouldn't be on wikipedia--I-2-d2 17:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Morton devonshire 01:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Some of the above arguments confuse me. This book is not published in the UK (as far as I know), yet amazon.co.uk not only import it (presumably from the US) but keep it in stock. I find it strange that Amazon would stock a book that is unpopular enough to be "non-notable". The article has only been in existence for three months and could do with someone who is in the know to expand it. Mallanox 04:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment. No evidence that Amazon UK actually keeps it "in stock". Order time is 4-6 weeks, which doesn't sound like a book that's "in stock".

• Delete per nom.Bagginator 11:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom --Tbeatty 21:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep' as per Mallanox--Pussy Galore 03:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Crockspot 17:11, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Recreation might be allowed if someone has something to say about it. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:20, 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. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 00:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Artistic Style

Probably a useful tool, but fails WP:SOFTWARE. Per the SourceForge category: "The existence of this category does not imply that any and every project (which as of December 2005 has reached 108,697) should be included here." Crystallina 01:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not Sourceforge. Valrith 21:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Not enough here for a real article. --Elonka 22:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete not a significant development tool. Pascal.Tesson 18:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Popular tool. -- Steven Fisher 19:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Popularity is not a criterion for inclusion. Valrith 22:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Whyever not? Popularity is an indication of notability. I actually found this deletion debate when looking to see what astyle's article looks like (there's a redirect there; make sure we get that too if this ends up deleted). The votes so far are "This is not SourceForge." Does that mean that all SourceForge projects are automatically excluded? If not, what is the criteria for inclusion or exclusion, and how is SourceForge relevant at all? Another vote is that "there's not enough for a real article." This article seems to have been created a month ago, and it's not surprising it's pretty sparse still. It's "not a significant development tool"? I'm not even sure what that means. What's significant in this context? Can someone point out a more popular or significant C++ pretty printer? Deleting this article won't offend me, but so far I don't really see any content to any of these votes. Compared to those statements, I think a statement that this is a popular tool is at least as relevant. -- Steven Fisher 16:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

The criteria that are used to determine if software is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia are laid out in WP:SOFTWARE. One of the main content principles is to have verifiability of article content via reliable secondary sources. That frequently isn't possible for things that fail the notability criteria. Something that is verifiable can be notable even if it's obscure and/or not popular. Similarly, something that is popular may or may not be notable. My comment that "Wikipedia is not Sourceforge" is only intended to point out the difference between the two sites - Sourceforge will accept any project no matter how insignificant (or even non-existent), while Wikipedia will not. Valrith 18:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining the SF comment; I should have caught that. I've changed my vote (below). -- Steven Fisher 19:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Delete After reading Valrith's comments, I tend to agree with him. Merge doesn't seem necessary as there's already a mention of in in the Prettyprint article, with a brief description and link, which suffices until there's greater notability. -- Steven Fisher 19:21, 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. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 00:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Assassination Science

Yet another barely notable conspiracy theory book article by User:Striver. This book is currently ranked #253,068 at Amazon.com. The article claims that the book "has been widely praised as a ground-breaking contribution to Kennedy assassination studies", but the supporting link is the amazon.com page of ANOTHER book. GabrielF 02:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete nn, link structure as raised by nom brings up verifiability issues, wp:rs ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 06:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Fullfills Wikipedia:Notability (books) --Striver 13:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment I'd love to hear what criterion of the cited guideline you think this book satisfies. Pascal.Tesson 06:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as nn. --Mmx1 15:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. not notable, lacks reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (books) is a proposed guideline that lacks consensus (see it's talk page) My bar for notability of books is much higher. --Aude (talk contribs as tagcloud) 15:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to James H. Fetzer, where each of his small-press books can be expounded upon without needing a separate article for each of them. wikipediatrix 15:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This article which is simply advertising.--MONGO 17:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete terrible mess----Fellow-edit 17:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: Advertising we don't want, reliable sources we do. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete:--Peephole 01:23, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Morton devonshire 01:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.--Tbeatty 21:58, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - NN book, conspiracycruft. Topic seems to already be well enough covered on James H. Fetzer. My Alt Account 02:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Fulfills criteria for entry--Pussy Galore 04:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable enough for Wikipedia. Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 07:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• delete Per nom. Crockspot 17:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• delete as non-notable, possibly hoax book. (I mean, not only are the alleged contents of the book a hoax, but the book, itself, may be a hoax). As noted by the nominator, the article refers to a review of a different book. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:25, 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. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 00:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Greatest Show

Delete. Non-notable wrestling show. Prod'ded twice, tags removed both times by author. No independent sources can be found to even verify its existence. ... discospinster _talk 02:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete TJ Spyke 03:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as prodder, and per nomination. — Werdna talk criticism 06:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as a non notable wrestling show. Thε Halo ^Θ 14:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as no reliable sources (or any sources for that matter outside own webpage) are provided and as such fails WP:ORG and/or WP:CORP.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 01:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all above. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:24, 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 his notability as an academic, even in the context of the controversy, has not been established by the comments -- Samir धर्म 01:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] William Woodward (psychologist)

Completely non-notable academic. Only claim of notability is that he teaches that 9/11 is a US conspiracy in his psych classes. However, he fails the criteria at WP:PROF. This article was created as part of a campaign by User:Striver to create stubs for a zillion different non-notable conspiracy theorists and their books. Many of his articles have been deleted through AfD or are in the AfD process. GabrielF 02:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Apart from his thoughts on 9/11, he is a respected and notable academic. He has written or edited several books. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 05:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment This point ought to be explained clearly somewhere for future reference. I often read the argument "this prof is notable because he edited a book". Now, as people familiar with academic circles can all confirm, this is very much commonplace and definitely not a sign of notability. Tons of conference proceedings or books gathering a series of articles on a given topic are published every year and all have two or three editors whose job is to run the peer-review process. This is an important task but it is a technical one and I have personally attended conferences in which the cited editors include students who were generous enough to help with that job. Bottom line is: being the author of a book published by a prestigious academic press is indication of notability, being the editor means that there are other academics who are grateful you volunteered for the job. Pascal.Tesson 20:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. He may be a respected academic, but not a particularly notable one, and one academic book publication (perhaps a second one noted at Amazon about William James) does not meet the criteria of WP:PROF. --MCB 06:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom.Bagginator 10:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Many citations at http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=WR+Woodward+psychology --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 16:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Counter comment any academic with 30+ years of university work has that much citations on scholar google. I got a university position two years ago and look [12]. Pascal.Tesson 06:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Counter-Counter Comment Write "Finite Minoid analysis of WTC destruction using a semigroup of homomorphistic rodents carrying explosives" and start filling in Pascal Tesson. A background in Cold fusion may help. Publish your theory in a blog so as not to attract peer review and don't make conspiracy accusations or BYU will suspend you. --Tbeatty 07:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, if I wrote that paper, Striver (talk · contribs) would fill in my entry. :-) Pascal.Tesson 07:22, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Academic achievements seem to be well under the bar for notability, but when you add in the controversy, can he squeak in? According to the article, he was singled out for fairly harsh criticism by the state's governor. IMO this debate should probably focus on whether the amount of controversy is notable, and not just on whether he's a notable academic (he's not). My Alt Account 18:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The interesting part of this article is the response that this person has engendered. Having a governor and senator calling for the end of tenure is quite notable. JASpencer 18:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete WP:PROF says in part "Similarly, an academic involved in significant current events is likely to be notable as a person under the general WP:BIO guidelines." I don't see adequate evidence that he meets WP:PROF without that sentence. The relevant part of WP:BIO is "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.)" While we have two reliable independent sources, they appear to be a single day's news event. Thus, WP:BIO is not met. Failing both, deletion is appropriate. GRBerry 01:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:PROF. Not a notable academic by Wikipedia standards. Number of citations on Google Scholar is low, and includes books he edited. And as Pascal Tesson points out above, editing a book is a far cry from writing a book (and there's no citations of authored books for Woodward here). Class controversy is not quite a storm in a teacup but is certainly not encyclopedically notable to justify an article on Woodward. Brief mention in the Scholars for 9/11 Truth article would be ok. Bwithh 01:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• keep even if he was not notable as a scholar, wich i contest, the controversy that has made him cited in large newspapers alone makes him notable.--Striver 13:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• keep has recieved decent press coverage and has been published multiple times, I think that suits [[WP:BIO}}. . . --mathewguiver 14:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a news database... and just about all academics get published multiple times (that's why we have WP:PROF).Bwithh 14:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete NN professor. --Mmx1 15:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per above. I'm not impressed that 3/4 of the nomination's text is criticizing User:Striver instead of talking about the article. Any nomination that spends so much effort attacking its creator in this way this one does should be considered a bad-faith nomination. wikipediatrix 15:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I apologize if my nomination of this article came across as being in bad faith, but that was not my intention. If you look at the 9/11 "Truth" Movement articles on wikipedia you'll see a gazillion stubs of people and books who are not notable. For example, books that are owned by fewer than forty libraries in the world, films that are released only on the web to almost no press coverage, individuals who have no claim to notability other than a few one sentence quotes in newspaper articles, etc. How could any of these articles ever become encyclopedic and NPOV? It is entirely reasonable for a user browsing this section of wikipedia to feel like we're promoting, legitimizing and popularizing complete nobodies who have a viewpoint many find offensive. I have no problem with Striver personally - his contributions to articles pertaining to Shi'a Islam seem to have been highly praised - but I don't want wikipedia to become a soapbox for every self-promoting nobody with an idea.

As for this specific article, please remember that we're talking about an academic who fails the "professor test" (i:e is not any more notable than the average professor). The only way this article might be encyclopedic is if the controversy is encyclopedic, but will anyone remember it a few months from now? Although it just started a week ago, a google news search for "William Woodward" reveals only 35 unique articles related to the controversy, with a number of these being very brief mentions, blog posts and letters to the editor. Nobody will remember this guy in a month. GabrielF 23:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Has done nothing notable and the only reason Striver wrote this article is so he can contnue to POV push conspiracy theory nonsense into Wikipedia. This professor is not notable in the least.--MONGO 17:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I've had to put a bit more thought into this afd, than some of the other nn 9/11 truth articles. I was the one that came up with most of the first paragraph, taking it from [13] to [14]. Pretty much the most notable thing I found was "In the Fall 2006 semester, he wants to teach a class that explores 9/11 "in psychological terms". With this AFD, I've done more searching to try and find out what's come of this class he wants to teach? But, it seems the news headlines have died down since then (despite the 9/11 coming up soon). This is evidenced by searching the Union Leader (NH) website [15]. I also tried to find out this information by searching the UNH website, also to no avail. Given the lack of sources following up on this story, I don't find this 9/11 controversy notable enough and as a prof, he doesn't meet WP:BIO or the proposed WP:PROF criteria. --Aude (talk contribs as tagcloud) 01:00, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete. He seems to be a more notable crank than most of Stiver's other recent contributions, but he doesn't pass WP:BIO.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. per Cúchullain --Peephole 01:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Morton devonshire 01:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Aude above Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per GRBerry and Bwithh above. CWC(talk) 07:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Enough media coverage to warrant inclusion. Gamaliel 19:14, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable WP:PROF --Tbeatty 22:01, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

*Keep per Gamaleil--Pussy Galore 04:01, 11 September 2006 (UTC) indef banned for trolling

• User is a probably sockpuppet - only been around since 9/2, contributions seem to be almost entirely AfD votes and talk page edits. GabrielF 13:47, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment GabrielF, how many of these accustaion have you made exactly? This is the second one of yours I've counted. Have you simply gone through a list of my contribs, and then placed spurious claims next to each? I've already told you, request a checkuser, or withdraw your allegations. --Pussy Galore 15:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment -- apparently spot-on, as PG was indef banned as an abusive sockpuppet. Morton devonshire 15:13, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
• delete per nom. Crockspot 17:09, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• KEEP Meets notability (WP:BIO) and WP:PROF guidelines for inclusion. —ExplorerCDT 08:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Does not pass WP:BIO or WP:PROF --Geneb1955^Talk/_CVU 14:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Aude above. --Aaron 23:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Per ISI Cited Reference search, there is a notable William R Woodward, but it's not this one. (The neuro WRW is also the one that creates lots of TT's Google scholar search finds.) ~ trialsanderrors 08:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:BIO and WP:PROF. JoshuaZ 23:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, JoshuaZ. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Notable enough. Typical politically motivated, time-wasting nom by POV-pushing anti-"cruft" party. PizzaMargherita 13:21, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per comments from TruthbringerToronto and PizzaMargherita Mujinga 23:23, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 00:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of songs about teenage fun

Kind of a nice idea, but "about teenage fun" is such a nebulous, subjective, elusive definition that this list will never be able to satisfy WP:V or WP:NPOV. I wouldn't mind a renaming if someone could come up with a way to satisfy those criteria. Dylan 02:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Whatcha gonna do when you get out of jail, I'm gonna Delete this article. Danny Lilithborne 02:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Maybe a subjective, unverifiable bit of teenage fun? Delete. --Hamiltonian 03:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• "Only the bad lists die young..." Delete. Irongargoyle 04:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and Rename I think "fun" is what makes the title subjective. I would suggest List of songs about teenagers. --Pinkkeith 04:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete listcruft ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 06:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Subjective and also endless. The majority of pop-rock songs from the 1950s and 1960s concerned this. If it's switched to "List of songs about teenagers" you might be dealing with pretty much all youth music since World War II.--T. Anthony 06:24, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep but Rename The validity of these songs is very strong and therefore cannot be deemed as an untrue article but needs to change it's title due to the subjectiveness of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by John 99 h (talk • contribs)
• Delete as inherently POV and egregious listcruft. --MCB 06:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• delete as uselessly broad. precedent at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs about unrequited love . Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 07:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete list of X with unassociated unencyclopedic value Y. MLA 08:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - inevitably subjective and therefore meaningless. And who is the person who thinks Pretty Vacant is about "fun"? BTLizard 08:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete failing WP:V - if someone wants to source it, by all means keep. Nominator is wrong to suggest it can't pass WP:V and WP:NPOV - it just doesn't. WilyD 13:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, this is not verified, and the concept of "songs about teenage fun" is completely subjective. Beyond that T. Anthony has an excellent point; even if someone quantifies the criteria for what constitutes a "song about teenage fun", I suspect it would be a massively unmaintanable list.--Isotope23 13:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete; leaving apart subjectivity, a list of songs that are not about teenage fun would be easier to maintain than this one. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete--I like a good list, but this ain't one. -MrFizyx 15:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and transwiki to http://www.last.fm/tag/teenage_fun or, er, something like that. --Dhartung | Talk 16:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, listcruft. Pavel Vozenilek 19:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete Not significant in any sense. Jumping cheese ^Contact 18:35, 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 (see comment at the end). —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 01:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bob Mcilvaine

Non-notable bio. Basically a relative of a 9/11 victim who believes 9/11 conspiracy theories. He gets all of 183 google hits (this is a mistake - see below) [16]. This is part of a campaign by User:Striver to create stubs for a gazillion non-notable 9/11 conspiracy nuts. GabrielF 02:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Whoops, I made a mistake and googled the son, not the father. "Bob Mcilvaine" gets all of 939 google hits. [17] GabrielF 02:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nom GabrielF 21:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 02:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nn bio. --MCB 06:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep He has been on the panel of prominent 9/11TM metings and has been prominently interviewd by international media. He is also included in a movie that is on its way. Not to mention that he is a 9/11 victim family. He most certanly meets the notability criteria of wikipedia. --Striver 12:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

CNN coverage--Striver 13:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Just added more news coverage of him. --Striver 13:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

And more about his son... no way this article is going to be deleted now... --Striver 13:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• So he's on a barely notable panel, may be featured in a non-notable movie and is one of thousands of 9/11 victim's families. That doesn't establish notability. In the articles that you mention he's generally one of several people quoted for a particular position. Further, I've been quoted in a handful of newspaper articles do, does that make me inherently notable? GabrielF 13:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

CNN? Any international one? If yes, they you are also notable per WP:N: "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.)"--Striver 13:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

If you want to argue for notability due to extensive media coverage, add the links here to make yoru case, but don't clutter an already content-thin article with dozens of media "coverage" (which you seem to be doing often lately, btw). Artcles are not supposed to be collections of media coverage. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 16:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Striver, I'm not sure you understand that what you're quoting is exactly why most people arguing for deletion believe that pretty much all the current references are useless. Primary subject means that the article is about McIlvaine. Pascal.Tesson 21:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete conspiracy theory nonsense POV cruftist..simply not notable.--MONGO 13:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Above vote has been reported to ANI. Just FYI. --Striver 13:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I can't believe you just did that :-( Please reconsider that type of behavior, it does NOT help make AfD talk any more productive, it just wasted a lot of peoples' time and stirred up bad feelings. My Alt Account 04:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per MONGO --Doc 14:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete sub-trivial conspiracist minutia. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• very Weak keep He isn't even that prominent in the 9/11 truth movement and most of these news mentions are minor but there are still a lot of mentions in the news. JoshuaZ 14:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• keep seems he has become a celebrity victim, frequently called upon by the media for a nice soundbite. --Salix alba (talk) 14:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Also, I vote "keep" as per: User:Striver.
  User:GabrielF bias is clear calling them: "9/11 conspiracy nuts". They may actually be conspiracy nuts, but that is no reason to delete the article. Where does it say in wikipedia policy notable "nuts" can't have wikipages?
  User:GabrielF, in initiating the AfD, originally stated incorrectly that he has 183 hits on google, he also failed to mention that this page has 17 sources, including the NYTimes, CNN, The independent, USA Today, even the ultra conservative freerepublic.com. How is someone who is mentioned in all of these reputable sources Non-notable? Travb (talk) 14:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment keyword here is mentioned. All these report on 9/11 families stuff a number of times a year. Some of them will have a quote of the form "bla says Mr. X whose wife died in the attack". So what? I bet you you have more quotes out there from the spokesperson of the department of motor vehicles. Pascal.Tesson 21:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

You should attempt to assume good faith of your fellow editors. Accusing others of POV [18] ?--zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 14:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Response on your user page, I deleted the comments you are refering too. Travb (talk) 15:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I am glad that we have established that this source is mentioned 17 times, in: NYTimes, CNN, The independent, USA Today, even the ultra conservative freerepublic.com. You can spin that fact anyway you want, but the idea that this person is non-notable fails. "I bet you you have more quotes out there from the spokesperson of the department of motor vehicles." What does the motor vehicles have to do with this article? Clever analogies do not prove your point, therefore the person is notable, and therefore the basis of this AfD is questionable. I suggest this article be Speedy kept, since the one policy reason for the AfD have been shown to be fallacious at best, malicious at worst. Travb (talk) 03:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• • Please check my comment below - in a nutshell, the profusion of links at the bottom is basically fluff, with many of the links not mentioning the article's subject at all. Of the major news coverage, two give him 1-2 sentences of coverage, and only the MSNBC interview transcript has him as the primary subject of the coverage. In short, the links to "sources" at the bottom are misleading.My Alt Account 18:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep cranks who get substantial media coverage. Who cares if he buys the conspiracy theory, that's not what this is about. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Striver - Glen 14:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Per MONGO and nom. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 14:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. From what I can tell, he hasn't actually been the subject of any of the articles, just a source. He also apparently hasn't done anything like founding an organization or some other thing that would make him of note. However, he does meet one of my personal criteria: Would somebody see his name in the news, wonder who the guy is, and come to Wikipedia to find out? I also disagree strongly with the notion that he couldn't be notable because of his opinions. William Pietri 15:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Well actually it seems that anytime he's mentioned in the news it's always accompanied by "whose son..." so I think we're safe on that side! Pascal.Tesson 21:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Per nom. Hiddekel 15:24, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Above is a user with low amount of edits.--Striver 16:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

He's been around for a year and therefore he is clearly not a sockpuppet created for this debate. He's obviously done enough edits that he probably knows a thing or two about wikipedia. My Alt Account 18:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete When is the list of people coming out that believe that 9/11 was caused by islamic fundamentalist terrorists who flew planes into the towers, the pentagon, and intended to do more damage? Pseudotumor 15:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Above is a user with low amount of edits.--Striver 16:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

User's been around for a month. If you think it's a sockpuppet account, say so, and provide some evidence. A real joke/sock account would look more like this: User:Wajwt

• Delete per nom, non-notable. Fails WP:NOT. Morton devonshire 17:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per MONGO. No significance established, created as part of a POV-pushing agenda. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I was impressed by the apparent size of this article, but after looking through it, it's apparent that it's largely fluff. The citation of "sources" is misleading. Most of the articles linked only mention the subject's son and not the subject of the article himself. Of the ones that do mention the subject himself, two are effectively listed twice: A and A Prime are two different links to the same article, and so are B and B Prime. The stories by the major news outlets mostly give Bob McIlvaine 1-2 sentences of vague exposition. Most of the rest are links to articles on the websites of obscure political fringe groups. It's apparent to me that Striver just googled the guy's name without doing much checking of the content behind the links that popped up. In short, this guy would be notable if his views were getting a significant amount of play, but I'm afraid at this point his views are mostly relegated to obscurity. My Alt Account 18:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete having this article really hurts wikipedia's credibility--IworkforNASA 19:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Has enough major media coverage to confer notability. And that's really the only relevant question at issue. --Hyperbole 19:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• KEEP I'm a liberals and feels that wikipedia is the best place for me to puts mes propaganadas, so STRONG KEEP IT--Wajwt 20:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Account's first edit, naturally. William Pietri 20:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
    • lkeep i too love liberal propaganda and want it to stay on wikipeidas~!Foozball 20:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Account's first edit as well. William Pietri 20:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - he may be a media attention seeker, but he has suceeded. -- Whpq 20:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

COMMENT Striver would like you to think that, but it really isn't true. If you look in detail at the many articles Striver mentioned you'll see that he is usually a tiny quote in a large article. The Independent article for example (not accessible online) contains SIX PAGES of rememberences from a number of people. The 3/5/2004 CNN article has a one sentence quote from McIlvane and he is one of four 9/11 family members quoted. I can't find the 3/18/05 CNN article but the selection quoted on the website Striver is using as a source doesn't mention Mcilvaine. The BBC article has a one sentence quote from him and he is one of six people quoted. The NYTimes article is a one sentence "Quote of the Day" feature and only says that he attended a 9/11 commission hearing. None of these are notable. GabrielF 21:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I am glad that we have established that this source is mentioned 17 times, in: NYTimes, CNN, The independent, USA Today, even the ultra conservative freerepublic.com. You can spin that fact anyway you want, but the idea that this person is non-notable fails. The person is notable, and therefore the basis of this AfD is questionable. I suggest this article be Speedy kept, since the one policy reason for the AfD have been shown to be fallacious. I would also like to bring up the fact that the person who initiated this AfD.[19] Did not follow the suggested guidelines of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion suggested guidelines state, in the very first two sentences: "Before listing an article for deletion here, consider whether a more efficient alternative is appropriate." Travb (talk) 03:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete (and let the sockpuppet party move to another 9/11 conspiracy AfD debate) The links given in the article do not constitute coverage where McIlvaine is the "primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works". Pretty much anyone involved in the 9/11 associations will eventually turn up as quoted in various places. The whole list of references should be trimmed of all such references. Not much would remain, especially since at least two of the articles listed there do not contain his name. Pascal.Tesson 20:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per User:My Alt Account (odd username - just so as not to inadvertently accuse myself of sockpuppetry...) Sandstein 21:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. – Elisson • Talk 21:24, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Shadow1 21:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Unsalvagable--RCT 21:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per MONGO. Bang on the money. Guy 21:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• keep please mentioned frequently in the media about conspiracy theories Yuckfoo 22:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Striver, there is enough non-trivial coverage here to satisfy the WP:BIO guidelines. RFerreira 23:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and MONGO. Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 03:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - subject may be vocal, but that in itself does not make him notable. Seaphoto 05:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Getting your name in the paper isn't per se a sign of notability, import, impact, or non-triviality. --Calton | Talk 07:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom—(Kepin)^{RING THE LIBERTY BELL} 12:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Salix Alba and William Pietri. He's got press coverage, and I agree with William that readers might want to know who he is. TheronJ 13:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Aude (talk contribs as tagcloud) 15:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per MyAltAccount. --Mmx1 15:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete--ChaplineRVine^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 17:33, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete cruft factory, see also WP:NOT for why this shouldn't be on wikipedia--I-2-d2 17:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete article is a joke----Fellow-edit 17:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, Mongo and Calton. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. This is ridiculous. Should we have an article for every nutjob who was ever quoted in a newspaper?--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment he he he. Apparently some believe that the answer is yes provided he's quoted 17 times. Pascal.Tesson 21:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per above--Peephole 01:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, MONGO StriverCruft(tm)--Tbeatty 22:05, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep well known personality--Pussy Galore 04:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment This user is a possible sockpuppet single purpose account. See contribs and talk page. Pascal.Tesson 04:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment ^^^ This user is failing to assume good faith. As I've already told GabrielF, either request a checkuser, or kindly withdraw your allegations.--Pussy Galore 15:38, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

EDIT : Pascal.Tesson, and Arthur Rubin, you may be interested in the result of the checkuser I instigated against myself. "No malicous activity by this account". I hope you will now have the decency to apologise for your lurid allegations--Pussy Galore 20:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

To be clear, the checkuser result states "the activity from your IP address is completely above-board" --ZimZalaBim (talk) 20:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Ye, my mistake. I have disabled the RPC Locator service on my doze box, therefore leaving me unable to copy and paste. Many thanks for the clarification. --Pussy Galore 21:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment Certainly either a sockpuppet, a meatpuppet, or a long-time anon user. It doesn't matter which, except that only "he" could verify the latter, as the checkuser people wouldn't know which IP to check. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

comment [Personal attack removed per WP:NPA. -- William Pietri] --Pussy Galore 19:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

comment There was a comment posted by myself which was removed from the above section by Arthur Rubin. It showed the flawed logic of the argument of Pascal.Tesson. I would reinstate it myself, but sadly lack the neccessary tools to do so. --Pussy Galore 19:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin hasn't removed anything of yours in this article. As far as I can tell, I'm the only one to have removed a comment of yours. Others are welcome to review my edit and restore it if they think it's a useful contribution to the discussion. William Pietri 20:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that sockpuppet is probably too strong a term. But I think single purpose account is a fair assessment and I have edited my above comment to reflect that. Pascal.Tesson 22:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, etc. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Closing comment: Even though the consensus was fairly clear on "delete", I need to say something, especially since I've crossed paths with Striver and I know I will again (if this AfD log is a significant sample). My idea is that if an article needs tens of sources just to prove that its subject is notable (and fails to do so in view of a majority of people in its AfD), then the subject is not notable enough. About this person in particular, I suggest looking at a similar example: Juan Carlos Blumberg. For a few months he was just a father who'd lost his son to criminals. Appeared dozens of times in TV and newspapers, but he wasn't notable, just one more of a series of victims, until he led a march demanding security which gathered 200,000 people. That is notable. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 01:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was merge and redirect to Buffy the Vampire Slayer. – [ælfəks] 06:23, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Joss Whedon's inspiration

Delete. Looks like original research. Besides, I can't imagine anyone searching for "Joss Whedon's inspiration" on Wikipedia. Article was previously proposed for deletion (Nothing here that can't be said (preferably with references) in the Buffy article). ... discospinster _talk 02:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Original research. They could have at least included a link to his speech on the subject: [20] - Richfife 03:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Note Author removed AFD header. I put it back - Richfife 04:24, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Twice - Richfife 04:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Per nom. It is well-written, but the OR aspects of it are unsalvagable. I don't see how with this title and this content it can be anything but OR. I agree that there might be some stuff which could be merged to the Buffy article though (referenced). Irongargoyle 04:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Buffy the Vampire Slayer, there is some good information here and it would be a shame to see it lost. Also tag it for lack of references. --Pinkkeith 04:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 06:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as OR/personal essay. --MCB 06:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:OR. I wouldn't merge anything with the Buffy article unless it's sourced. Otherwise you're just adding conjuncture. 205.157.110.11 07:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete WP:OR all by one author. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 13:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge anything new and sourced with Buffy. Maybe there have been some revisions since nomination, but I'm seeing sources cited so I can't call OR based on the article as it now stands, but it doesn't need to be a separate article. 23skidoo 16:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge any new and properly sourced information into the articles for there respective characters, and delete the remainder as WP:OR.-- danntm ^T _C 01:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge verified information into Joss Whedon or the appropriate Buffy the Vampire Slayer articles, then delete or redirect the remainder. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gray Porpoise (talk • contribs) 23:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 01:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Carcando

Contested Prod. Company that started business yesterday. Can't find any sources on it at all, or any search hits for the name that seem even possibly relevant. Fails WP:CORP, WP:V. (When article was created, it said the company was registered September 6. When Prod'ed as "company which started doing business today" author changed the date to May 6, but has since changed it back to September. Fan-1967 02:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete dubious date structure, unsourced, wp:v ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 06:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom, nn business, no reliable sources. --MCB 07:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all Dlyons493 Talk 11:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom -- Whpq 20:39, 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 delete. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 01:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Batphone

The available information about a bat-phone is so minimal that it's hard to envision this article ever being more than a stub. It's an extraneous article that doesn't add to the value of the bat-phone, which is mentioned in the Batman Article. A mention from Nip/Tuck does not notable make. Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 03:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete or Merge to Batman as necessary. - Richfife 04:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Merge to Batman. -THB 04:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, should be already covered in Batman. JIP | Talk 07:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Batcruft. 205.157.110.11 07:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - cruft. BTLizard 09:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge any of the relevent info into Batman. Thε Halo ^Θ 14:24, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Holy telephonic article pointlessness, Batman! Merge to Batman. I think I've added all the relevant stuff, but somebody might like to check. Yomangani^talk 00:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The Batphone is good for little other than being a link to my talk page. -- Chris Griswold (☎☓) 19:33, 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. —Xyrael / 13:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] George Allen Smith

Nomination for Deletion A tragic story, but no encyclopedic notability is asserted, nor, I think, can it be asserted. There are thousands of new murder/non-negligent manslaughter investigations around the world every year, a large chunk of which go unsolved (in 2004, there were 16,137 cases in the United States, of which 62.6% were solved[21]). What makes this particular case so special? It happened on a cruise ship (so it got more media attention than the average killing because it reminds people of an Agatha Christie murder mystery), and it happened on the victim's honeymoon (an even better news story for readers or viewers relaxing at home). Plus the widow got upset with cruise line and caused a public relations crisis for them. That's about it. Even Taken separately from the investigation, none of the people involved are encyclopedically notable in their own right - they are not even notable on a local newspaper level. If the case was extraordinarily more horrible and infamous than the average or it led to some new law or change in police techniques or an important book - these effects would be encyclopedically notable. But it did not. Wikipedia is not a police records archive and it is not a news report database or an echo chamber for whatever the news media is reporting (much of which is not encyclopedically notable.). Bwithh 03:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep I do have to agree that yes, many people do die every year. Yet, this appears notable to me. It was covered by MSNBC [22] CNN's Larry King Live [23], CNN's Nancy Grace [24], and CBS News [25]. Those aren't local newspapers, which Bwithh claims that are the only ones interested in this story. --Pinkkeith 04:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Rebuttal Actually I did not claim that. I said that the people taken out of the context of the investigation (that is, if the disappearance/killing had never happened), those people would not be notable even on a local newspaper level. (my poor use of "Even" as a sentence starter may have beeen a little confusing but still I don't see how it leads to the claim that Pinkkeith says I made) The missing person/victim ran a liquor store with his father. And please note my emphasis of ENCYCLOPEDIC notablility - Wikipedia's primary purpose is to be an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is NOT a news report database. Again, newspapers, TV news shows, news websites - even ones with international scope and reputation (- carry much news (including news which is simply chosen for its sensationalistic qualities (Pinkkeith uses examples from MSNBC, CBS and CNN (Larry King Live!!) - US news networks are especially prone to sensationalism ) and non-news which is not encyclopedically notable. Media coverage is not sufficient cause for inclusion in Wikipedia. Can you tell me why this story is encyclopedically important? or even, why is it notable for major channel news coverage beyond its sensationalistic qualities? Bwithh 05:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Followup I'm sure these lines from WP:BIO (which remember, as I'm always hear, is a guideline) will be tossed at my nomination:

Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events - but George Allen Smith did not achieve any renown or notoriety from dying/disappearing. Renown/notoriety relate to the widely celebrated/honoured or denounced/dishonoured skills/traits/feats of a person. Doesn't make sense to apply here.

The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person. - I believe the key phrase here is non-trivial. I submit that the subject selection of some or even much news coverage, even in major channels, is trivial by encyclopedic standards. The guy disappeared or was killed during his honeymoon on a cruise ship... that's it. not exactly edifying. Bwithh 05:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment I believe the key word is "multiple". WP:BIO clearly states that "Multiple similar stories describing a single day's news event only count as one coverage". Ohconfucius 08:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

You make some very sound and reasonable arguements. You are deleting this article based on notability of the individual. The real question is what makes one notable and what doesn't. It is all opinonated in my eyes, even the word "trivial" is an opinonated term. There are many articles that are based on information taken from media reports, Steve Irwin being the most notable and recent example. I don't think that what the source is and what the readers opinon of the source ought to be grounds to delete an article. In my eyes, if a story is reported by multiple national sources, it makes it notable. I would like to withdrawl my vote to keep and vote neutral on this nomination. I think it is notable but it is boarderline. --Pinkkeith 11:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Just because the media reports it (because they choose to endlessly milk every mile out of tearjerkers rather than newsworthy stories say about genocide in the Sudan, or war in Uganda, or u.s. troops building schoolhouses and repairing sewers in Iraq) , doesn't make it or the person involved notable. Like JonBenet Ramsey (who was 1 of like 6000 girls gone missing and killed in 1996), George Allen Smith's death might be regrettable and worth mourning, but he's one of tens of thousands...he's a mere statistic and despite the sensationalist hype, he won't amount to much more than a statistic. Therefore, delete. —ExplorerCDT 06:51, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I sympathize of course with ExplorerCDT's view of the JonBenet case though I would also note that that case generated a substantial cultural criticism (still sensationalist) discourse which led to JonBenet being used (justifiably or not) as an icon of the ills of American society. This probably generated enough material for encyclopedic notability (one could argue that JonBenet is related to certain trends in US cultural commentary) - but in any case, far far more material than has been generated there than for the George Allen Smith case. I don't see how the Smith case has much potential at all for JonBenetesque commentary - the decline of morals in international waters? the crime rate on cruise ships? Bwithh 13:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Media circus \= encyclopedic notability (how do you type "does not equal"?). (Just a comment on JonBenet which ExplorerCDT brought up--perhaps that's different because her death engendered widespread discussion on kiddie beauty pageants, and as Bwithh notes, pertains to wider cultural trends.) Pan Dan 00:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The story is a sad but intriguing one. However, the article is full of speculation and conjecture, and thus is not encyclopaedic. If you laid out the pertinent facts end to end, you are down to about five lines:

1. Mr Smith disappeared on his honeymoon cruise.
2. Mr and Mrs Smith had an argument during the night of his disappearance
3. Blood was found in the couple's cabin and foul play is suspected
4. Mrs Smith received undisclosed settlement from the cruise company
5. Mr Smith's body was never found

An article on the wife would make a more interesting choice. At least there's the potential to flesh out or for her to become known for something else. Ohconfucius 08:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• I'm gonna have to go with keep. This was fairly well covered in the media, whether we like it or not. It's hard to argue someone with 51,000 Google hits isn't notable.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:28, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment re: "51,000 Google hits." If you actually click through, you see that there are only 182 hits, and then it says "In order to show you the most relevant results, we have omitted some entries very similar to the 182 already displayed. If you like, you can repeat the search with the omitted results included." I guess that means there are only 182 unique Google hits. Pan Dan 13:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Further Comment Most of the "51,000" hits are either regenerations of blog entries or AP-wire postings. Keeping it based on the churning of the same story over and over again is specious at best. Also, doesn't this violate Wikipedia's policy on memorials? —ExplorerCDT 16:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment The Google hits were not the only reason I voted to keep. The story was covered, as said above, by Larry King, MSNBC, CNN, etc. The guy clearly passes WP:BIO, whether we like it or not.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:06, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment There are plenty of trivial (both encyclopedically and/or in general) trivial news stories on Larry King, MSNBC, CNN etc. WP:BIO is a guideline which calls for non-trivial coverage of people or that the person has renown or notoriety. As I have argued above, Allen doesn't fit into either requirementBwithh 17:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment I think he achieved plenty of notoriety through the media coverage, nor do I find the references non-trivial, however much I wish the media's time had been focused elsewhere.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Reply. I don't think it's right to say he achieved "notoriety." According to dictionary.com, "notorious" means

1. widely and unfavorably known: a notorious gambler.

2. publicly or generally known, as for a particular trait: a newspaper that is notorious for its sensationalism.

I don't think either of these applies to Smith. Neither does "renown" (also mentioned in WP:BIO), which means "widespread and high repute; fame." Pan Dan 12:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I know what "notoriety" means. I've said my piece already. --Cúchullain ^t/c 20:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I quoted the dictionary definition because I think it supports the thesis that Smith is not "notorious." Wasn't suggesting you don't know what it means. (Nor am I now suggesting that you were suggesting that I was suggesting that you don't know what it means.) Pan Dan 00:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC) Pan Dan 21:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Good. Now we have that cleared up. ;)--Cúchullain ^t/c 00:06, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per above. Atlantic Gateways 03:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Wikinews or delete, it's not very notable and I feel that Wikipedia is not the right place for this information. bbx 23:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by DVD R W under CSD G1. MER-C 08:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hellguard99

'Net nonsense, vanity article, no redeeming value Xiong Chiamiov :: contact :: 03:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete Nonsense. Bwithh 03:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Agree--it's nonsense. -THB 03:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete Nonsense and db-bio. Both valid reasons for speedy deletion. Irongargoyle 03:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Could be an attack page too. Three criteria for speedy deletion in one... now if only it was a copy-vio and a repost. :-) Irongargoyle 03:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Speedy Delete per all reasons above. Jcam 04:24, 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 redirect to Soulfly (album). - Bobet 23:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bumbklatt

Non-notable THB 03:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect to the album, Soulfly (album). Punkmorten 20:51, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• merge or keep. Kappa 05:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete without redirecting - we can't (or shouldn't) redirect from any given song title. --Thorsten1 10:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • So its better to invite searchers to create a new article at the title? Kappa 10:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
    • No. "No redirect" is not tantamount to a go-ahead to start a new article. --Thorsten1 14:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into the album article. 96T 13:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per Punkmorten. —dustmite 16:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to album. Standard procedure for non-notable songs. ~ trialsanderrors 09:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. As said, '"new and growing sport" automatically implies a lack of notability.' —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 01:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Battlefield Live

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}}

Ad, no evidence of notability. Delete --Peta 04:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete reads like an ad. Should actually be speedied with no assertion of notability. A shame, its well written though. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 06:07, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Lack of references is bothering me, otherwise I'd be more inclined to think this could be a part of Wikipedia.UberCryxic 04:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep if references can be provided, otherwise delete. Nick 04:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

* i say keep it. It is a good summary of a growing sport. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.217.186.171 (talk • contribs)

• I'm the author of the article, considering Battlefield Live is a new and growing sport, I am unable to give references that aren't primarily about the equipment and perks of the sport, which, if I linked or provided, could be misconstrued as advertising, I'm able to give references from the actual company who originally created the game system, but again, it could be considered advertising or generally biased, please advise me how to proceed.—Preceding unsigned comment added by SanjuroDP (talk • contribs)
• I've added the references section to this article in hopes of saving it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by SanjuroDP (talk • contribs)
• Comment "new and growing sport" automatically implies a lack of notability. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 03:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Added new 2 new references, one of which to counter "Notability" debate, will also add external links soon linking various official Television and News coverage on Battlefield Live in hopes of ending the question of prominance on Battlefield Live.

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

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

The result was delete. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 01:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Irgun and Hezbollah: From terrorists to political parties

Appears to be some essay-like comparison between Irgun, Lehi, and Hezbollah. The article is unencyclopedic and in my opinion rather pointless. —Khoikhoi 04:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom GabrielF 04:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, essay.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete essay face. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 06:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Unencyclopaedic, and smacks of original research. —ExplorerCDT 06:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Per nom and per Explorer. Bertilvidet 08:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom and Explorer, although calling it "research" is perhaps rather charitable. I suspect the author is following some sort of agenda but the piece is so badly written it's hard to see what it might be. BTLizard 09:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Yuch.--MONGO 13:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete A classic case of original research. Thε Halo ^Θ 14:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete--ChaplineRVine^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 17:33, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 22:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CRAEDO

Non-notable. Does not appear to have members. THB 04:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Unless someone can prove it's notability. —Khoikhoi 04:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. NN. Search for "craedo and coalition" in google yields ~=500 < 50 hits. No matches in Lexis in European newspapers. Pan Dan 14:51, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Correction. Re-checking (I don't know what I did wrong before), I see that craedo coalition has < 50 ghits. And searching for just craedo gets 150 unique ghits. Pan Dan 14:06, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Verified member of the Vancouver Board of Trade (http://www.boardoftrade.com/vbot_directory.asp?dirID=272&directory=C&pageID=537). Verified appearance as witness in front of Canada's Federal Finance Committee in October 2005. It appears website is still being developed. Polykrator 04:50, 11 September 2006 — Polykrator (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Any business or organization can join the Vancouver Board of Trade. That in itself does not lend legitimacy (or notability). -THB 16:58, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• My-bullshit-detector-just-exploded Delete Google search for "Codin Alexander Olteanu" yields 2 hits, this article and the CRAEDO site. I'm not even bothering with Newsbank. ~ trialsanderrors 09:16, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

That's the funniest way of stating it I ever read. Thanks for brightening up my day! -THB 16:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete -- No evidence of members or activity on site -- users forum at http://www.craedo.com/forum/ shows several posts on 6/10 and 11 of 2004, with no followups by anyone, ever. Cshirky 19:16, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete, as per nomination. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 01:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bruce Cole

Article doesn't not assert notability of subject; article also doesn't cite sources. Bumm13 04:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Very small assertion of notability. I was tempted to tag it as a speedy. VegaDark 05:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I would say that there is not even small assertion of notablity. Marwatt 12:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Not at all notabile. Victoriagirl 21:12, 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. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 01:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TNA iMPACT! results, April 2006

Do I really need to explain? Monthly results pages are not needed TJ Spyke 04:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC) I am also adding:

• TNA iMPACT! results, August 2005
• TNA iMPACT! results, December 2005
• TNA iMPACT! results, February 2006
• TNA iMPACT! results, January 2006
• TNA iMPACT! results, June 2006
• TNA iMPACT! results, July 2006
• TNA iMPACT! results, June and July 2005
• TNA iMPACT! results, March 2006
• TNA iMPACT! results, May 2006
• TNA iMPACT! results, September 2005
• TNA iMPACT! results, October 2005
• TNA iMPACT! results, November 2005
• TNA iMPACT! results, June 2004
• TNA iMPACT! results, May 2005

• Delete I appreciate this is someone's hard work, but good grief imagine if every "sporting" code on Wikipedia had a new page each dedicated to a monthly update - it would be a nightmare! Thats why we dont do it, sorry - Glen 05:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all. Fancruft. RobJ1981 06:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all; Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --MCB 07:07, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment, How is this different from an episode guide for a TV series? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 07:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Numerous television series have articles for every episode on Wikipedia. Impact is a television series, and should thus be treated similarly. McPhail 11:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Seriously torn I wrote almost all of these. In a way, it's fancruft. Yet also, it keeps in line with episode guides that are permitted for television shows. I don't know what to do. --Kitch 13:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • The best thing I can come up with is consolidate to either a seasonal or annual format. --Kitch 13:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Reorganize. I like the seasonal layout, cf. Episodes of Lost (season 1) et al. - Trevyn 13:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete All Fancruft, as the main author has admitted - not suitable for an encyclopedia. I recomment to User:Kitch and other authors that they move the content to their own wiki at Wikia, so they don't have to feel that their work is simply going to waste. Bwithh 14:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete All Total fancruft for a second-rate wrestling promotion. Renosecond 17:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• I am going to have to vote Keep all & reorganize here. This is a useful resource for someone who wants to look into the history of the show, and as someone pointed out above it really isn't any different than all the TV shows that have articles on individual episodes. Author should find a way to source the articles, however, even if it means simply listing the episode in question as a source. VegaDark 19:24, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Disclosure: big wrestling fan, big TNA fan. But... Delete - this is taking things pretty far in considering that this is an encyclopedia. Consider that these results are pre-scripted each week, unlike other sports, and the storylines in pro wrestling are far less deep than other television shows, and I think the need for constant and continuous tracking of results in an encyclopedia is very slim. Episodes of shows like Lost, etc., have long-running and deep storylines that might be hard to track, and it would make sense to have a summary available (though if they came up, I'd opt for deleting those too, as I think that's kind of silly to include in an encyclopedia). Tony Fox (arf!) 20:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all. Yes, people, I'm sure wrestling is a fine sport and all, but this is an encyclopedia, and not a wrestling fanzine. Aren't there specialist wikis for such content? Sandstein 20:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Glen has a point, what would happen if there were articles like "NBA results, December 2005" and "NFL results, September 2005"? It's just too much. TJ Spyke 21:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I honestly have trouble understanding the concept of an encyclopedia that wants to exclude knowledge of this depth just because it can. Yes, it's fairly trivial knowledge, and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of knowledge, but these articles are not an indiscriminate collection--they're nicely organized, formatted and compartmentalized, and will only get more so as they live on. Even Wikipedia's definition of encyclopedia mentions the word's origin as "the idea of collecting all of the world's knowledge into a single work". M-W says it's "a comprehensive reference work". Why limit ourselves to the length encyclopedias have been in the past? If Wikipedia isn't meant to be a true encyclopedia, then that's fine too, but I haven't seen the Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia page yet. -- Trevyn 21:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• keep please it is not indiscriminate information merge is fine too Yuckfoo 22:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This was not my initial reaction, but upon consideration: regardless of whether you look at this as "sporting results" or as "television episodes", deleting these would leave a large number of articles behind which are no more notable or encyclopedic. I can't seem to find even a proposed policy on TV episode notability - I think it would be best to try to hash one out before singling out articles for deletion whilst plenty of other articles on episodes of TV shows I've never heard of remain. --Stormie 23:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Edgecution 23:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, TV episode guides per Stormie, Trevyn etc. Merging would also be fine, as would splitting the article into separate pages for each bout. Kappa 05:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment, Seperate pages for each bout would be a total nightmare if it becomes policy. Take WWE for example: 3 shows a week, average 3-6 matches per show. That's a potential 18 new articles per week now let's take this back over several years. I'm also abstaining from the vote as I am suffering a conflict of conscience between episode guide and listcruft. –– Lid^(Talk) 06:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Some TV shows do not need articles for episodes, I doubt anyone would support creating articles for individual episodes of news shows or Monday Night Football games for example. Several non-notable episodes of Raw have had articles delete here or in the process of deletion(Raw Roulette and Raw Bowl for example). TJ Spyke 06:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete I believe it would be fancruft to keep this on a general interest encylopedia. However, since these articles are pretty well written, I'd heavily recommend that somebody transwiki these to a pro wrestling wiki if WP:PW agrees on adopting one as that wiki would have the purpose of having a more in depth view in professional wrestling that a general interest encylopedia cannot provide. --Oakster ^(Talk) 07:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I like Oak's idea, if a pro wrestling wiki is started these can be transwikied there. TJ Spyke 07:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete per reno. --Akhonji 16:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Trevyn. Sam Vimes | Address me 20:32, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete per MCB Sasaki 22:17, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete all - fancruft at its absolute worst, as even the creator of the series half-heartedly admits (see Kitch's vote above): "In a way, it's fancruft." Actually, its fancruft in any conceivable way. "Yet also, it keeps in line with episode guides that are permitted for television shows." The idea of episode guides is dubious in itself; at any rate, the comparison doesn't apply because these are strictly speaking not "episodes", per TJ Spyke. "I don't know what to do". Well, I do... --Thorsten1 10:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Ermmm... Keep. Dwdmang 00:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. WP is not a paper encyclopedia.--Opark 77 11:07, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, but WP is an encyclopedia and NOT an indiscriminate collection of information Bwithh 15:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - A perfect example of what Wikipedia is not, that being an indiscriminate collection of information. Also borders on fancruft/markcruft. - Chadbryant 01:50, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Strong Keep- Or at least move it to a wrestling oriented Wiki. Someone obviously spent a lot of time working on this, and it is well organized, I'd hate to see such dedication deleted. And besides, monthly results for pro wrestling is a pretty good idea to me.-User:Gruntyking117

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 01:44, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kulturmax Multimedia

Does not meet WP:CORP or WP:V -Nv8200p talk 05:07, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. TJ Spyke 05:26, 7 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 05:04, 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. An article could theoretically be written at this title, exploring the role of women within Star Trek, but this is essentially contentless.--SB | T 22:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Women of Star Trek

Nothing here is not adequately covered in List of Star Trek characters. As it stands, the article reads like listcruft, Star Trek cruft, etc. Crystallina 05:07, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. TJ Spyke 05:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 06:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unencylopedic; duplication. --MCB 07:07, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, listcruft. What next? Men of Star Trek? JIP | Talk 07:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as listcruft. Though admittedly, I would have been more intrigued if there were images attached :p. 205.157.110.11 07:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Pointless list that doesn't even add anything. --Keolah 08:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Memory Alpha if it's not already there. This isn't necessary here. --Kitch 21:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Bondegezou 13:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Sango123 20:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Catalyst for Birmingham

Originally tagged as a copyvio from the group's website, but apparently permission has been received to post this. Unsurprisingly, the text is unformatted and reads like ad copy. Group gets 1240 Google hits, and we're #1. Opabinia regalis 05:07, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• We don't have an article for the Atlanta Social Syndicate (yes, it spells "ass") bceause they're non-notable, and we shouldn't have one for this equally-non-notable group. Unencyclopaedic self-promotion/advertisement. DELETE —ExplorerCDT 06:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete fails WP:ORG and WP:V, as well as the article sounding like ad copy rather than an encyclopedia entry. -- Whpq 20:57, 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 as copyvio. Metamagician3000 12:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Campus Outreach Opportunity League (C.O.O.L.)

Clear copyvio (and labeled as such by creator, actually), and I was intially going to simply speedy delete it as copyvio. However, I am not sure how significant this organization is. Unless the opinion is that it's acutally notable and the article is rewritten to remove copyright infringement, delete. --Nlu (talk) 05:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 06:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as copyvio -- Whpq 20:57, 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. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 01:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Factorgram

Non-Notable Portmanteau apparently invented by author. This link: [26] strongly suggests he has an agenda. The term pops up here and there being used to mean other things. Richfife 05:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable neologism/protologism; 141 Google hits (some unrelated). --MCB 07:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom -- Whpq 20:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:V. The creator was Veenix, and a recent edit removed the name "Vincent Cheung" from the text of the article. Googling "Vincent Cheung Veenix" is enlightening. Michael Kinyon 06:11, 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, and I'll redirect it to Bewick's Wren as suggested (note that you don't have to wait for an AfD to merge and/or redirect an article). --Sam Blanning^(talk) 01:46, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Seattle wren

Source seems to ne news item; subspecies almost certainly the Vancouver/Seattle area pupolation described as Thryomanes bewickii ariborius Oberholser, 1920 Original description, but "Birds of North America Online" cites Phillips, A. R. (1986): The known birds of North and Middle America. Part I: Hirundinidae to Mimidae; Cerciidae (A. R. Phillips, Denver, CO) as source for considering it invalid. Not recognized by AOU. Could have been recently resurrected as valid subspecies, but unlikely given Bewick's Wren subspeciation pattern. Dysmorodrepanis 05:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Merge/Redirect to Bewick's Wren. Whether or not it is a valid subspecies, it has definitely been referred to by this name, so may be used as a search item and deserves a note on the BW page. Grutness...wha? 06:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Concur - there is not much to merge, and I will add the information on the Bewick's page. Dysmorodrepanis 09:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect to Bewick's Wren. There's nothing to merge that isn't already in the Bewick article. -- Whpq 21:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Added request - someone in N. America could please check the ref above? It's never too good to scratch a taxon on second-hand reference. Dysmorodrepanis 04:16, 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. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 01:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Imediabiz

Non notable company. Prod removed. Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 05:51, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. --MCB 07:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - no assertion of notability. MER-C 10:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete seems to miss WP:CORP by miles. Dlyons493 Talk 11:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete As failing WP:CORP. Thε Halo ^Θ 14:30, 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. Copyvio. -- Steel 17:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ecliptical Realms

WP:WEB, nn gaming group. As a side note, User:Krayt88 recently went on a spamming rampage, adding this site to about a half dozen external link sections. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 05:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, as above. +Fin- 13:33, 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, due to lack of participation and necessary discussion of Evrik's sources. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 01:50, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Robeks

Hardly of encyclopedic interest. Most certainly does not meet WP:CORP. The article was clearly created as spam although that content has thankfully already been flushed out. Pascal.Tesson 06:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete fails WP:CORP. Search on google returns lots of entries for franchise opportunities, but no indepedent coverage. -- Whpq 21:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Tag it for expansion and give it a chance to grow.

http://pacific.bizjournals.com/pacific/stories/2006/05/22/daily60.html

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m5072/is_18_28/ai_n16419168

--evrik 18:03, 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. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 01:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Invosite

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}}

Advertisement for a non-notable website. Alexa rank is nonexistent, and there is nothing on any search engine about it (which makes it unverifiable). Contested prod. Coredesat talk. ^_^ 06:24, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Actually Invosite does not contain any Search engine. But it includes an option to search in different search engines siting at one page —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nishadps (talk • contribs) .
• It's a good article.Don't delete it —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.88.242.54 (talk • contribs) .

This article is good article becouse it helps people to know about a good web site which gives free services —Preceding unsigned comment added by Invosite (talk • contribs)

• Articles that are aimed at helping people finding out about your site are advertising and not suitable for Wikipedia. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete; advert/vanity for non-notable web site. Also note user name of comment(s) above. --MCB 07:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, there is nothing on that website. Literally nothing. Just a box to search on various search engines. Completely non-notable, completely non-encyclopedic. --Stormie 07:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Kiwimandy 12:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Advertisement for a non-notable site. Not only is it in "beta", but the site is only a wrapper for Google. eaolson 14:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:WEBas non notable. Thε Halo ^Θ 14:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Complete and utter spam for a beta site, yet. Lucky smells socks, too. Something he hasn't smelled in a LONG time. - Lucky 6.9 14:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Don't Delete

A lot of free services are being added Invosite. A Directory of most usful links is under construction It is not a span. It is just a Information. In any way, if you delete this or not, the site will be inproving giving free services to people. I am sure! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nishadps (talk • contribs) .

• Delete per above. Musaabdulrashid 08:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete article is non encylopedic. --mathewguiver 14:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete article per WP:WEB Regards, Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 07:01, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Please Don't Delete. Invosite,the site mentioned in the article,has been fully updated on Sep 10,2006. Some more services added to it. Let people know about the free services through Wikipedia. Invosite is being updated fast. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.88.242.54 (talk • contribs) (user's second "vote" in this AfD; see above.)

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SNOWBALL and self withdrawal. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 15:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Princess Mako of Akishino

Not inheritley notale, makes no claim to be notable just royal cruft. (I'm also nominating Princess Mako of Akishino) thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 06:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - Wikipedia:Notability (nobility), although an essay, brings up some good points. In the future, I can see this article becoming much more expansive. There's really no need to delete it. -Zapptastic (talk) 06:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • In the future, maybe. At preset, doubtful. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 06:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep; as the mother of the new lineal male heir to the Japanese throne, she is pretty much permanently notable given the wide interest in the Japanese royal family and line of succession. Wikipedia:Notability (nobility) would argue keep as well. --MCB 07:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Shes a bit young to be a mother, dont you think. She is only 15? thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 07:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, although I think MCB has his princesses mixed up. :-) Wikipedia:Notability (nobility) clearly has her down as notable - "children, grandchildren, great grandchildren, brothers, sisters, uncles, aunts, and cousins of the reigning monarch", she is Emperor Akihito's granddaughter. --Stormie 07:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Thats not policy, and has been stated by its author has the intents to make every royal notable. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 07:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Indeed, it is not official policy, but it's a sensible set of guidelines which I'm in broad agreement with. Seems pretty clear from this discussion that there is a solid consensus that granddaughters of emperors are notable, as Wikipedia:Notability (nobility) would have it. —Stormie 09:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, we have notability guidelines to ensure that we're writing about people prominent enough to meet verifiability and avoid original research. As a member of the current royal family and subject of media attention, she seems to meet that standard. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 07:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I think there is an inherent notability attached to royalty, namely because of the media attention that is attracted by it. Furthermore, Japan is a rather large segment of internet readership who probably view grandchildren of the Emperor just as notable as Jeb Bush, Jr. or even Maureen Reagan. 205.157.110.11 07:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Msod 08:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep notable and significant member of the Japanese royal family with current international media coverage. The kid itself will be notable as well unlike Jolie-Pitts or Beckhams. MLA 08:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • How will it be notable; How do you know? Are you a tme traveler? thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 09:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Edit conflict comment - was intending to change my comment to reflect that the information in the article isn't quite right and should specifically refer to Kiko but that this is still a very notable person. The kid in question is already notable with worldwide media coverage and is an important part of a current Japanese political and sociological debate. MLA 09:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Important member of Japanese royal family. Fg2 09:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Related to the Emperor as Princess Beatrice of York and Princess Eugenie of York are to Queen Elizabeth II Those two princesses have articles, and Princess Mako should also. So too should her new brother. Fg2 09:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per 205.157.110.11 above -- I@n 09:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Night Gyr. Neier 09:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Per Fg2. No less notable than other royals who have articles. Barnas 11:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I was waiting for this one. Alot of those royals have also been AfD'd (I've nom'd about 5 (maybe more)) -- That comparison always pops up. It wouldnt exist if each AfD didnt compare articles and make comparisons. What i want to ask though: Has she done anything notable? Has she recieved any press (ie. not fly by as in "There new son is the brother of Keiko and Meiko et cetera") - Where they in mass press when they where born? There son is inheritley notable being the first male to the line in x years and for being in press. I'd suggest these two non-notables be redirected to a parent. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 12:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - some english language news coverage, undoubtably far more in Japanese. Encyclopaedic, whatever you're looking for. No arguments have been presented for deletion, nor can I think of any. WilyD 13:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Notable enough to have her own article. The article would be helpful to anyone researching the Japanese royal family. Thε Halo ^Θ 13:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep per all above, and suggest early closure of this AfD. The members of royal houses are notable per se. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Royal folk are inherently notable per all such comments above. Sad but true. Pan Dan 14:55, 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 (in some form). No valid arguments for delete apart from the nomination, and redirection is governed by the normal workings of consensus, not AfD. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 01:53, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NonProductive

Not Notable —ExplorerCDT 06:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I recommended this article for deletion as this is a not notable radio program on WRSU at Rutgers University and isn't really known outside the Rutgers University community. Heck, I graduated there and knew one of the hosts during my years "on the banks" and didn't even know it existed until the creator of this article tried to add a link to this article from the Rutgers article. This article does not meet the notability guidelines/policies. Furthermore, suspecting that the creator of this article is somehow involved in the program, this meets the guideline under WP:NOT which states that Wikipedia is not a soapbox for advertising, self-promotion, etc. Also, Wikipedia is not google and this article might fall under the categorisation of Vanispamcruftisement. At best, this article's content should be condensed and merged with WRSU, and this article deleted.—ExplorerCDT 06:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Merge content with WRSU and delete, as nom. —ExplorerCDT 06:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Attribution for the content needs to be retained per GFDL, so if content is merged, you cannot delete the edit history. Besides, why not redirect so readers who search for this end up at the place where the article is? - Mgm|^(talk) 10:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• I see your point, but I doubt anyone knows NonProductive exists much less would search for it (except out of vanity, perhaps). —ExplorerCDT 06:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• Your response is about what wrote as a kind of a side note. The first line of my comment was the important one. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect to WRSU. --MCB 07:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per above, non-notable. Sandstein 20:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect - this isn't notable. Full disclosure: I'm mentioned in the article, so feel free to discount my vote if that's appropriate. Digamma 13:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, It may not be surprising, but my reasoning is for keep, and I’ll explain why. The article is notable as the subject has aired consistently over the past 10 years with approximately 500 shows. There are many shows that have aired more and many that have aired less, but I’d like to suggest that there is a large enough presence to justify the need for an article. There is the notion that this is a vanity/promotion page – which is perfectly understandable, but I believe may be merely a gut reaction. During the show’s 10 year run it has had a rotating panel of hosts, none of which are still involved with the show after their term, and dozens of cast members who likewise graduate to new projects unrelated to the program. While this may not eliminate the fear of vanity page, I believe this weakens the idea that anyone would benefit greatly by using this for self-promotion or narcissism. While I have been the heaviest contributor to the article so far (also reasonably taken as evidence of non notability) we should take into consideration that the article is new, the show is about begin its newest season, and that more edits and searches by Wikipedians should be expected in the coming months (assuming no one is dissuaded to “waste their time” on an article marked for deletion). Some of those who have commented for deletion have remarked that it is unlikely that anyone knows about the show outside the Rutgers Community, and that they themselves haven’t heard of it until after graduation or being pointed directly to it. While that may seem like a logical argument for deletion, we are all aware that there are numerous articles on subjects we were not personally aware of – and that personal non-notability does not translate over the universal non-notability. Also, many years have passed since the nominator may have been peripherally aware of the show, and as such it has expanded considerably and become far more popular under the control of subsequent hosts. With regard to the idea that few outside Rutgers would be aware of the show, please note the number of articles depicting campus life elements that have become popularized throughout the state and country (i.e. Grease Trucks) - while this precedent does not make for a solid rule of inclusion, it hopefully will encourage others to think twice before marking for deletion based on a “potential lack of public knowledge as interpreted by personal experience”. Finally, while merging and redirecting with WRSU is an understandable alternative to deletion, I feel it would only serve to divert attention from the other aspects of the radio station – which is far more then a paragraph on broadcast range and three paragraphs on just one of their many shows.

Aside from rebutting the argument for deletion, I would like to make another argument for keep. The nature of the collegiate setting makes for a constantly rotating student body, which has experienced 10 graduating classes since the premiere of the show. As a result, no one currently involved with the show, and few people who currently listen to the show, were around for the history of the series. Incoming freshmen were eight years old when the show premiered, and are unlikely to have been fans from the start. It is for these people (who will undoubtedly use the popular free encyclopedia to discover more about the show) that the article was written – to do exactly what Wikipedia articles are designed to do – inform and educate the masses.

When reviewing articles for deletion me must be positive in outlook, not merely assume the worse. The negative assumption here is that the article will be useless to any Wikipedian and that it could only serve to promote those behind it – the positive assumption is that it is a neutrally drafted article that contains information that may be useful to individuals curious enough to research a program that is new to them.

Of course, you are all free to make up your own minds as you see fit. Good luck! ParticularlyEvil 19:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment for edification: User:ParticularlyEvil is the creator of the article NonProductive currently under discussion, and it's primary contributor. See [27] —ExplorerCDT 19:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: (to User:ParticularlyEvil), your argument is circular in nature in that in conflicts with Wikipedia's policies about What Wikipedia is Not, namely advertising, a predictor or crystal ball (i.e. "maybe these people will be interested to find out more and then this show will become notable...) and it's an argument begging for an exception to be made despite admitting entirely that this article should be deleted/redirected/etc. because it doesn't meet Wikipedia's guidelines and policies meriting inclusion. Just because something lasts for 10 years does not make it notable, important, or encyclopaedic — three attributes that each subject receiving an article on wikipedia needs to be. Despite your poignant appeal, an argument to keep this article based on logical fallacies, (i.e. an argumentum ad misericordiam, ad consequentiam, an Appeal to flattery, Misleading vividness and an argumentum verbosium ) is, quite frankly, a bad argument. —ExplorerCDT 19:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: (to User:ExplorerCDT), Let’s be civil here. In my own comment I noted that I was the majority contributor to the article, I am not sure further edification was necessary.

Furthermore, perhaps unintentionally, your use of quotation marks imply that I stated "maybe these people will be interested to find out more and then this show will become notable...” These were never my words, but merely your interpretations of my words.

The argument is not circular, predictive, nor begging for a special exception for this article. Nor does it admit it whole or in part that the article should be deleted/redirected or anything short of kept. I rebutted your opinions and stated my own interpretation on them. Furthermore, if you feel running off a list of logical fallacies backs up you argument, then I suppose your comment was worthwhile to you.

It is clear your vote remains with delete, which I respect, and mine remains with keep, which I hope you will respect in kind. Rather then keep the momentum this has developed as a debate between two users, I think it is best to sit back and let others voice their opinions with both our standpoints here to look upon. I would like to see if the article will survive on its own merits. ParticularlyEvil 20:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Rockhopper78 00:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC)I'd like to add my two cents here. Once again, full disclosure; I am one of the people mentioned as a member of the Non-Productive show cast in the article. I was not a contributor to the wiki article, but heard about it through another party. I vote that the article be kept. I disagree with the notion that the show is non-notable. I was part of the show's early cast and crew. After graduation, I lost contact with the show and had assumed that the show no longer existed. In the not-too-distant past, I learned that the show was alive and well, having passed through the hands of many different hosts, cast members and crew throughout the years. Non-Productive has now been a part of the Rutgers community for approximately a decade, and it appears to have picked up enough self-sustaining steam to remain a part of that community for well beyond the forseeable future. It is, has been, and will be the result of the combined efforts of a wide spectrum of diverse contributors and will continue to an assest to the local community for a long time to come. It does not nor has ever required any outside promotion, and I do not believe that the article was written in that vein. Rather, I interpret the article (ackowledged to still be in its infant form) to be a growing record of this collaborative effort.

• Comment: This is the first and only edit by User:Rockhopper78. See [28]. Possible sockpuppet. Writing style and structure too similar to User:ParticularlyEvil. Requesting CheckUser. —ExplorerCDT 02:08, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect and merge as per above --Etaonish 02:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC) (forgot to log in)

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

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

The result was keep. Sango123 20:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Brandon (porn star)

Article is about a living person. Brandon probably qualifies for an article, as he won "Gay Performer of the Year" at the GayVN Awards in 2002 and 2003 (when he tied with Colton Ford), but this is less than a stub, and is sourced only via IMDB; the entry there reads like a fan wrote it. —Chidom ^talk  06:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• weak keep, what's wrong with it? It could use cleanup, but there's nothing inherently wrong with having this article. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 07:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, the jail comment may require sourcing, but the rest of the article makes a nice stub. Less than a stub would be "X is a Y who appeared in Z", this at least tells slightly more. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep passes WP:BIO - sure it's only a stub, but that's not a criterion for deletion. I excised the jail statement per WP:LIVING WilyD 13:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• keep michael brandon is very notable, but this article does not really show it. The article needs a great deal of improvement. --mathewguiver 14:33, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per the above. Carlossuarez46 20:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above; the nominator provides reason for expansion, not deletion. {{sofixit}} RFerreira 05:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Sango123 20:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Purple Chihuahua

Website with no evidence of passing WP:WEB; no Alexa rank, only 104 unique GHits for "Purple Chihuahua", very few seem relevant (most are related to plush toys and the like). Failed prod. ~Matticus ^T_C 07:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, no notability whatsoever. Duran 08:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, unencyclopedic, filled with weasel wording and no traffic to speak of. (I sincerely hope that "raped up" was meant to be "wrapped up"...). - Mgm|^(talk) 10:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above, also no Alexa ranking. NawlinWiki 14:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete notability wasn't shown. And the article itself feels very weak. 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 Speedy delete, copyvio. Guy 11:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Big Bang (song)

Speedy delete. No notability asserted. Songs are not notable by default per WP:SONG. Ohconfucius 07:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, full lyrics are copyvio. Gazpacho 08:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Songs can be notable if done by notable singers or bands, but the article would have to include more than the basics already in the band article. This one doesn't apart from a lyric copyvio. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete - CSD A8 as copyvio. MER-C 10:37, 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 redirect (already done). —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 22:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Colleague

just a definition and wiktionary already has the definition Goldenrowley 08:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Gwernol 09:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Drop the definition and redirect to collegiality. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per MgM, good call. Guy 12:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per Mgm. Thε Halo ^Θ 14:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • • OK I added the sentence to Collegiality I suppose I must wait for an admin to close this discussion before I can officially implement the redirect. Thank you. Goldenrowley 02:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Sango123 20:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jogocyde

Non-notable fictional narcotic featured in a RPG which doesn't have its own article. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 08:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, I have no problem with fictional narcotics (as opposed to real ones), but there's scores of RPGs out there, and this one doesn't appear to make the cut for it's own article, so the drug shouldn't either. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I guess it would not be overly harsh to call this one fancruft under the circumstances. Guy 12:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment restoring above by reversion following blanking by 70.134.207.146 GRBerry 01:44, 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 and redirect to Steve Irwin - created by sockpuppet of banned user Universe Daily per evidence. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 02:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bindi Irwin

Daughter of Steve Irwin. Not yet notable I@n 08:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect to Steve Irwin. -- I@n 08:07, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and Redirect to Steve Irwin. -- I@n 00:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- I@n 08:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• The Bindi Irwin page should be preserved because she is a very famous child star who has been in countless television documentaries, a film and even hosted her own american series. Her name should not be redirected by ignorant idiots. Croclover 23:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• I have repoened this discussion that was closed by User:Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh because the redirect is not unopposed. Gazpacho 00:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect to Steve Irwin, precedent set at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suri Cruise, etc. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 00:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• The speedy close was entirely appropriate. Delete and Redirect, she is not notable. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect. IMDb does not mention her hosting her own program which would make her notable enough. Capitalistroadster 02:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• The program for her was only ever being planned, and was not certain. --bainer (talk) 02:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect to Steve Irwin. It is common practice to redirect articles on celebrities' children to their parents. Bindi Irwin's involvement in her parents' work is worthy of discussion, but would only really be appropriate in the context of her parents' articles. --bainer (talk) 02:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect as above Bwithh 02:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect per above for now. If she becomes a celebrity in her own right, separate from her father's fame (which is probably more likely now, after the recent tragedy), consideration should be given to creating a separate article. JDoorjam Talk 04:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect -M^ask 04:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect _Doctor Bruno_^_Talk_/_{E Mail} 08:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete and redirect. Any information that could/should be merged into Steve Irwin is already in there. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 08:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect (do not delete first). The info that is there, might be merged in from this article. It doesn't hurt to comply with the GFDL and save the edit history just in case. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect: as above. --Ragib 19:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Steve Irwin.--cj | talk 08:39, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect -- to one of her parents, erring towards her father. -- Longhair 08:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep - I feel she is considerably more notable than the precedents given (Suri Cruise, Sean Federline, Scout Willis, etc). Consider several news articles and an entry at IMDb: [29], [30] [31] --ryan-d 12:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep - The Bindi Show is definitely going ahead. Her manager John Stainton has affirmed this. That makes her notable.“Bindi's new TV show is going to premiere next January throughout America and the world...." http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,,20351375-5005961,00.html Need further proof? Sunday's Courier Mail spells it out for you. Mantle passes to Bindi http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,,20377536-952,00.html She is the next Crocodile Hunter. I believe this blows negative arguments out of the water. Comparing her to babies like Suri Cruise who can't even talk yet are simply "childish". Croclover 23:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

  Confessed linkspammer/sockpuppet comments struck out. -- I@n 01:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

  The issue with those links is that it fails WP:NOT as crystal ballery. when her show goes on, that will be a different story, as of now, she has no show and is not notable. -M^ask 23:32, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Her father's notoriety has given her notability. -- Voldemort 07:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Thats a perfect argument for redirect. She's notable soly for her father. According to this user. -M^ask 23:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. She is notable enough as she is, and getting more and more attention every day. She's listed as support crew and have her own pages at crocodilehunter.com, she's been on several other TV series and Stevo was actually filming stuff for her series when he died, And she wasn't born onto TV, she was born on TV, since Stevo decided to bring the entire crew along (met by Terry's "you didn't think you could find any more people to bring in here?"). So she isn't just known for being Stevo's daughter, she's known for being Bindi Irwin. Hdw 01:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep She is noteable enough anyway (though barely) and Steve just boosts that. - Blood red sandman 21:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• PLEASE KEEP She was just set to create her own wildlife show on the discovery kids channel, how could she not stay?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.177.195.118 (talk • contribs) 13:42, 13 September 2006.
• STRONG KEEP! Bindi Irwin is already a well known and discussed person and will be even more now her famous father has passed away. She'll follow the footsteps of Steve Irwin, in fact she already does. We need her and this article.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.73.40.73 (talk • contribs)
  • Above two anon edits are both 1st edits for those users. Probable sockpuppets of indef-blocked linkspammers User:Croclover/User:Universe Daily -- I@n 16:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep As per VoldemortI elliot 17:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

See my response to Voldemort. -M^ask 23:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

• Reluctant merge She's definitely worthy of a mention, and I reckon she's almost certainly going to be notable in her own right one day, but wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Andjam 00:41, 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 vanity spam, already userfied. Guy 12:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Futura Technologies

Contested prod that is spam. A copy of this page is available at User:Futura Technologies, related MFD debate is here. MER-C 08:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• User's contribution history shows he's a single purpose account with the aim of spamming this into Wikipedia. Delete. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - spam. BTLizard 10:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete company should stay lean and focused somewhere else Dlyons493 Talk 11:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy deleted as unverifiable nonsense. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kellie West

Was tagged as speedy, but this article is far from nonsense (the previous reason it was deleted. Probably unverifiable still, but not speedy worthy. Procedural nomination. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Speedy delete, it's subtle nonsense. A google result of any kind would've easily supported any of the notions but it's all a big prank. –– Lid^(Talk) 09:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Speedy delete - can't find anything on Google for the woman or the book. BTLizard 10:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Delete with great haste! Vanity entry most likely. Dismas|^(talk) 10:10, 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 redirect, and it was too generous. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 22:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jessica Houston

Fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC I think this person hasn't importance in any country, also in Germany not (I know this because I'm living there) unimportant members of american idol should be also deleted - you can't argue with other unimportant people who aren't it worth to have an own place in wikipedia Yoda1893 09:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - just another hasbeen wannabe. BTLizard 09:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:BIO or merge per WP:FICT. Kappa 10:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to the television show she was in. Hasn't done anything outside the show to warrant her own article, but there's no need for deletion. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per Mgm, that seems to be the norm with unsuccessful reality show contestants. Guy 12:34, 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. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 22:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ronil

This isn't a baby name encyclopedia. Duran 09:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - indeed it isn't. BTLizard 09:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Wiktionary first name addendum, if it can be verified. Deleteif it can't. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 22:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pokejungle.net

No evidence of passing any of the points of WP:WEB; despite being a reasonably well-constructed new article, there's a lot of unverifiable information here (no third-party sources to confirm). Deprodded with comments on article's talk page and listing for AfD per that discussion. ~Matticus ^T_C 09:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Please give me tonight to cite some sources, as I'm in Japan and rather busy. There are verifiable sources, and I'll be editing the page with them shortly. Thanks! BlackxxJapan 09:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Lawtoxxx 10:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:WEB. Note that I have no prejudice against the site as such; but claims to notability like ~3000 visitors a day or references on international blogs and image boards are simply inadequate in the absence of awards or published references. My own homepage gets more visitors than that and has also been referred to on a number of international blogs and forums, but if anyone created an article on it, I would nominate it for deletion myself. — Haeleth Talk 11:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Haeleth mentioned non-cited sources, but sourcings to the foriegn sites and a stat tracking page for pokejungle.net have been provided to give published accounts to the claims. More coming soon, like I said, I'm pretty busy at the moment so please be patient. This article is simply "Under Construction" and not finished yet. I think there might be a page header I'm supposed to put up, but I honestly don't know. BlackxxJapan 13:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Unfortunately, primary sources (as in the subject of the article) cannot be used to verify information (they're not neutral, and WP:NPOV is one of the central policies of Wikipedia.) Blogs and forums cannot be used to verify information either, they're not reliable. "Under construction" is not an excuse because we're supposed to place things on Wikipedia only after they're established, not before. That being said, the site design looks clean and I hope you keep up the good work, but Wikipedia is not a web directory. ColourBurst 15:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment My site is established...the article is still in the rough though. And forums/blogs ARE reliable if you're claiming to have been sourced on international sites, such as forums or blogs. Do you want a newspaper sourced when you're talking about blogs? That is ridiculous. "International blog" I source a blog, which thouroughly verifies the claim that it was sourced in an "international blog". And the hits were definitely sourced by a third party script that's built soley to accurately track stats. And I realize this isn't a website directory, but it is a user-based article compilation on all subjects and matters. I think that if an article is well written, it documents what it needs to, AND I can finish sourcing everything, it should be fine. The Wikipedia's gotten a bit too strict on 'what qualifies' as far as articles go. If there's information to document, and (a) good writer(s), then what's the problem? Is this article degrading to the Wikipedia? BlackxxJapan 14:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Please read WP:RS. "Reliable" has a very specific meaning on Wikipedia. Blogs and web forums are not reliable under the criteria. Wikipedia hasn't "gotten" too strict, the policy's been in since day 1 (since WP:RS derives from WP:V, which is a derivative of WP:NPOV, which is the very foundation of this site and non-negotiable.) ColourBurst 00:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - as per original WP:WEB comment. -- Fuzheado | Talk 04:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Very sorry, Wikipedia does not care if a site is "established" or not. Wikipedia cares if a site is notable... has the site been mentioned had multiple non-trivial mentions by any media sources? Has it won any major awards? (i.e. a Webby), has any of its content been reproduced by any media sources? The article doesn't mention any of this currently, therefore it misses the guidelines setforth for web-related content and it's deletion should go forth because wikipedia is not a webdirectory. Try [[32]]. --Kunzite 19:23, 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 delete. Sango123 20:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] JustRHYMES

Website the fails WP:WEB with no alexa ranking at all. 22 google results total and the article was created by User:justrhymes so possibly qualified as WP:Vanity –– Lid^(Talk) 09:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - non-notable, spam. BTLizard 09:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as spam. MER-C 10:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Spamgasmic. 205.157.110.11 11:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as spam. Thε Halo ^Θ 13:48, 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 Delete as lacking even the tiniest shred of evidence of meeting any realistic inclusion guideline. Guy 12:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ReplaceFacebook

Self-referential, trying to promote new project created in the last 1-2 days. Not notable yet. Delete. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --Huon 10:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and add back when they don't fail spectacularly. :) -Trevyn 12:20, 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. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 00:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] K&Q

Just a pub. Author claims the pub is unique because it has a laundrette in the basement and has bar billiards. Apparently this is not common in pubs nowadays, although I wonder where else I would find a bar to play this on. Utterly non-notable. Just like any of the other thousands of pubs in the UK. Delete.- Mgm|^(talk) 10:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC) Bar billiards is not played on a bar

• Delete - and now we get pubcruft! This information - such as it is - should be in the village's own article at Hamble-le-Rice. BTLizard 10:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Main claim to fame is not being featured in the BBC Television Series 'Howards' Way' . That's one way of putting a positive spin on things! Dlyons493 11:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete As non notable. Thε Halo ^Θ 13:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non notable. -AMK152 00:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Don't Delete - Merge - this can be added to Hamble's page as suggested above, rather than deleted! Mikewhitcombe 14:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non notable --ArmadilloFromHell 17:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Quote from article: The pub was not featured in the BBC Television Series 'Howards' Way' as other famous landmarks in Hamble were, but is an integral part of the village's many watering holes. This is the entire "fame" section. This doesn't seem to imply any faim. Completely non-notable. --דניאל ~ Danielrocks123 ^{talk contribs Count} 02:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Sango123 20:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Software for engineers

If this list were anywhere near complete, it would be staggeringly huge. More detailed categories already exist, and are self-maintaining. Trevyn 10:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete List cruft galore. 205.157.110.11 11:07, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep (although Engineering software might be better for a title) - please see WP:LIST if you don't understand the purpose of lists, but they cannot be replace by categories. Please stop making that silly argument. WilyD 13:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, if there was a list of software for a certain type of engineer work it would be acceptable, but this list is basically trying to include every piece of software an engineer would ever need. The first entry is Microsoft Word, of all things. WilyD, that would be a valid argument if they were just trying to replace the article with a cat, but in this case it's just a really shitty article. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 14:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • AfD is not cleanup. Thus I am forced to reject This article needs cleaning as a grounds for deletion. WilyD 15:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as article tries to be a HOWTO article, which Wikipedia is not. The lack of specificity and the nonsensical inclusion of bog-standard 99%-saturation software like Word is just icing on the cake. --Dhartung | Talk 16:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, no need for another meaningless giant list. Pavel Vozenilek 19:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Engineer is a fairly broad term - if you include electrical and software engineers in the list, then most of the existing corpus of software would qualify (especially most of the free and open source software). I wouldn't have a problem with the list if it was very specialized (Software for Civil Engineers, Software for Mechanical Engineers), but just plain Engineers is too vague, too big, and too hard to manage. Heck, even a category would be huge. Simply unmaintainable. - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 02:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Dhartung and CosmicPenguin. Michael Kinyon 06:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete will be indiscriminate and mammoth. RN 05:58, 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. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 22:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Penn Art Club

Notability/importance in question. ghits: [33] — NMChico24 11:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, perceived importance by person who removed the prod is not reflected in any articles or references. Currently just a university club without much outside influence Fram 12:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Please refer to http://www.upenn.edu/pip/?pip=artclub, in relation to the significance of the club for Penn and for broader society. This reference, which was one the front page of Penn's website for over three months, reflects the importance of the club and the movement it has the potential to start among college campuses throughout the country. The club demonstrates that college students need not take art classes to be artists in college. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.123.191.101 (talk • contribs) — 165.123.191.101 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Reply: this is the article in whch the club presents itself. That it was linked from the homepage of the University isn't strange at all and does not indicate anything but that the club exists (which no one doubted). We have no outside articles about the club, and the potential it has is a case of WP:NOT a crystal ball. When some national publication comments that the current revival of art by non-artists started in Penn Art Club, you can restart the article. Until then, it is not important enough to include in this encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fram (talk • contribs)
    • The story about the Penn Art Club was not simply a link to the site, it was a featured story. While the story about Penn Art Club was featured, other--equally as significant--stories ran: such as discoveries in blot clott physiology, uncovering of ancient tombs in Egypt, new initiatives of the University, abd breakthrough research on the relation of the brain to the eye. "Doesn't indicate anything but that the club exists"--every club is linked to on the clubs page, but no other had a story on the front page. Penn Art Club embodies a novel movement, an intellectual progression towards academic freedom in the sense that, indeed, universities not only produce knowledge and truth, but also contribute to the health of democracy. As Paul Lazarsfeld would note, this article is an example of a solution to a fundamental "ill-structured" problem in colleges across the country.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.123.191.101 (talk • contribs) — 165.123.191.101 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
      • I agree with the above post, I read the wikipedia article and think its highly relevant and germane to the issues discussed in the above comment. This article should stay.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.123.191.101 (talk • contribs) — 165.123.191.101 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
        • The editor who made the reply about the Penn Art Club article, and the next one who "agrees with the above post", have the same IP, 165.123.191.101. Does agreeing with yourself also contribute to the "health of democracy"? Fram 08:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
          • okk, whatever. article or no article, the story of this club is interesting to me. thnx.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.123.191.101 (talk • contribs) — 165.123.191.101 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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

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

The result was delete, copyright violation. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 23:05, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sunbeam school

Tagged for speedy as non-notable school (as if such a thing could possibly exist!) actually this is part copyvio, part advert. It either needs rapid and aggressive cleanup, or it needs deletion. Guy 11:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Taken to WP:CP. Don't bring copyvio here. Kappa 05:41, 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 keep. Sango123 20:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Garbage Pail Kids (animated series)

A series which never aired, was bootlegged a bit, but there really is no credible evidence of any real audience, and most of it is almost certainly OR for the same reason. Guy 11:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment The published DVD would be a primary source, no? -- Trevyn 12:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and Cleanup If it did actually air in Europe, then it certainly warrents inclusion -- hell, even if it didn't, it was produced, and was based on quite a popular phenominon of the time. Seems pretty notible to me. (I even have in the back of my mind a memory of the previews for this, but who knows what I'm remebering) ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 12:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep Although by most accounts it wasn't very good, it was a real series, and the (Paramount-released) DVD can be found at Amazon. Here's a review and here's another. It even had the Emmy-nominated actress Cree Summer in a voice role! I'm baffled why anyone might find cause to delete this. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, not OR per cited sources, notable enough. NawlinWiki 13:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. DVD availability satisfies notability and verifiability. 23skidoo 16:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Starblind. - Mgm|^(talk) 18:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Maybe if people did a little research before jumping on the deletionist bandwagon, we wouldn't have to waste our time with debates like this.--SB | T 23:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. Paramount and CBS feel it's notable enough for a box-set DVD release. I'm not going to disagree with them. -- The Bethling^(Talk) 23:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep per WP:SNOW and remove or source any supposed original research. RFerreira 05:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 22:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Joel Creasey

Not notable person, possible vanity article. Google results consists of his name showing up in a names directory, and his MySpace page. Author has deleted {{db-bio}} twice and {{prod}} once TexMurphy 12:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom Kiwimandy 13:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. When he finishes aspiring and does something notable, we'll talk. BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 22:47, 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. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 22:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Finish Line with Jerry and the Shot Doctor

Non-notable radio sports program, one of thousands. The Shot Doctor, which has basically the same text, is a AfD now and is running 14-0 in favor of Delete. Herostratus 12:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Recury 13:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into WQTM I don't know who wrote this. I wrote the WQTM article, but I absolutely never intended for individual articles to be written about the local shows. I'm going to ask for a delete of The Shot Doctor. --Kitch 14:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and do not merge this rambling mass of text anywhere - but thanks for reminding me that one upside of living in Europe is quality public radio. Sandstein 20:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or Redirect to WQTM, don't bother to merge. Thryduulf 22:09, 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. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 22:45, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jerry O'Neill

Unremarkable American radio talking head, one of many thousands. Herostratus 12:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Recury 13:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. O'Neill and his WQTM colleague, The Shot Doctor, are both about to become wiki history. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Shot_Doctor. Pan Dan 00:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to WQTM. Thryduulf 22:10, 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 MERGE to Deutschland sucht den SuperStar Herostratus 08:59, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Daniel Lopes

Fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC I think this person hasn't importance in any country, also in Germany not (I know this because I'm living there) unimportant members of american idol should be also deleted - you can't argue with other unimportant people who aren't it worth to have an own place in wikipedia Yoda1893 13:07, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect to Deutschland sucht den Superstar as we did with American Idol and survivor contestants. They don't deserve their own page, but redirect helps people find the relevant article that has info about them. - Mgm|^(talk) 18:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, passes WP:MUSIC with top 20 hit in Germany: (watch out for popups http://top40-charts.com/song.php?sid=6351&sort=chartid) Kappa 06:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. The nom rests on the (IMHO, erroneous) assumption that there are "important" contestants in German "Idol", as opposed to "unimportant" ones. However, to the best of my knowledge, their careers have all gone nowhere, even if the top three or so may have outlasted the others by a few months. Still, we will hardly reach a consensus to delete all articles and there are no real criteria as to which to keep and which to delete. So we will probably have to keep all of them. --Thorsten1 10:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 22:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Symphonia (band)

Delete Non-notable band does not appear to meet Wikipedia:Notability (music) CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 13:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- DEPF 14:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete because from what I can tell the band released one album and then disbanded. If I'm incorrect, I'm open to being proved incorrect. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 16:03, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, just one album, but it was just recently released in August. So, I don't think they're disbanded; but, they took a long time (from 1997, apparently) to get this far. Neier 00:46, 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 MERGE to Deutschland sucht den SuperStar. Herostratus 08:31, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stephanie Brauckmeyer

Fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC I think this person hasn't importance in any country, also in Germany not (I know this because I'm living there) unimportant members of american idol should be also deleted - you can't argue with other unimportant people who aren't it worth to have an own place in wikipedia Yoda1893 13:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect to Deutschland sucht den Superstar as we did with American Idol and survivor contestants. They don't deserve their own page, but redirect helps people find the relevant article that has info about them. - Mgm|^(talk) 18:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge or keep passes WP:BIO. Kappa 06:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. The nom rests on the (IMHO, erroneous) assumption that there are "important" contestants in German "Idol", as opposed to "unimportant" ones. However, to the best of my knowledge, their careers have all gone nowhere, even if the top three or so may have outlasted the others by a few months. Still, we will hardly reach a consensus to delete all articles and there are no real criteria as to which to keep and which to delete. So we will probably have to keep all of them. --Thorsten1 10:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was MERGE to Deutschland sucht den SuperStar Herostratus 08:34, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Andrea Josten

Fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC I think this person hasn't importance in any country, also in Germany not (I know this because I'm living there) unimportant members of american idol should be also deleted - you can't argue with other unimportant people who aren't it worth to have an own place in wikipedia Yoda1893 13:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect to Deutschland sucht den Superstar as we did with American Idol and survivor contestants. They don't deserve their own page, but redirect helps people find the relevant article that has info about them. - Mgm|^(talk) 18:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge or keep passes WP:BIO. Kappa 06:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. The nom rests on the (IMHO, erroneous) assumption that there are "important" contestants in German "Idol", as opposed to "unimportant" ones. However, to the best of my knowledge, their careers have all gone nowhere, even if the top three or so may have outlasted the others by a few months. Still, we will hardly reach a consensus to delete all articles and there are no real criteria as to which to keep and which to delete. So we will probably have to keep all of them. --Thorsten1 10:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was MERGE to Deutschland sucht den SuperStar Herostratus 08:34, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nektarios Bamiatzis

Fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC I think this person hasn't importance in any country, also in Germany not (I know this because I'm living there) unimportant members of american idol should be also deleted - you can't argue with other unimportant people who aren't it worth to have an own place in wikipedia Yoda1893 13:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect to Deutschland sucht den Superstar as we did with American Idol and survivor contestants. They don't deserve their own page, but redirect helps people find the relevant article that has info about them. - Mgm|^(talk) 18:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge or keep passes WP:BIO. Kappa 06:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. The nom rests on the (IMHO, erroneous) assumption that there are "important" contestants in German "Idol", as opposed to "unimportant" ones. However, to the best of my knowledge, their careers have all gone nowhere, even if the top three or so may have outlasted the others by a few months. Still, we will hardly reach a consensus to delete all articles and there are no real criteria as to which to keep and which to delete. So we will probably have to keep all of them. --Thorsten1 10:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was MERGE to Deutschland sucht den SuperStar Herostratus 08:35, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ricky Ord

Fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC I think this person hasn't importance in any country, also in Germany not (I know this because I'm living there) unimportant members of american idol should be also deleted - you can't argue with other unimportant people who aren't it worth to have an own place in wikipedia Yoda1893 13:24, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect to Deutschland sucht den Superstar as we did with American Idol and survivor contestants. They don't deserve their own page, but redirect helps people find the relevant article that has info about them. - Mgm|^(talk) 18:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per above. Kappa 06:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was MERGE with Deutschland sucht den SuperStar Herostratus 08:36, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Steffen Frommberger

Fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC I think this person hasn't importance in any country, also in Germany not (I know this because I'm living there) unimportant members of american idol should be also deleted - you can't argue with other unimportant people who aren't it worth to have an own place in wikipedia Yoda1893 13:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Unless they did something noteworthy after the show they are indeed not worthy of a page of their own, but that doesn't mean we can't redirect to Deutschland sucht den Superstar. - Mgm|^(talk) 18:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per above. Kappa 06:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge There isn't enough importance to have own article in Wiki. 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. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 22:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BunnyTrack

Fan-created playstyle for Unreal Tournament (if the links tell me correctly); not notable. I would've used prod on this but a notability tag was already removed, seemed likely prod would have been too. Crystallina 13:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - made up an unverifiable -- Whpq 13:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or condense into a sentence or two and Merge with Unreal Tournament. It gets reasonable Google hits, but the article is unencylopedic (half game guide, half hopelessly trivial trivia) and I can't imagine how it could be rewritten into a real article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was MERGE with Deutschland sucht den SuperStar and redirect to that article. Many of these Deutschland sucht den SuperStar contestants have been nominated separately. I am treating them as one group nomination, except and unless individual cases arise where this is not appropriate. The overall consensus for the group as a whole appears to be merge and redirect. Herostratus 09:17, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lorenzo Woodard

Fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC I think this person hasn't importance in any country, also in Germany not (I know this because I'm living there) unimportant members of american idol should be also deleted - you can't argue with other unimportant people who aren't it worth to have an own place in wikipedia! And there isn’t important information who’s it worth to be merged!!! Yoda1893 13:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect to Deutschland sucht den Superstar as we did with American Idol and survivor contestants. They don't deserve their own page, but redirect helps people find the relevant article that has info about them. - Mgm|^(talk) 18:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete, as it should've been before. This is clearly an example of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 22:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dear

Dicdef. This is the third time this article has been created, and it should be deleted for the same reason it was the other two times. Marnanel 13:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom -- Whpq 13:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep This is different from the other article which was just a simple dictionary definintion but seems to meet the "Ideally this would redirect or disambig to something about saluations in letter writing" comment from the previous AfD.

CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 13:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment what happened?

This should be "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dear (2)" or something like that and not the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dear/2 other one. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 13:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Dear WPdian editors, or Orwellian policeman--just kidding!!!

• Disambiguation. It is not that important to me personally.

However, I do think that it certainly requires Disambiguation. Also, the fact--the reality--is that WP have made Wikipedia into a dictionary--it is a dictionary de facto, if not de jure. I'm fully aware that the WP policy is that WP is an Encyclopedia, or should I say Encyclopaedia? Yours truly Ludvikus 14:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment And if you dear--not deer--Wikipedians elect to retain it, I think you will not a choice but to do the same with yours truly, or yous truly!

Ludvikus 14:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect to salutation (greeting) per Damian Yerrick. --Rory096 23:19, 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 MERGE with Deutschland sucht den SuperStar and redirect to that article. Many of these Deutschland sucht den SuperStar contestants have been nominated separately. I am treating them as one group nomination, except and unless individual cases arise where this is not appropriate. The overall consensus for the group as a whole appears to be merge and redirect. Herostratus 09:22, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kemi Awosogba

Fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC I think this person hasn't importance in any country, also in Germany not (I know this because I'm living there) unimportant members of american idol should be also deleted - you can't argue with other unimportant people who aren't it worth to have an own place in wikipedia! And there isn’t important information who’s it worth to be merged!!! Yoda1893 13:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• merge or keep, passes WP:BIO. If there isn't any important information which is worth it to be merged, it can be redirected. 06:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Deutschland sucht den Superstar as we did with American Idol and survivor contestants. They don't deserve their own page, but redirect helps people find the relevant article that has info about them. Merge if the info isn't there yet. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:49, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 22:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Labour Party (UK) leadership election, 2007

This breaks crystal ball in that "proposed" "predicted" "could" and "maybe" all appear throughout the article. There is no leadership election planned, there is no resignation proposed, there is nothing but continued media predictions and crystal balling. This article breaks the policy on events which have not been officially timetabled to occur doktorb _words^deeds 13:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Thε Halo ^Θ 13:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep, it is extremely relevant and although some of the dates on the page are in question the page itself is not. There is going to be a leadership election within the next year and there is already a declared candidate. Philip Stevens 14:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete due to crystalballism. There's many a slip betwixt cup and lip... the Leadership Election in 2007 is expected, but not guaranteed to happen. And encyclopedias should be recording the past and present not anticipating the future. Bwithh 14:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Last week, I would have gone delete here, but it seems almost certain that such an event will take place in '07. The article is well-sourced and avoids speculation. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 14:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: If the election takes place this year, a simple page move would do the trick. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 19:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Although no such event has been confirmed, this article is well referenced and is a good indicator, sourced from various places, of potential candidates, etc. Today's news shows that although no date is confirmed for a contest - one will happen, and this article can be updated as such as and when. 15:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep, although there is allot of speculation in this page, the election is as close to certain to happen as possible and if it shouldn't exist than neither should pages like United States presidential election, 2008 and Next United Kingdom general election. Hera1187 15:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment - But the latter two you quote are scheduled event which are certain to occur. This event is speculated. doktorb _words^deeds 15:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment. Like Next United Kingdom general election, the only thing that's speculated is the dates. The only way that there won't be a contest is if no one stands against the only declared candidate, John McDonnell. How likely is that? Hera1187 15:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment - Actually John McDonnel would need 44 MPs, although he - or someone other than Brown - will get it. JASpencer 18:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Strong and speedy Keep This is one of the most important news stories in the UK at the moment. It is now a FACT that this contest will take place, and it WILL take place within the next year. Seivad 16:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment This contest was always going to take place at some point in the future. That was never an issue. The problem is, this article assumes the leadership contest will take place in 2007. Tony Blair has said the he will step down in the next 12 months. Now, he could either a) Step down tomorrow. This would mean that the leadership election would take place in 2006, or b) decide to continue on as PM. He has said he will only resign if the timing is right for the country. Therefore, he still could remain Labour party leader after 2007. And that is the problem with looking into the crystal ball. If the page could be moved to a name like, Upcoming Labour Party (UK) leadership election, a lot of problems with crystal balling would be solved. Thε Halo ^Θ 17:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment: In which case we should be looking at where (or if) to move the page, not whether to delete it. Js farrar 23:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• KeepAs Hera1187 pointed out, there must be a contest, and if the problem is with the name of the article speculating on dates, (which is likely to be accurate speculation anyway) that doesn't constitute a case for deletion.Greg Stevens 17:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Hera1187. --Pinkkeith 18:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I don't think there's anything gained by moving it to another name. If the date changes, then the article can change to reflect that. The alternative is, what, a growing section within the already-long Tony Blair? Also, I assume that the nomination was for crystall ball violations rather than "complete bollocks". Crystall ball says "If preparation for the event isn't already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented", and that's certainly easily met. --Dhartung | Talk 18:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep There will be a leadership election, it's just a question of whether it's in 2006 or 2007. If he resigns in the next two months change the title. JASpencer 18:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment Here we go "question" "whether" "if".... this is speculation. It is only "well documented" because it is currently a media led story - the actual contest has not been called. The actual event has not been started. There is just speculation - and that breaks current policy. doktorb _words^deeds 19:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• It's only going to get more relevent at the Labour party conference and as Blair's deadline approaches. Philip Stevens 19:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and the article will contain too much crystal-ballism until we have a set date and more than one announced candidate. I also point to the entry for 26 July 2007 under 'future milestones as to why. ([34]) - "The last day of Tony Blair as Prime Minister". Currently, the article is only feasible for such displays of crystal-ballism. Delete and restart closer to the time, when we, at the very minimum, have a set date. Railwayman 19:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - sourced, encyclopaedic. People should read Wikipedia, she ain't a crystal ball before invoking it. WilyD 20:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Indeed. In particular, it states "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place", and both of these criteria are clearly met. It also says "Individual items from a predetermined list or a systematic pattern of names, preassigned to future events or discoveries, are not suitable article topics", and it is not such a thing. Finally it states "Articles that present extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are original research and...inappropriate", but it does not present those things: it merely states the dates which have either been put forward or been speculated about by politicians or the media; there is no original research. OK, saying "The last day of Tony Blair as Prime Minister" doesn't conform to the conditions, but that's just an anomolous statement which needs rewording, and is unrepresentative of the rest of the artcle, so certainly isn't cause for its deletion.Greg Stevens 20:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Sure, individual sentences can be excised, but that's not really an issue for AfD. Otherwise, WP:NOT goes out of it's way to say Events widely anticipated and at least somewhat planned for are not violations of Crystal Ball. Significant press coverage of upcoming leadership convention means a Wiki article is appropriate. We even have a template for this kind of article, for instance at the top of Liberal Party of Canada leadership convention, 2006, another planned leadership convention. WilyD 21:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:NOT. The leadership election is almost a certainty to take place,even if Blair hands the leadership on a plate to Brown, the latter will still seek ratification. WP:NOT cites that the 2008 U.S. presidential election, would be an appropriate subject. Ohconfucius 08:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep per Greg Stevens 20:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC). Blair has said that he will leave office before the 2007 Labour Party Conference, which makes it likely with a probability approaching 1 that there will be a 2007 Labour Party leadership election. Js farrar 12:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• speedy keep per Wikipedia:Snowball clause. 13:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm pretty sure that's not a criterion for a speedy keep. WilyD 14:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, it does reference the deletion policy which states that "if a clear consensus for non-deletion is quickly reached, discussion may be closed before the end of the typical period". Now, I'm not sure whether or not this applies to this case, but it seems clear to me which way consensus on this discussion is going to fall. There'salso only been one "delete" vote since Blair's speech yesterday. Js farrar 20:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - one of the most ludicrous deletion requests I've seen. Clearly an important future event; just needs to avoid the usual unsourced speculation. --EddieBernard 17:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Commment' And with all due respect, that sounds like an uncivil personal insult against me doktorb _words^deeds 07:41, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment I don't think that the user is making a personal attack, but making a comment on this RfA, just as they would whoever created it. I think you need to remember WP:AGF. Thanks, Seivad 08:39, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment. Indeed. I have no opinion on Doktorb; I just think this is a rather bizarre deletion request for all the reasons many others have already expressed. --EddieBernard 07:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep - Relavent and coming up very soon.
• Keep, not crystal ball and sources are verifiable, notable future event and Blair has stated that he is going to resign in May next year. The election is very likely not definitely going to be held, please read WP:NOT before saying anything about crystallbalism. --Terence Ong _{(T | C)} 16:04, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep, Wikipedia has every right to create articles on future events that have been predicted, announced, mandated, or speculated on. See End of the World, Second Coming, and United States Presidential Election, 2008. Thesocialistesq 02:12, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep As long as the article keeps to the current facts, it is not a crystal ball. Although the contest hasn't started yet, certain preparatory events have happended already - such as the media speculation, Tony Blair announcements etc. We can talk about actual facts which are worthwhile as the foundation of an eventual article that covers the entire process. Not being a crystal ball does not mean not covering events that haven't finished yet. AndrewRT - Talk 15:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Greg Stevens above. --Satori Son 13:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep, possibly rename. It's a fact that there will be one, and the only problem with this article is that it presumes that it can't happen in 2006 already. —Nightstallion (?) 12:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Sango123 20:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] T.O.'s Law

Wikipedia is not for things made up on the internet one day. Law was coined within this year, has no assertions of notability, no appearance in reliable sources. Contested prod. -- Merope 13:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - per nom. Rob (Talk) 13:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. NawlinWiki 13:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete... per nom. Yet another neologism "law". The prod removal comparing this to Godwin's makes me want to invoke Isotope23's Law: "The day your law, based on Godwin's Law, is as referenced and pervasive as Godwin's Law... then it might deserve an article".--Isotope23 14:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all above. And I'm definitely disappointed, as I was hoping this would be about Terrell Owens. --Kinu ^t/_c 15:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment, ha... as was I: "thou shalt ride the stationary bike and mug for the cameras whilst thou shirks practice due to a lame hamstring".--Isotope23 16:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as (likely vanity) neologism. ColourBurst 16:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Do Not Delete. The assertion has been made that Wikipedia is not for things made up on the internet one day. While I agree with this statement, it does not apply to this law, which has been stated in many forms in the past. It is also sad that just because 'established' Wikipedians don't recognize it, it should be deleted. Furthermore, having been coined within the year is hardly a reason to delete it. Is there a law that states "all laws coined within a year are not laws?" Maybe there should be. I'll call it theprez98's law. Finally, the forums on which the law was published are clearly a reliable source and should be considered so. Do not delete! theprez98 22:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment forums generally do not constitute a reliable source and usage on a series of forums still does not prove this is not a neologism or protologism. As Bethling stated below, Godwin's Law has been referenced in many different sources (Harper's Magazine for example). There is absolutely no evidence "T.O.'s Law" has received any external media attention.--Isotope23 00:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per the time tested Isotope23's law ;). Godwin's law is widespread enough that its existence has been cited in several reliable sources. With out that same sort of coverage outside the web, it's just a neologism that lacks notability.- The Bethling^(Talk) 00:05, 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 MERGE with Deutschland sucht den SuperStar and redirect to that article. Many of these Deutschland sucht den SuperStar contestants have been nominated separately. I am treating them as one group nomination, except and unless individual cases arise where this is not appropriate. The overall consensus for the group as a whole appears to be merge and redirect. Herostratus 09:23, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Judith Burmeister

Fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC I think this person hasn't importance in any country, also in Germany not (I know this because I'm living there) unimportant members of american idol should be also deleted - you can't argue with other unimportant people who aren't it worth to have an own place in wikipedia! And there isn’t important information who’s it worth to be merged!!! Yoda1893 13:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect to Deutschland sucht den Superstar as we did with American Idol and survivor contestants. They don't deserve their own page, but redirect helps people find the relevant article that has info about them. - Mgm|^(talk) 18:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• delete per WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC, or merge per above. Even if American Idol were an important music competition, she is not placed [in the top 3]. Ohconfucius 09:50, 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 MERGE with Deutschland sucht den SuperStar and redirect to that article. Many of these Deutschland sucht den SuperStar contestants have been nominated separately. I am treating them as one group nomination, except and unless individual cases arise where this is not appropriate. The overall consensus for the group as a whole appears to be merge and redirect. Herostratus 09:24, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aida Ilijasevic

Fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC I think this person hasn't importance in any country, also in Germany not (I know this because I'm living there) unimportant members of american idol should be also deleted - you can't argue with other unimportant people who aren't it worth to have an own place in wikipedia! And there isn’t important information who’s it worth to be merged!!! Yoda1893 13:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect to Deutschland sucht den Superstar as we did with American Idol and survivor contestants. They don't deserve their own page, but redirect helps people find the relevant article that has info about them. - Mgm|^(talk) 18:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per above. Kappa 06:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Sango123 20:45, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pat Critchley

Asserts notability, but seems like only a locally notable sportsperson; also unsourced and probably unverifiable. NawlinWiki 13:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep meets WP:BIO as a sportsperson "at the highest level in mainly amateur sports", as verified by [35]. Hopefully all the details can be verified also. JPD (talk) 14:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Played at highest level in Gaelic sports. Catchpole 14:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Largely verifiable [36], [37], [38] etc Dlyons493 Talk 19:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• keep per WP:BIO and above. --mathewguiver 14:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• keep I created this article, subject is a nationally known figureHeshs Umpire 17:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per the above comments. RFerreira 05:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect. Just redirect things like this in the future, it's far more efficient for everyone concerned. - Bobet 23:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cork City F.C. In European Competition

Information was originally on Cork City F.C. main article, then moved onto its own article. The relevent info has now been re-inserted into the main article as part of a clean up by a number of editors, including myself. See the discussion page on main article Dodge 13:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy redirect. Kappa 06:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment No need for redirect, article is orphaned and anybody searching that info will check the Cork City F.C. article first Dodge 13:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. – Elisson • Talk 14:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. No redirect needed. – Elisson • Talk 14:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy redirect - Kappa is right. Since the content has been merged in a speedy redirect is the only action. Delete is not possible; not for any searching benefits but delete destroys the edit history which is not acceptable for GFDL reasons. BlueValour 16:23, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy redirect as per BlueValour's well thought-out point. Qwghlm 17:06, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Sango123 20:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Crossing the Rubicon (Ruppert)

Non notable 9/11 conspiracy theory book. Little content. Peephole 14:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, non-notable. Fails WP:NOT. Morton devonshire 17:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete What a joke this place is turning into--IworkforNASA 19:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This book appears quite notable. 83,600 Google hits [39] and an Amazon sales rank of 10,361 [40]. There are claims that it is one of the three best-selling books globally about the 9/11 attacks. [41] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hyperbole (talk • contribs)
• Delete per nom GabrielF 00:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Relevant proposed standard is Wikipedia:Notability (books) (or WP:BK for short). 1: Notability for author hasn't been solidly tested yet, and is debated on the talk page for his article. 2, 3, 4, 5, 7: No such claims made, much less cited. 6: Claim not made yet. Reviews at amazon only evidence the publisher's review plus individual customers, who don't cut the mustard. GRBerry 01:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Striver-cruft.--MONGO 09:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom—(Kepin)^{RING THE LIBERTY BELL} 12:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• delete one of the oldest, most prominent and most sold 9/11TM books, and you want to delete it? Sure, go ahead.--Striver 13:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I don't think this is sufficiently notable. My bar for notability of books is higher. --Aude (talk contribs as tagcloud) 14:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable. --Mmx1 15:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete--ChaplineRVine^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 17:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable. Pseudotumor 17:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete cruft factory, see also WP:NOT for why this shouldn't be on wikipedia--I-2-d2 17:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete the rubicon per nom--Tbeatty 17:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 22:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Seems to pass notability criteria--Pussy Galore 11:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Probably sockpuppet. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

^^^ One of a series of personal attacks made in bad faith by Arthur upon myself. Check the results of the checkuser which I requested be done against myself. "No malicous activity by this IP". Arthur simply likes likes to spuriously cast douby upon the identity of contributors, without reference to any evidence. --Pussy Galore 22:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

No (or very little, anyway) malicious activity done by the user we suspect you of having a commonality with, either. Misguided, yes. Malicious, no. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Crockspot 05:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or at best merge with Tin-foil hat --Geneb1955^Talk/_CVU 15:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was MERGE with Deutschland sucht den SuperStar and redirect to that article. Many of these Deutschland sucht den SuperStar contestants have been nominated separately. I am treating them as one group nomination, except and unless individual cases arise where this is not appropriate. The overall consensus for the group as a whole appears to be merge and redirect. Herostratus 09:25, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anke Wagner

Fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC I think this person hasn't importance in any country, also in Germany not (I know this because I'm living there) unimportant members of american idol should be also deleted - you can't argue with other unimportant people who aren't it worth to have an own place in wikipedia! And there isn’t important information who’s it worth to be merged!!! Yoda1893 14:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that American Idol and the other Versions of it surely AREN'T a major music competition!!! In a major music competition contest EXPERIENCED singers and not people who are NOTHING who are nothing without this competition. A major music competition has also TRADITION like the Eurovision Song Contest and so it DON'T pass WP:MUSIC for sure because he won or placed NEVER in a major music competition Yoda1893 15:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect to Deutschland sucht den Superstar as we did with American Idol and survivor contestants. They don't deserve their own page, but redirect helps people find the relevant article that has info about them. - Mgm|^(talk) 18:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per above. Kappa 06:43, 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 MERGE with Deutschland sucht den SuperStar and redirect to that article. Many of these Deutschland sucht den SuperStar contestants have been nominated separately. I am treating them as one group nomination, except and unless individual cases arise where this is not appropriate. The overall consensus for the group as a whole appears to be merge and redirect. Herostratus 09:26, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gunther Göbbel

Fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC I think this person hasn't importance in any country, also in Germany not (I know this because I'm living there) unimportant members of american idol should be also deleted - you can't argue with other unimportant people who aren't it worth to have an own place in wikipedia! And there isn’t important information who’s it worth to be merged!!! Yoda1893 14:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect to Deutschland sucht den Superstar as we did with American Idol and survivor contestants. They don't deserve their own page, but redirect helps people find the relevant article that has info about them. - Mgm|^(talk) 18:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per above. Kappa 06:44, 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 22:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Terror Timeline

Non notable 9/11 conspiracy theory book. Little content. Peephole 14:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, non-notable. Fails WP:NOT. Morton devonshire 17:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete should be speedy criteria under nonsense--IworkforNASA 19:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Published by a subsidiary of HarperCollins, has an Amazon sales rank of 22,247 [42], 38,200 Google hits [43]. In my opinion, easily clears the notability bar. --Hyperbole 21:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I wonder whether the proximity of the nomination to 9/11 might cause an unusual spike in the books sales rank. The book is only in 190 libraries [44] (note that there is another edition in one library). Doesn't seem to support a claim of notability. GabrielF 02:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep as per Hyperbole. wikipediatrix 02:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Article needs significant cleaning - but does meet notability per Hyperbole, as noted. ZZ 06:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Striver-cruft and his POV pushing.--MONGO 09:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom—(Kepin)^{RING THE LIBERTY BELL} 12:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep obvious keep. --Striver 13:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as no assertion of notability. Publisher is no indication of notability. --Mmx1 15:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete--ChaplineRVine^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 17:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable. Pseudotumor 17:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete cruft factory, see also WP:NOT for why this shouldn't be on wikipedia--I-2-d2 17:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. IS there an article on Strivercruft? --Tbeatty 17:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Mmx1. --Aude (talk contribs as tagcloud) 18:37, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not Notable Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 22:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Most certainly notable due to wide publication, and of interest to our users. Please do not attempt to censor this information! Badagnani 03:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Amazon's rank is now #2,750 in Books. Also, a documentary film has just been made using the book as its source: 9/11: Press for Truth. It will be embarrassing if people come to Wikipedia looking for information about the source of the film, and no article exists due to the efforts of certain editors here. Badagnani 03:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keeep obviously noteable.--Pussy Galore 11:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Probable sockpuppet.

^^^This comment was added by Arthur Rubin. I got so fed up with Arthurs persistent incivility, I actually requested a checkuser be done on myself. "No malicous activity from this IP". As yet, I'm still awaiting an apology.--Pussy Galore 22:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment no apology will be given. User Pussy Galore was blocked indef. While I am here, Delete per nom. JungleCat talk/contrib 13:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• No vote, except to note that google search is particularly bad for this title, as it should pick up a number of different pages about terrorism. The Amazon.com rank is disturbingly high, suggesting the 9/11 disinformation Truth Squad has developed a way of spoofing the rank. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:44, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Isn't that a conspiracy theory in itself?? Couldn't the more logical explanation be that there are simply a lot of conspiracy cranks out there with money to burn, who do indeed buy such books? wikipediatrix 23:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom GabrielF 02:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep There have been convincing reasons put forward about the book's current sales and use as the basis for a documentary, as well as the interest for this material for many readers of wikipedia. Any personal comments in this AfD about other users are a poor basis for argument and do not accord with CIVILITY. Such !votes should be discounted. A personal opinion as to the believability or otherwise of the subject is also an irrelevance from the requirement of NPOV. Tyrenius 05:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Crockspot 05:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Well-selling book, notable, mentioned by commentators on FoxNews/CNN/MSNBC and network news, reviewed in far too many leading newspapers and other periodicals to be considered not-notable. —ExplorerCDT 08:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I hate 9/11 "truth"cruft as much as the next man, but this book is undoubtedly notable in and of itself; its sales rankings prove that. In a year, if it has an Amazon ranking of like 100,000,000 then we can delete it. Batmanand | Talk 10:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Hyperbole --Guinnog 11:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I don't understand why anyone would want to censor this information. KEEP it, 67.190.61.6 12:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 13:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spam fritter

Nonnotable recipe, unsourced and probably unverifiable. Deprodded by author. NawlinWiki 14:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

The afd flag was removed by the same ip address. I haven't done anything further as I'm not sure if it should be reverted back, or a new templated added again. Marasmusine 14:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• • Reverted back to AFD template; if users want to readd their edits to body of article, they can. NawlinWiki 14:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't see any reason why this article should be deleted. As another user has noted on the article's talk page, it is just as valid as Apple Pie and many other things. The article is certainly of a low quality and should be improved, but it is not (referencing the above) (a) a recipe, nonnotable or otherwise, (b) unsourced - that can be fixed, or (c) probably unverifiable, see (b).
• Nothing worth keeping. Redirect to Spam (food). Angela. 15:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Spam (food). Notable only as a use of spam, not in itself. And it should mention the World War 2 association really. Bwithh 16:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Of course the article needs improvement, but its topic seems to be a real food, and the Wikipedia food section is full of similar articles about foodstuffs that are local favorites in various parts of the world. Speaking of Spam in particular, there's another article about spam musubi, for instance. Or would you like some deep-fried pizza instead? Dr.frog 00:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus for deletion, but those who wish to pursue merges or redirects are welcome to do so as normal. *edit* This has actually already been redirected, so there would seem to be a pretty unambiguous result for keeping the redirect. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 13:37, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Benjamin Martell

Fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC I think this person hasn't importance in any country, also in Germany not (I know this because I'm living there) unimportant members of american idol should be also deleted - you can't argue with other unimportant people who aren't it worth to have an own place in wikipedia! And there isn’t important information who’s it worth to be merged!!! Yoda1893 14:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)