Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 October 7

< October 6	October 8 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, so keep. Thanks/wangi 12:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

55 Public Square

Non-notable building, no references, non-encyclopedic Akradecki 00:18, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me why it's notable, otherwise delete. — riana_dzasta _{wreak havoc-damage report} 00:45, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I actually worked in that building years ago...and I barely remember it, because it really ISN'T notable. -Markeer 01:15, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Being a skyscraper of Cleveland, it has some notability. It also is located in the heart of the city, public square. 11kowrom 01:20, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean that because it is in Cleveland, a city of less than 500,000, is a skyscraper, and is located near the heart of the city, it is notable? What if the building was the seventeenth tallest, and near the heart of Hyderabad, with 6.1 million people? I highly doubt that anyone would claim notability just because of this. Picaroon9288 02:51, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Listed as the 17th tallest building in Cleveland by Emporis. Needs to be expanded, but it's notable. I fixed the Emporis link on the article. --Hús ö nd 01:30, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changed my stance to Strong keep per EurekaLott.--Hús ö nd 23:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Cleveland is currently the 39th most populous city in the US and your argument for notability is because it is the 17th tallest building in Cleveland. Some quick work with a calculator tells me that this argument just claimed notability for 663 random buildings in America (the 17 tallest in the top 39 cities). Most of these buildings, like this one, have no architectural or historical significance, they just happen to be built a bit taller than some other office buildings. -Markeer 04:09, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN building. 17th biggest in the city? Is that supposed to make it notable? TJ Spyke 01:40, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no assertion of notability. And being the seventeenth tallest building in the city is utterly unrelated to being encyclopedically notable. Picaroon9288 02:51, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. not notable by being the 17th tallest building. Possible redirect to Public Square. T REX_speak 04:04, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment about the 17th I would like to call to your attention that Cleveland is a city with high-rise buildings, and a 17th tallest building there is a landmark that would stand out in the vast majority of the cities in this world. When I came up with this 17th tallest building argument it was not my intention to assert the notability on the grounds of that particular number but in the fact that it's a big building in a city with big buildings.--Hús ö nd 04:17, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When I was there in July, only the Terminal Tower and Key Tower were the buildings that were most noticeable. 55 Public Square is 300 ft, 91m, so I'm not sure how many cities have buildings that tall, probably a lot. T REX_speak 05:07, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Although my stance is keep, I am also concerned that it lacks prominence in Cleveland. It's good that people who've seen the building are providing input.--Hús ö nd 05:12, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll ask my grandmother, she worked in Cleveland when there weren't as many skyscrapers and she might know if it is notable or not. T REX_speak 15:18, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "17th tallest building in Cleveland" rivals yesterday's "Alexa rank less than 500,000" in the self-defeating-notability-argument competition. Opabinia regalis 04:40, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read my comment above?--Hús ö nd 05:07, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"It's a big building in a city with big buildings" sounds like an argument for deletion to me. Opabinia regalis 05:15, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Sounds like you could assign yourself for a fun spree of deletions regarding New York City buildings.~~ :-) --Hús ö nd 05:18, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I take that back. No point in adding sarcasm to a serious discussion.--Hús ö nd 05:27, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a deletionist, I admit it :) Although buildings aren't the worst of the things we have unnecessary articles on. Opabinia regalis 05:56, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No claims to notability. --Improv 07:09, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Apart from being the site of the Arc Lamp, which is claimed to be the first electric streetlight in the world, do you mean? Uncle G 09:53, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment now this is actually a half-decent argument for notability but before I'd change my vote I'd want an argument why the first streetlight makes the building notable as opposed to it making the city of Cleveland notable (since streetlights are located, er, on the street). If McGinney's questions below regarding architectural uniqueness (or at least interest) could arrive at a real answer, I'd consider changing my vote based on that + it having first streetlight in front of it, but I think it NEEDS an argument for architectural or historical interest on it's own, not just because of what's on the sidewalk outside. -Markeer 13:33, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep and expand~~ Strong Keep and expand (See Eurekalott below) I'll deal with the objections in turn -

1. Non-notable building,

Firstly it can be seen in an architectural context of skyscraper building being built in the same year as the Seagram building. "The Seagram building (and virtually all large buildings of the time) was built of a steel frame" - this building is notable at least because according to emporis "The first 10 floors are framed in steel, the upper 12 floors are reinforced concrete." - I wonder why? (Fire code for the bottom floors? Structural rationale? Environmental control? Impact upon the urban environment - were old street patterns destroyed by the building) - What place does this building play in the developing work of Carson Lundin & Shaw's architecture - this article has interesting questions that could be addressed - It's just the article isn't doing it yet.

2. No references,

The emporis site is cited

3. Non-encyclopedic

There's plenty of buildings in the encyclopedia - so the principle of having this skyscraper in the encyclopedia presumably isn't the issue - The 1 sentence entry is, I suspect the source of the objection - I suggest we keep this AfD open and review in a week by which time hopefully the author will have expanded it. --Mcginnly | Natter 09:47, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I see no reason to keep this. Punkmorten 10:24, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: so far, the only additional information that I could find about it is that it was "One of the first International Style high-rises in Cleveland" [1] and that it has the number 55 printed on it (this could be the reason why it is referred by its address and not by its name). However, given that there is some information in the article, I'd rather support a merge than a deletion. Tizio, Caio, Sempronio 13:36, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

**I'd support this - particularly a creation of Carson Lundin & Shaw and then a merge of 55 Public Square into it and then 2 New York Plaza, Trust Company of Georgia Building, 4 New York Plaza, Citibank Building, Swan Street Building, Time Warner Building can all be accomodated under the one article.--Mcginnly | Natter 14:00, 7 October 2006 (UTC) (see eurekalott below)[reply]

- - An alternative target could be Public Square. Tizio, Caio, Sempronio 14:40, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

****Ah! apologies I thought Public Square was Public square - Maybe we should move Public Square to Public Square (Cleveland) to save similar confusions? --Mcginnly | Natter 14:44, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - There is no other article in the Wikipedia for the other squares with this name at the moment [2]. But yes, it is a little confusing, so a move could make sense. Tizio, Caio, Sempronio 14:55, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and I also like Markeer's rationale. -- Kicking222 14:22, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I created the article, and i've already voted keep. I'm not going to change my vote. However, it seems a good idea if in the Public Square article there could be a list of buildings located in it, one of those being 55 public square. 11kowrom 15:11, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Perhaps a major expansion and some notability beyond being the 17th tallest building in America's 39th most populous city would convince to vote keep (the replica street lamp doesn't do that), but my intuition tells me that other than a list of tenants which would be spammy, we've got just about all the decent information on the building. Cool3 15:16, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Has no encyclopedic value whatsoever; I don't care if it's the 17th tallest building in Cleveland.UberCryxic 17:06, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this doesn't sound like a notable building. JIP | Talk 17:19, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be a significant place in Cleveland, so merge with ~~Cleveland, Ohio~~. JYolkowski // talk 17:20, 7 October 2006 (UTC) Actually, Public Square might be a better choice of merge target. JYolkowski // talk 20:24, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The statistics for the building are misleading. When it was built in 1958, Cleveland was the 7th largest city in the U.S. In addition, 55 public square was the third tallest building in Cleveland when it was built. Hence, notability comes from its history. Lorty 17:27, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Public Square, duh. --- RockMFR 17:44, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Public Square. I'd say 500 ft is the cutoff for any building being included on the basis of its height, becuase that's what the World Almanac uses. Zagalejo 18:54, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete what possible encyclopedic value does this article have? "17th tallest building in Cleveland"?? is that suppose to suggest notability? Wikipediarul e s 2221 19:52, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Public Square. Not notable enough for its own article. Jcam 20:50, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand (it's only two days old, after all, and could be architecturally notable, like Lorty and Mcginnly have said,) or else Merge with Public Square or Downtown Cleveland. Confiteordeo 21:31, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Public Square. Actually I think 11kowrom's idea of listing the buildings of the plaza could work. Chipka 18:15, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Public Square. Were I more cynical, I'd suggest deleting Cleveland, Ohio as a nn city. Stev0 19:50, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- How is Cleveland non notable? 69.40.244.34 20:10, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Relax, it was a joke - See WP:FUN. regards --Mcginnly | Natter 20:33, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a notable example of an early International style skyscraper. I've rewritten the article to better reflect its notability. Here's some of what Eric Johannesen had to say about the building in his Cleveland Architecture 1876-1976 (the local architecture bible):

“

As the city's first downtown office building in twenty-five years, its first modern glass-sheathed tower, and its first tall reinforced concrete frame structure, the Illuminating Building was of more than passing interest in the Cleveland of the 1950s.

”

- EurekaLott 21:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article is still short, but not unreasonably so. It can still be merged, but now it also makes sense to leave it alone. Tizio, Caio, Sempronio 14:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Perhaps more history of the building could be added. Rhino131 15:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Public Square, a few of the tibits are worth keeping but there is no need for a whole article on this subject. Eluchil404 05:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. (A steel company in 6490 AD? That's sounds like some rather unimaginative fiction to me.) Grand master ka 07:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flanvel Steel Corporation

This fictitious company gets two - count 'em - two hits on Google (and they're both Wikipedia-related). It's from a book published by "EG Books" and the creator of the article is User:Egbooks, in direct violation of WP:USERNAME. Vanity, spam, fails every notability test. wikipediatrix 00:16, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax. ... discospinster _talk 00:40, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For the reasons given in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shaido Flanvel, delete. Uncle G 01:00, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Uncle G (the image needs to go too). Yomangani ^talk 01:13, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Hús ö nd 01:33, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. MER-C 04:42, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Emeraude 11:45, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Vanity. QuiteUnusual 12:30, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Uncle G.--thunderboltz ^(Deepu) 15:07, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. JIP | Talk 17:21, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vanity article. Jcam 20:51, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' clear vanity article. Wikipediarul e s 2221 21:07, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. —Khoi khoi 00:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:HOAX Jpe|ob 01:42, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 22:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

InfiltrationMod

Article doesn't pass WP:V, WP:RS or WP:SOFTWARE Whispering^(talk/c) 00:21, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I never really followed the UT mod scene, although I have heard of it. There's some links here [3][4][5], but so with so many mods without sources, this isn't near the top of my list to sort out. - Hahnch e n 00:38, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I could see where all these mods could have collective notability, so create a new article for UT mods, Unreal Tournament mods, and merge with no redirect. Shin'ou's TTV (Futaba|Masago|Kotobuki) 04:09, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Although this page might not be complete, it is not unverifiable nor lacking reliable sources. Link to the mod's page is available in the article. More reference might be added with time. This is a major mod in the UT mod history and for tactical shooters in general. This is well described in an article called "Best of Tactical Gaming: Infiltration" [6]. geogob 07:07, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I recently heard of it, and was glad to find a Wikipedia article just lying here waiting to inform me. --Joffeloff 14:38, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
however I think we can all agree that the article needs a but of rewriting, but not deletion.--Siredmond 15:11, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
as the writer of the first major revision of this page, I would be extremely sad to see it go. Infiltration was/is a great game and had its heyday, and a wikipedia page would be a great testament to its significance in the history of gaming. Keep Dilcoe
KEEP. Although it isn't as big as Half-Life Counter-Strike, Infiltration did have a pretty large following, especially in Germany. There is definitely not enough room to mention it on Unreal Tournament's own page. GoldDragon 04:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article gives its sources. It has enough information to be its own entry. Chip Unicorn 03:24, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has verifiable sources (if weak). Due to this game modification's vintage (it predates Wikipedia itself by two years) primary sources are unlikely to be available (I don't know of any printed games magazines which keeps their back issues online, for example.) Ctz 01:23, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Grand master ka 07:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Toba (computing)

Defunct software of no demonstrated notability; previous deletion discussion was not extensive and did not reach concensus. Delete --Peta 00:26, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no assertion of notability. Yomangani ^talk 00:36, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - appears to fail WP:SOFTWARE Akradecki 03:48, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Last released in 1999 and no longer maintained. No assertion of notability. EdJohnston 03:55, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails notability. Wasn't notable 7 years ago, certainly isn't now. QuiteUnusual 12:51, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per User:EdJohnston and User:QuiteUnusual. JIP | Talk 17:22, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above.UberCryxic 22:16, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. One of many failed Java tools and not the most notable one. Pavel Vozenilek 22:32, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. —Khoi khoi 00:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "The program has not been maintained..." That explains everything. Sr13 05:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Neo 05:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Dakota 03:00, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Harold Berman

No evidence of notability provided. --Peta 00:28, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, db-bio or db-context. wikipediatrix 00:29, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No evidence of notability? Says he's the executive director of the Jewish Federation, isn't that reasonably notable? It needs expansion, sure... — riana_dzasta _{wreak havoc-damage report} 00:47, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It says "The United States Jewish Federation", but the Wikilink doesn't mention the existence of any such entity, and a Google search brings only 21 hits. wikipediatrix 01:14, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Who knows the article doesn't metnion it. --Peta 00:53, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~OK then, delete. — riana_dzasta _{wreak havoc-damage report} 01:14, 7 October 2006 (UTC)~~[reply]

Weak keep, Jewish Federation of Greater Springfield seems reasonably notable (518 Ghits, which is not great, but not bad). — riana_dzasta _{wreak havoc-damage report} 04:16, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable lawyer. Also, this article has a very strange history...seems is started as a fictional character, and then the text was overwritten with the short stub bio on the attorney, see diff here: [7]. Akradecki 03:55, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Aye, says that there's also a Hey Arnold! character called Harold Berman. — riana_dzasta _{wreak havoc-damage report} 04:13, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added some text to the article. He is executive director of the Jewish Federation of Greater Springfield in Springfield, Massachusetts, which is a notable position with a notable charitable organization. He isn't just a garden-variety lawyer. I don't know if the reference to the United States Jewish Federation was a mistake or out-of-date information. He's also a former military musician. Eastmain 03:57, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looking at WP:BIO, and given his profession and activities, the relevant clause seems to be "The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person." So he would have to be noteworthy enough to have several different people publish work about him. I believe news articles might be included there. So the article has no info on that, and given the evidence, I would vote to delete. EdJohnston 04:07, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being the executive director of a charitable organization is not enough by itself to warrant having an article under WP:BIO. --Metropolitan90 08:19, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not seem to me have any notabilty other than being executive director of an organisation that is not notable enough to have a wiki entry. Emeraude 11:51, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The fact that no article exists about the Jewish Federation of Greater Springfield does not demonstrate that the gropup is not notable, simply that nobody has written an article about it. Perhaps it is time for someone to do so, starting with the article at http://www.ctjewishledger.com/articles/2006/10/05/west_mass/news/news07.txt -- Eastmain 02:40, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Sorry but the lack of articles means exactly that--not notable. Glendoremus 08:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The multiple news articles and other references are a strong argument in favor of notability. --Eastmain 02:42, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable guy who's director of a non-notable organization. Even if the organization was notable, I'd suggest he get included in that article.Glendoremus 08:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator, notability not established even after expansion, failing WP:BIO. RFerreira 01:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Grand master ka 07:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cliff Allen (country singer)

Reads like a press release, does not appear to meet WP:MUSIC. --Peta 00:30, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails notability tests...not even a single out yet. Akradecki 03:57, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 07:53, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete —Khoi khoi 00:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete looks like a vain attempt at advertising. Atrian 00:48, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete - Yomangani ^talk 01:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mallory Millett Danaher, Mallory Millett, Mallory Jones (redirect)

Appears to be a very minor actor. IMDB profile is limited [8], not much in google either [9] & [10] & [11] NMChico24 22:50, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Strongly recommend that Mallory Millett article be added to the nomination - see my comments below Bwithh 01:17, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response Done --NMChico24 01:31, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notability established by multiple roles in film, TV, Broadway, plus authored 2 books and has had multiple exhibitions as a photographer. Akradecki 23:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um... you realize that one of the key functions of afd is actually checking the claims the article makes, rather than not ony believing whatever the article says to be of encyclopedic notability just because its written but also adding further claims of imagined notability not mentioned in the article (Broadway??)? Bwithh 01:16, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. She seems to be notable, sort of, but the article as it stands is little more than a list of Mallorycruft. I suggest this article would have a much better chance of surviving if those interested in Danaher's career simply turned it into a one- or two-paragraph stub. --Aaron 23:13, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Why would we need a stub about someone who is "sort of" notable? --NMChico24 23:29, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Fails WP:BIO, failure of WP:V for much of article, WP:AUTO/WP:VAIN/WP:SPAM issue with resume abuse of Wikipedia. Aarticle creator is a single purpose account with Danaher's resume pasted into the user talk page[12]. This account also created a resume spam article here:Mallory Millett. The article subject is a very minor actress who has had various bit parts - only some of which were notable enough for IMDB (e.g. "Girl No.1" in the movie Tootsie). Theatre career details contain no claims about notability and no verification. Claims that she wrote two books are based on nothing - zero hits for the two book titles with her name (trying both Millett and Danaher) on google and amazon[13][14] [15][16][17][18]. Claims about photography career unverifiable as notable. Zero hits for searches for mallory/millet/danaher + any of the galleries listed [19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27]. (And I'm sorry but I have to say that the photos on the photo website linked in the article are quite nice but not believably of a professional gallery exhibition standard in terms of content or theme). I also ran a Factiva news and magazine database run - there were only a couple of hits. One hit was a LA Times profile about one of this Mallory's sisters - Kate Millet, a notable anti-psychiatry feminist author. The other was an insurance industry magazine obituary about Mallory's mother, who was one of the first female insurance agents (does not seem to be encyclopedically notable). In both articles, Mallory was only used as a secondary reference. Bwithh 01:16, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment For what its worth, she writes (and does photography) under the name of Mallory Jones, which is why you couldn't find any record of her works under the name of Millet or Danaher (one of them does show up at Amazon, which is why I added to the article. For what it's worth, I'm not a strong advocate of keeping it, I'm just an editor who likes to try to improve articles I come across while new page patrolling, rather than automatically deleting them. I'm a little bit bothered, though, by putting so much emphasis on Ghits...that's not even remotely a criteria for notability, although being a published author is. Akradecki 01:34, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While I understand the wariness about the google test, I would also emphasize that being a "published author" is not sufficient grounds in itself for encyclopedic notability. Also a listing on Amazon or an ISBN does not guarantee that a book is published by a legit publisher or even if it exists. (Its not that hard to get an ISBN or an Amazon listing... its probably even easier than getting on IMDB.) Bwithh 16:03, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I checked out the Mallory Jones photo site. Sorry again but this is just not believable professional photographic art - the website is very amateurish and the photos, while nice, are all of themes like sunset, sunrise, flowers and animals (e.g. "Ducks" - a set which includes several birds which are, well... not ducks) and vacation snaps ("Spring Break '06", "Montana Trip 2005"). She labels one set of quite standard sunset photos "Armageddon" and that's about as edgy as it gets. As for the book on Amazon[28], this appears to be an obscure, short 1970 children's book about a black restaurant owner's struggle with racism[29] but with no indication of notability. I just don't see any possibly of an article with substantive encyclopedic notability here. Bwithh 16:14, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete for Mallory Millett, weak delete for Mallory Millett Danaher. She fails WP:BIO and the Mallory Millett article is pointless. Not to mention the poor formatting. Ultra-Loser ^{Talk | BT sites} 04:53, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 00:48, 7 October 2006 (UTC)Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 00:48, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete minor actress with no significant roles; articles seem to have been created as a lame spam/promotional attempt. Opabinia regalis 04:44, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bwithh's research: these articles are promotional and the claims made in them are overblown. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:39, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. 33 unique Ghits, and nothing special there. She's pretty overwhelmingly not notable from what's in the article. Ohconfucius 09:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:56, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Providence Baptist College

An unaccredited "college". Fails notability. I get 558 yahoo hits for "Providence Baptist College," which includes wiki mirrors. Could be a diploma mill or could be a great school either way it lacks WP:V. This was proded for deletion in March, but was removed without comment.[30] Arbusto 00:48, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but without prejudice...come back when the college is accredited. Akradecki 04:00, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The JPS ^{talk to me} 12:12, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. —Khoi khoi 00:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Relisting. Arbusto 04:54, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Emeraude 10:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Accreditation is nowhere specified as a Wikipedia requirement for an article on a school. Website claims 150 present students. Edison 16:37, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sorry neither is the number of students. As per nom. Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 20:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, musician with no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 03:23, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delta 9 (British music group)

No indication that this group meets WP:MUSIC.--Peta 00:47, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Critical Mass (pressure group)

Removed prod on this, mainly because it has been an article for a long time, and the group seems like it might be notable. I can't tell quickly if the group really isn't notable, or if the article just isn't giving them a proper treatment in that area. Looking for community input. Original prod reason given was, "No assertion of anything other than local notability. No external verification apart from a cryptic free website. Reads like a rambling vanity article." Luna Santin 00:47, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - appears to be a non-notable group, one of countless such groups, and this one doesn't seem to have made a significant impact that would cause them to stand out and deserve an encyclopedia entry. Akradecki 04:08, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Can't see much more than self reference here. If there could be some indication of how they are notable in the outside world I would change my mind. JASpencer 06:53, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Query Is this group related to the bicycle-riding Critical Mass? While I've been in an exchange with editors of that article who have adamantly denied that their Critical Mass is some kind of eco-anarchist political or pressure group, I had a friend in London as a teenager who regularly went on Critical Mass bike rides in the belief that it was an edgy anarchist protest group which was contributing to the environmentalist/socialist movement by causing traffic obstructions and so pissing off motorists. Bwithh 16:25, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No, this group appears to be unrelated. The bicycling Critical Mass is not an organized group, and has no political motives. Zetawoof^(ζ) 00:14, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:03, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Mirror Project

No evidence that this project meets WP:WEB. --Peta 00:53, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable. Akradecki 04:08, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. MER-C 04:44, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as advertising. JIP | Talk 17:24, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per nom. -- Selmo ^(talk) 17:47, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as notable internet meme. Alexa rank is 261,000 which is good for a personal project with no publicity. This is a community that has been covered in multiple print/online sources over the years (see added links) and has spawned its own communities on Flickr, Tribe, etc. The article is very informal and should be cleaned up. --Dhartung | Talk 20:21, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as an internet meme it should have more then 3 Google results.

Delete per nom. GassyGuy 08:06, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 08:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of NHL season-by-season assist leaders

Listcruft. The article outright states that the NHL doesn't have an award for (or even honor) season assist leaders, as opposed to the goal-scoring and overall scoring leaders, so this isn't rather significant achievement (and most of the players posted on this usually won the scoring title anyway, so it's also redundant). Additionally, it should be stated that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 00:54, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Summary in 10 words: redundant, insignificant, not honored, WP:NOT indiscriminate information repository, listcruft, delete. Shin'ou's TTV (Futaba|Masago|Kotobuki) 03:51, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not encyclopedic. Akradecki 04:09, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anorak tendency listcruft of the most pointless kind. Delete doktorb _words^deeds 09:35, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LEAVE IT ALONE.

Here is a list of NHL records held by Wayne Gretzky that relate ONLY to assists.

Career Assists -- 1,962. 
Assists by a center -- 1,962. 
Assists-per-game average (300-or-more assists) -- 1.32. 
Overtime assists -- 15. 
Assists, including playoffs -- 2,222 (1,962 regular season, 260 playoff). 
------ 
Single Season 
Assists -- 163 in 1985-86 (80-game schedule). 
Assists by a center -- 163 in 1985-86. 
Assists per-game-average -- 2.04 in 1985-86. 
Assists, including playoffs -- 174 in 1985-86. 
------ 
Single Game 
Assists (tied) -- 7 (vs. Washington, Feb. 15, 1980; at Chicago, Dec. 11, 1985; vs. Quebec, Feb. 14, 1986). 
Assists, road game (tied) -- 7 at Chicago, Dec. 11, 1985. 
Assists by a player in first NHL season -- 7, vs. Washington, Feb. 15, 1980. 
------ 
Playoffs 
Single Year 
Assists -- 31 in 1988 (19 games). 
Single Series 
Assists in final series -- 10 in 1988 vs. Boston. 
Assists in one series, other than final (tied) -- 14 in 1985 conference finals vs. Chicago. 
Assists -- 6, April 9, 1987 vs. Los Angeles. 
Single Period 
Assists -- 3 (five times). 
------ 
All-Star Game 
(18 games) 
Assists, career -- 12. 
------

There are many other articles that actually deserve to be deleted. This is NOT one of them. Gee with all this extra information, maybe I'll ADD to the article in question. James Warner-Smith 20:07, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Delete, Listcruft - this is too much.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:21, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, agreed as listcruft. Atrian 00:47, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unnecessary listcruft. -- Chabuk 21:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom & others -- SkerHawx 18:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Glen 10:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Temperate forest survival

Odd how to, not encyclopedic, delete --Peta 00:56, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a how to guide. Looks like a possible copyvio, but I can't find where it comes from. Yomangani^talk 01:02, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Copyvio from here http://experts.about.com/e/t/te/Temperate_forest_survival.htm - Scottmsg 16:37, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - No way, the content there is taken straight from Wikipedia. Punkmorten 19:38, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – odd is the word. Fails WP:NOT, as Yomangani says. — riana_dzasta _{wreak havoc-damage report} 01:16, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above and WP:OR.--Hús ö nd 01:36, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It isn't even a good how to, being wrong on many points. Rmhermen 04:29, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Normally I'd suggest it for wikibooks (like previous survival guides) but this just too narrow. Gazpacho 04:33, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 04:47, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Absolute nonsense. Emeraude 11:55, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm surprised this has remained for over a year.--thunderboltz ^(Deepu) 15:13, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NOT a how to per Yomangani.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:23, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. —Khoi khoi 00:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Grand master ka 07:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shaido Flanvel and Calarite

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flanvel Steel Corporation.

These are hoaxes, some of which have lain here undetected since May 2006. They claim to be plot elements from a book entitled The Chronicles of Zalfos. Searching Amazon turns up no books by that or any similar title. Google Web turns up nothing, either. The articles link to a web page on a free web page site that tells us that the title is in fact The Serpent of Zalfos. Amazon doesn't have that, either, or indeed any books by M. Gremillion at all. Most tellingly, even the purported vanity press, Inkwater Press (a.k.a. First Books), that the web page claims publishes these books, comes back empty handed when asked for these titles.

All of the articles were created by Egbooks (talk · contribs), which is the same account name as used at the free web page site and also the initials of the purported author. Uncle G 00:58, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both - no evidence either of these exist (EG Books appears to be real but not this EG Books). Yomangani ^talk 01:11, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both – seems to be an inelaborate hoax. — riana_dzasta _{wreak havoc-damage report} 01:15, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Either a hoax or fiction so obscure its very existence cannot easily be determined. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:29, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both and block User:Egbooks under WP:USERNAME. wikipediatrix 15:14, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per nominator. JIP | Talk 17:24, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.UberCryxic 22:16, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. per above. —Khoi khoi 00:22, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Glen 10:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Breakpoint City

This webcomic, seen here had been tagged for months with the notability sign. Unsurprisingly on Wikipedia, it's a non notable webcomic, with no Alexa rank, and ghost town forums. "Breakpoint City" brings back less than 75 unique Googles, none of them from a reliable source. Does {{db-web}} extend this far? - Hahnch e n 01:18, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no reason this should be in an encyclopedia. Akradecki 04:10, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. MER-C 04:27, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.UberCryxic 17:08, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:24, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. abakharev 04:46, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NeoGAF

Renominating after the previous AFD failed to elicit any improvement since then. The article fails to assert its notability and also, as brought up in the previous debate, has absolutely no way to verify any of its statements. Axem Titanium 01:24, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. TJ Spyke 01:42, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Hello32020 02:32, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing here is verifiable. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:49, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — unreferenced, not verifiable, not notable, ... Thanks/wangi 15:16, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. --Aaron 18:26, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. wikipediatrix 18:26, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. —Khoi khoi 00:22, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Both per CSD G11. Naconkantari 04:30, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DoomSqueaks

DoomDaze is also nominated. One is a webcomic, the other a comic, neither seem to be comedic. The articles were written by the comic author User:Trev M.. I don't usually like to go purely by Google, it seems so lazy, but DoomDaze comes back with 7 and DoomSqueaks comes back with 15. I'm not sure if these fall under CSD, but I'm pretty sure this nom can be closed early. - Hahnch e n 01:27, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or Speedy under the new "spam" criterion if anyone is feeling adventurous). It's interesting to note that out of the 15 Google hits, 3 are the Wikipedia article(s), and most of the rest of them are forum usernames and such. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:43, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete under spam speedy delete criteria. Hello32020 02:32, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Turn to G11 at WP:VANITY for the latest deletion, speedy, and nominations. 24 hours a day. Shin'ou's TTV (Futaba|Masago|Kotobuki) 03:54, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. So tagged. MER-C 04:19, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Funalasi

Seems to be Star wars related fancruft. It also seems to have no relation to the title. Tarret 01:29, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:V. (A {{prod}} would have probably have sufficed here - this is the editor's only contribution and was made back in June). Yomangani ^talk 01:35, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not verifiable and wikipedia is not a database for fancruft. Hello32020 02:31, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "They are have been miths that there later embodiments of Sith Lords of the Past". Heavy. - Richfife 03:03, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't appear in CUSWE or Wookieepedia. -LtNOWIS 23:44, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Found nothing on it while searching (and it's likely anything truly Star Wars-related will have something out there, written by fans or a verifiable source.) JubalHarshaw 20:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 14:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Hellsing media

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. It provides no useful information to readers, as it as absolutely zero prose. Delete as listcruft and possibly fancruft. Axem Titanium 01:36, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this appears to be a section split off from the original article. Almost all articles on TV series and movies where there have been multiple releases of the media have a section exactly on this topic. As Hellsing is a very popular anime and manga series both in Japan and in the United States, there are all sorts of various releases of it, including all the volumes of the manga and various formats and versions of the TV series and movies. Thus, it was split into a second article to be more reader-friendly rather than covering the original article with this list-like information. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 03:47, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I created this page because of Wikipedia guidlines, not in spite of them. This comes straight from the WikiProject Anime and Manga page:

"Lists of episode titles, manga volumes, voice actors, theme songs, etc., should be placed towards the end of the article. If these lists take up a large amount of space, consider moving them to a separate page titled List of (series) media. Other list-type information (such as soundtracks that do not merit individual articles) should also be placed on this page. For an example implementation see Cowboy Bebop and List of Cowboy Bebop media."

It states that we should have a seperate page for the Hellsing media rather than having it take up all that room on the main page. So what's the problem? --- Hellspawn

Keep - Bad precedent to delete them. There's lots of similar lists all over Wikipedia that have stayed, this should be no different. Halo 15:01, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. -- — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 03:47, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, like a discography for an artist or an episode list for a series, it's a nice index of related material. It's hardly so broad as to be indiscriminate. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 17:49, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for all the reasons stated above. Many TV series articles have episode listings, and many manga series have chapter listings. I looked at Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and couldn't find anything regarding lists of media. Furthermore, this statement "it provides no useful information to readers, as it as absolutely zero prose." is pretty ridiculous. I know from browsing forums that many people find the list useful. And I don't think something needs to be prose to be useful. Adding prose to the list would simply bloat the article. Schrödinger 18:26, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per others, particular the note of this being bad precedent. - CNichols 18:52, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Dytpe 19:18, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, potentially useful information which isn't similarly collated elsewhere off-wiki. Sockatume 19:39, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Foe Pa

This article was previously deleted as a prod, and was recreated, which seems to mean someone disputes it; so I'm taking it to AfD. It claims notability by citing Yuri Lowenthal and Tara Platt as part of the original troupe, who have careers of note outside of this. However, it also claims Corey Blake, who is the creator of the article. Danny Lilithborne 01:48, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't delete Foe Pa! They are awesome and all of the actors are of note. You can also find the careers of Shelley Wenk, Zena Leigh and Aaron Lyons listed on imdb.com among other sites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.229.17.116 (talk • contribs)
Delete. Appears to fail Wikipedia:Notability (comedy) as it currently stands. --Aaron 05:13, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless/until the awesomeness and of-note-ness claimed for them is written up in independent sources. -- Hoary 05:37, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Wikipediarul e s 2221 21:08, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I believe it's too early for Foe Pa to have its own article, but I also believe it's too early to claim that they are not notable enough for Wikipedia. They seem like a local improv group who have just branched out to an internet show. I watched it, and it certainly has potential, but it's not yet at the point to have its own article. Since it just started this last week, it needs time to build an audience (how much of an audience did Homestar Runner have when it started?). Once it builds an audience and gets some outside sources talking about it, then I hope someone will be able to recreate this article. - Lex 03:47, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Anyone will be free to recreate the article again anytime they want. If, at that time, there's been any change to their notability, the new article will stand. --Aaron 15:42, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I was editing the original article to add the internet show info when it was deleted, which ended up re-posting/resurrecting it. I didn't originally create the article. Entertainment/comedy notability aside, the show's level of interactivity is unprecedented and unique on the Internet, which I think deserves note. And Lex, thank you for checking us out! --CoreyBlake 23:18, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm happy to see the notabiliy requirment I created is being used appropriately. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 11:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zuman Affair

del nonverifiable (original research?) based on some facts from Nuremberg trials. As written, the article cannot be deduced form its only reference. `'mikka (t) 05:09, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Either original research per nom or a phrase that has such limited use it does not require an article Peripitus (Talk) 12:18, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Relisting to get more opinions on the matter. -- tariqabjotu 02:58, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 20:28, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Darth Xio Jade

A SuperShadow created, non-canon character (i.e. hoax). Not even worth merging to a list somewhere. BryanG^(talk) 02:57, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I find it amazing that we don't apply the same criteria to fictional characters that we do to real people. Akradecki 04:20, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Valrith 04:35, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Darth Xio Jade apparently exists in some narrow fan-created Star Wars media, but certainly not worth notice. Google results. D e lta Tango | Talk 04:46, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. MER-C 04:52, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just because we have an article on a SW nut doesn't mean we need articles about his creations. Danny Lilithborne 06:22, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Puerile, vacuous, fancruft bollocks. Frankly, we should be deleting SuperShadow too. It's survived two AfDs [31][32]. However, neither the AfD discussions, nor the article itself, go anyway to show how the site meets WP:WEB or the person meets WP:BIO. Also, almost the entire article is original research. -- IslaySolomon 07:38, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Already deleted back in December. -LtNOWIS 23:46, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - hoax. —Khoi khoi 00:22, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rochester Wolfpack

Asserts notability, but it's a flag football team, for heaven's sake. Even a good flag football team, as this one appears to be, isn't notable. NawlinWiki 03:21, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Flag" for Delete - such amateur sports don't come close to notability for an encyclopedia. Akradecki 04:19, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Some of us are not American. WTF is a "flag" football team? Jcuk 19:16, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment normal football, but instead of tackling the guy/gal with the ball, you grab the flag that's hanging from their waist band. It's a safer version of the game. Akradecki 19:27, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First of all it's (Flag Football) sponsored by the NFL at many levels! Secondly the bulk of our players played NCAA college football, as have teams who compete competitively nation wide. Winning the longest game in USFTL "United States Flag & Touch Football League" history is why I believe it truly deserves retention. I see other teams & sports listed as well. Most cities across the USA have competitive teams & frankly after playing 4 years of Division I-AA College ball, Flag is more dangerous. Guys often suffer more injuries because you fly around full speed with no pads & defenders collide, linemen physically "strong arm" each other on full speed pass rushes and so on! So you can push for deletion, but one should respect the game & those who play it I guess. Save the girly touch and tennis lessons - It's physical. Just being honest and friendly, but if we need to add more flag football (how to play) detail about the game, then certainly we can do that too!

Delete nn, not a pro team Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 03:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN, a league might be worthy of a mention in an article on the subject. This is obscure and not encyclopedic in tone. Lord Rasputin 21:41, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was deleted as copyvio. --Robth^Talk 05:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Hyams

Nom & vote ...
Del: n-n - "146 of about 410 " GHits
--Jerzy•t 03:44, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Article is currently tagged as a copyvio, so probably should be processed through that means rather than here (two parallel processes can muck up the works). However, if the copyright issues can be resolved, keep, as subject is notable, both as an author published by a major publishing house and as a film producer. If article is deleted under the copyvio process, it should be able to be recreated as original text appropriate for Wikipedia. Akradecki 04:16, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Whether del or keep, two parallel processes are desirable despite the effort of keeping them from being mucked up (and perhaps i should have facilitated coordination, tho those closing either will see on the article page, and be aware of, the other):
  1. Copyvio processing of the individual article is a legal obligation of WP. It is also a Good Thing for WP in the long run, as part of a pattern of overall care re copyright issues. Both of these remain true even if AfD's lopsided presumption of retention results in keeping.
  2. Copyvio deletion is deletion w/o prejudice, while AfD deleteion is with prejudice & impedes re-creation if the copyvio issues are resolvable. (Which is in fact likely, altho not so certain that we can ignore the damage to WP's copyvio reputation that accepting the slipshod efforts to (irrelevantly) "grant permission" would do.) In light of the perhaps clueless and in any case ~~nasty~~ misbehaving IP, AfD deletion will get this sick puppy off our front door step more effectively than simple copyvio deletion.
--Jerzy•t 14:16, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, merely being published does not make one notable. Very little public discussion occurs about this author. He is simply not notable. Quatloo 13:42, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - There may be very little public discussion in the U.S., but in Canada and Israel it's a different matter, as a careful reading of internet resources shows. Once the copyvio issue is resolved, I'd be happy to provide the refs. Akradecki 17:28, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Further info: The anon in question is an attempted covert vandal, via talk-page personal attack, which IMB[iased]O impugns their judgement (e.g. re notability) -- even if generous editors fail to impeach their credibility (re identity and facts re PH).
--Jerzy•t 14:16, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(pro-Keep Comment: Article was originally approved as conforming to Wiki biographical content. If biographical content is found elsewhere, this would be entirely plausible. If tagged as a copyvio by a Wiki editor for this reason alone, issue should be resolved by a rewrite. Subject is known both as an author published by a professional pubishing house and film producer. Shraga Ben Ami 18:49, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This is the user's first edit; relabeled as non-vote.
  --Jerzy•t 03:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(pro-Keep Comment: If tagged as a copyvio issue should be resolved by advising total rewrite. Who determines the degree of fame required to be famous or "infamous?" Jon Balleti 19:02, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This is the user's first edit, in a flood of apparent meat-puppets sustained for 13 minutes; relabeled as non-vote.
  --Jerzy•t 03:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs about violence

Small, self-referential, plus a list that could grow a lot. Shin'ou's TTV (Futaba|Masago|Kotobuki) 04:07, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. That's a lot of songs - a complete list would be unmaintainable. Zetawoof^(ζ) 04:20, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - useless, unmaintainable list. MER-C 04:50, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete yet another needless "List of songs about randomly vague topic" article. Danny Lilithborne 06:21, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unmaintainable list, wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information -- IslaySolomon 07:03, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per IslaySolomon --Alex (Talk) 12:00, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above.UberCryxic 17:07, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this list could become crufty and POV if left be.-- danntm ^T _C 17:47, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agreeing with danntm robertvan1 18:09, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per IslaySolomon.--Hús ö nd 18:10, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above.--thunderboltz ^(Deepu) 18:16, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Someday there'll probably be an article called "List of songs that are songs" -- TheGreatLlama ^{(speak to the Llama!)} 18:54, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete i agree, the list would get out of hand and unmaintainable. Wikipediarul e s 2221 21:35, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pavel Vozenilek 22:33, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete —Khoi khoi 00:23, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Dakota 03:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blowing Great Guns:bootleg (album)

Also: White Heroes:bootleg (album). Per admission those are bootlegs, not officially released albums. ~ trialsanderrors 04:15, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MER-C 04:50, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- I dont like the idea of illegal junk on Wikipedia. Nwwaew(My talk page) 19:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Speedy deleted, Closing as per snowball, strong policy argument --Improv 07:08, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

House Made of Dawn (analysis)

Fails WP:OR Naconkantari 04:28, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete did someone post their term paper? Opabinia regalis 04:47, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. MER-C 04:49, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There seems to be some history behind this to do with mediation and having this article split from the one on the book itself. Having read it all, the bottom line is that this article as it currently stands isn't the sort of thing we do. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:02, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia: Interpret all rules. It can be easily verified, which is the reason for WP:OR. Further, since House Made of Dawn is very symbolic, it is essential. Further, visitors are made very aware by the title that the entry is original research.--HQCentral 05:40, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps the solution would be to add links (on the article about the book) to sites where literary scholars explain all the symbols in the novel? That said, that article is already replete with references to people who I presume are either scholars doing just that or people doing impressions of scholars doing just that. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:54, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:OR is a core policy of Wikipedia, whereas WP:DIAR is merely an essay. Though even the latter makes mention that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Orginal research essays do not belong here. Resolute 05:49, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. WP:IAR doesn't mean you get to post whatever you feel like. Danny Lilithborne 06:23, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedying as per snowball clause, strong policy argument --Improv 07:05, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FlowFighting

Contested prod, so bringing it to AfD. Yet another attempt by B-ham to advertise for RMAX and Scott Sonnon. The bulk of this entry seems like original research, with no indication of notability. fbb_fan 04:30, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is non-notable and total nonsense. Opabinia regalis 04:48, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Looking for an excuse to speedy it. MER-C 04:49, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reasonable way to speedy this article; the original PROD was removed by the author with dubious claims as-to notability but it is original research regarding a non-notable martial arts style. (aeropagitica) 07:20, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article reads like a marketing advertisement. /Blaxthos 12:11, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Everything looks great and others similar to this have been in existence for years without dispute such as PraMek; Scott Sonnon is an international champion of two different martial art combat sports, a USA National Team Coach, and hall of fame inductee whose thousands of students and gyms worldwide include implementation branchwide in US ARMY. /B-ham 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment. This AfD is about FlowFighting, not Scott Sonnon. And as has been mentioned to you in previous AfD discussions, it should not be assumed that the existence of other entries (that you regard as similar) sets any precedent or standard. Also, as has also been mentioned to you previously, it is considered proper AfD etiquette to indicate if you are the primary author of the article in question. fbb_fan 16:56, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an advert. Dekimasu 10:47, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 14:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mirabilis (band)

WP:BAND John Nagle 05:21, 7 October 2006 (UTC) Non-notable "almost famous" band. Only one CD in Gracenote; the limited edition self-titled 7" EP demo doesn't count. Wikipedia requires two CDs or other major notability. Amazon.com Sales Rank: #211,105 in Music. --John Nagle 05:30, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per WP:BAND:

Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable; note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such.

Summer Bowman and Dru Allen, based on their contributions to This Ascension and The Machine in the Garden easily meet this. Since it is a joint side project, a redirect is unsuitable. The article should stay. --Eyrian 05:45, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Eyrian, a joint side project of two reasonably well known musicians. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:30, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above PT ^(s-s-s-s) 19:09, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Eyrian. It seems to me that it meets the notability qualification per WP:BAND. - Lex 03:58, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have no opinion re: this article, but keeping it because two notable musicians confer notability is fallacious. One could still pick an article in which to house the information, such as is done with articles like Suri Holmes Cruise - a collaboration between two notable individuals if ever there was one. GassyGuy 07:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a project by two major figures within the US Ethereal Darkwave scene and is notable for that reason. Donnacha 11:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Time for a WP:SNOW speedy keep? PT ^(s-s-s-s) 17:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We may have a copyvio problem. The article is mostly copied from Encyclopedia Gothica. That's not a GFDL-licensed site. It says "Contributed by Summer Bowman" at the bottom, so it's self-promotion. This is probably a problem that can be fixed with more editing; the article has already started to diverge from the copied text. --John Nagle 18:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No copyvio, the text was contributed here by User:Tmitg - either Summer, Roger or both from The Machine in the Garden. Self-promotion is a different issue, but it doesn't look like it needs that much editing really. Donnacha 09:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Kalla

No evidence of notability, delete per wikipedia is not a memorial. --Peta 05:31, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MER-C 05:37, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Emeraude 12:01, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Sympathies to family, but Wikipedia, I'm afraid, isn't the place for a memorial. The JPS ^{talk to me} 12:10, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is still not a memorial. JIP | Talk 17:26, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I wish there was another way to deal with memorials other than AfD. It just seems so mean for a topic like that. And what would a member of his family think of a bunch of strangers judging the importance of his tragic death? I searched around for articles about him, in case there was any way to rewrite the article so it isn't a memorial, but all I found were articles about his death. If I could find some sources about his accomplishments I could salvage the article, but there's nothing. - Lex 04:16, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus/default keep. The addition of sources has removed the basis for Hoary's vote rationale; Capitalistroadster and Uncle G both suggest that the subject exhibits some level of noteworthiness. If expansion doesn't occur, this could be brought back to AfD after a few months. Xoloz 21:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth Pendar

Conspiracy theory about a person with no evidence of fact or notability.--Peta 05:33, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Could be a hoax. If it's true and worth saying, the editor could easily have explained. Even if it's not a hoax, I guess it's a troll: somebody's chuckling as he looks forward to watching the earnest Wikipedians fall over themselves "assuming good faith", etc. The amount of effort already expended on this AfD easily exceeds that spent on the article, so the hell with the article. -- Hoary 05:46, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete dot dot dot Danny Lilithborne 06:25, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V and WP:RS. This article has been on Wikipedia for a year and a half and apparently has never had a single source. The article does not indicate why either the subject's official activity or his alleged undercover activity would justify an article about him per WP:BIO. --Metropolitan90 08:17, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Change my recommendation to neutral in recognition of the fact that sources have since been added. --Metropolitan90 16:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If it helps, Kenneth W. Pendar is the author of 2 books, Adventure in Diplomacy: Our French Dilemma (ISBN 1932512004) and Adventure in Diplomacy (World War II) (ISBN 0306707748). The blurb for the first book claims that the author is a "Harvard librarian turned U.S. diplomat in French North Africa during WW2". Uncle G 08:56, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Kenneth Pendar is also mentioned in conjunction with the Office of Strategic Services, a search reveals, in Winks, Robin W. (1987). Cloak and Gown: Scholars in the Secret War, 1939-1961. New York: William Morrow. ISBN 0-688-07300-X., although that could be based solely upon Pendar's own book. Uncle G 09:01, 7 October 2006 (UTC)][reply]
- You can also find Pendar mentioned in David H. Lippman's World War 2 history here and here. Uncle G 09:08, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article currently appears well-referenced but the question is whether it can be expanded beyond a stub. A Google book search comes up with 80 references in 10 books including one in the Hinge of Fate by Winston Churchill. [33]

Apparently, he hosted Churchill and Roosevelt after the conference at Marrakesh. Capitalistroadster 01:37, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Bobet 10:07, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Youth Alive

Verification is my first concern. Google returns quite a few times the phrase is used, but not as the subject of a report by a reliable source. Google news has it lots of times in lists of organisations, or CVs, but not on it's own. If we cannot write an unbiased article due to a dearth of sources, we can't have an article. I'm also unconvinced as to this organization's signifigance. brenneman ^{L} 05:46, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not encyclopeadic, no verification, no evidence of notablity. "rallies can attract as many as 13000 people or more". What kind of statistic is that? (Answer: meaningless.) Emeraude 12:07, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Probably non-notable, reads like an advertisement. Nobody even links to them [34]. eaolson 14:30, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As far as the links go, I think you'll find lots more links to their old website at youthalive.org.au or various state sites (since it's more done state by state) than the new web site which only started earlier this year. I'm not sure how relevant that is anyway. Agreed that it did read like an advertisement, but Nath's edit today makes it read a lot better in my opinion. -Jasonb 08:50, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm probably biased because of my involvement with Youth Alive :) but I think it's notable because it is the largest interdenominational youth ministry network in Australia I believe (definately in Western Australia) - in Christian circles pretty much everyone at least knows about Youth Alive. I'd be happy to expand it with my knowledge (however I believe that might qualify as original research? Can someone clarify that?). -Jasonb 13:09, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This group puts on the largest youth oriented events across Australia every year. The article isn't up to standard but it's inclusion in wikipedia is notable. If this article is worthy of being deleted what about other Christian youth movements in Australia like Planetshakers? Nath85 04:12, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The article has had a fair bit of work on it now by myself and others. Nath85 23:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. Not clear that this group is notable. I think that it could be, but the article does not convince me. If the article is improved to fix this concern that my vote would change. Vegaswikian 22:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Recent changes to the article and the apparent notability of the subject matter seem to merit its inclusion into wikipedia. would like to see more sources though. Jaems 11:18, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to be notable. Pedia-I ^{Project St.Theres a} 00:29, 26 August 2025 UTC [refresh]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Dramatic Life (song)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Nehwyn 06:05, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - even the article acknowledges it's only a rumour. MER-C 06:16, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:SONG. The JPS ^{talk to me} 12:09, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Cool3 15:18, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pokémon Topaz

Fan-made Pokémon game Nehwyn 06:07, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable fancruft, 732 ghits. MER-C 06:15, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Deletachu, I choose you Danny Lilithborne 06:24, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-canon, non-notable game.--Chicbicyclist 06:47, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I considered prod2'ing it previously. Punkmorten 10:18, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fan games are usually not notable even when complete, and this one isn't even in beta yet! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:07, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fan-made games are generally not notable, and this one certainly isn't. JIP | Talk 17:27, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Wikipedia is not an advertising service. -- Selmo ^(talk) 17:49, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above.UberCryxic 22:17, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. It's not even consistent with the official games now. -Amarkov ^babble
Delete Pedia-I ^{Project Jesus} 00:29, 26 August 2025 UTC [refresh]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Culture of the Philippines - Yomangani ^talk 15:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Philippine Society

Article is extremely POV, has tons of original research, and generally not encylopedic Chicbicyclist 06:41, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Culture of the Philippines per American society. Danny Lilithborne 07:10, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV and OR. Redirect is ok too.--Hús ö nd 18:08, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete merging whatever can be salvaged to Culture of the Phillippines. Redirect is OK too. --Richard 07:05, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - Yomangani ^talk 15:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mvnforum

Fails to assert notability. Contested prod. MER-C 07:23, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google hits out the wazoo (3.6 million!) and while that by itself isn't reason enough to keep, looking through the first few pages of results shows it's widely used (for example, the official Puzzle Pirates forum uses it). Google Books shows it has a paragraph in Dan Woods' Open Source for the Enterprise: Managing Risks Reaping Rewards (O'Reilly, ISBN 0596101198) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:27, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Starblind, but the article needs work. - Lex 04:22, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Macabre (guild)

This online guild's only claim to notability is that "the majority of it is made up of Holywood [sic] actors". No sources are provided for this, of course, but the article asserts that "this fact will be the cover feature of an upcoming issue of Entertainment Weekly." Sure. Delete as non-notable online megalomania (WP:V, WP:RS, WP:WEB etc.). Contested PROD. Sandstein 07:31, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. --Merovingian ※ Talk 07:32, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Vain vanity in vain. Danny Lilithborne 07:46, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. MER-C 07:49, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeesh. -- Kicking222 14:31, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Dakota 03:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of video game animals

Previous AfD. The concept of this list is hopeless, as animals have been a staple of video games arguably since Donkey Kong; so either you add a "notable" disclaimer (and open up WP:NPOV issues) or the list becomes unmaintainable. Frankly, I'm baffled how it was voted a Keep so strongly the first time around, so I'm throwing in my own Delete vote. Danny Lilithborne 07:44, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The list is going to hopelessly impossible to maintain! It would reach the hundreds before it even got through time to the NES! And if you leave animals out, your inviting edit wars from people who say it should be included. The Kinslayer 11:10, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I agree, it's kind of baffling how it got so much support last time, but the standards have changed somewhat since. The fact that the code on the talk page is broken says something I think. I can't see any point of those page, as there's nothing like this for movies, or anything else. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 11:15, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as impossible to manage listcruft --Alex (Talk) 12:02, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --- RockMFR 17:48, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Completely unmaintainable. Resolute 21:49, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if only because of the spelling errors. I could accept if the intent were to cover notable characters, like Donkey Kong, Sonic, or even that Dragon, but heck, it's got a short list of the Pokemon on it. Sigh. That's just asking for trouble. FrozenPurpleCube 22:23, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - "if only because of the spelling errors"? If it has spelling errors, then fix them. That's no reason to delete an article. - Lex 04:30, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Kinbslayer said, this list is arbitrary and not maintianable.-- danntm ^T _C 22:32, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Much too broad a subject for a list, and wouldn't make a good category. Mango juice^talk 05:58, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, arbitrary and unmaintainable. Better served by junction of Category:Computer and video game characters and Category:Fictional animals. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 13:06, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Extremely weak keep I certainly wouldn't shed any tears if it was deleted, but I suppose it could be cleaned up and renamed "Animal protagonists in video games" or something similar. RobbieG 16:59, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm going with RobbieG's suggestion here. Rename and cleanup. Havok (T/C/c) 12:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename per RobbieG (I had originally expected to suggest deletion, but his comment makes sense). RFerreira 01:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Categorise. Up next, List of video game food items. Yum! Garrett^Talk 01:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Pizza time! Danny Lilithborne 01:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and swift Burn it with fiar. Unsalvageable listcruft. Many games have entire casts of animal characters which would populate this list. Also, protagonists wouldn't help too much either since this article wouldn't provide any more information than a hypothetical Category:Animal protagonists in video games. Axem Titanium 21:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete - Yomangani ^talk 22:35, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rob64

Delete as being NN. Nice article, Extremely interesting take on chart success, but unfortunately fails WP:MUSIC by our boring conventional definitions. Case precedence: debate on MB (singer). Ohconfucius 07:48, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Firstly, in WP:MUSIC, it is stated that an artist should release two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable). It fails to meet this criteria (and other criterias as well) as the artist in question has only released one album so far and the other two albums are just singles. Secondly, a google search provides almost no links to the subject in question (correct me if I am wrong about this). Lastly, the major problem with this article is that it is not verifiable, which is a key policy on Wikipedia. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 08:25, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, musician who has only released music online (which takes little effort and doesn't require anything you release to be thought of as good by anyone else), and yet, just over 800 google hits for the name. Two online charts aren't really a claim of notability, when one of them is a geocities website (www.geocities.com/pb_chart2003/), I couldn't find any mention of the other anywhere. - Bobet 10:05, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:03, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Annie Swanson

Previously kept at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Annie Swanson with not much input and before the discussion on pornography bio inclusion guidelines. According to IAFD this person appeared in four titles. Not listed on IMDB at all, no verifiable biographical data whatsoever, and actually not much evidence of unverifiable biographical data. It's pretty hard to verify anyhitng beyond her existence, which is, by common consent, not enough to allow a biography on Wikipedia. Guy 08:11, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't seem to pass either WP:BIO or the (not-yet-official) PORN BIO guidelines. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:21, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:BIO JASpencer 18:41, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. JDoorj a m Talk 18:16, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Tabercil 19:59, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:03, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Newsome

Non-notable and poorly written article --Sirex 98 08:12, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable TV contestant. MER-C 08:35, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Trivial per nom. 2005 08:53, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Trivia/fan cruft. The JPS ^{talk to me} 12:08, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for above reasons and also consider that the article was written by Stacygphib, it is the only article by Stacygphib and his wife's name is Stacy. Emeraude 12:14, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 08:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GoPets

GoPets doesnt appear to meet the WP:WEB notability standards required for listing in Wikipedia. Notability certainly isnt asserted in the artcle. In its current form therefore I suggest it should be deleted MidgleyDJ 08:31, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. (Note: alexa ~ 42000: [35]). MER-C 08:34, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Article is pretty well written. The interview with IGN makes it slightly more notable. The article could use more editing to keep it more NPOV. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chicbicyclist (talk • contribs) .
Weak Keep, per above,wouldn't say it's completely Non-notable, plus I wouldn't go by website alone just yet, Konami just released a game for the Nintendo DS called GoPets, Release Date: Fall 2006.--Sirex 98 10:29, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, removing weak keep from my opinion after reading more about GoPets I would say it is notable, the article has been wikified & clean up since the time it was tagged in July. --Sirex 98 09:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep due to Nintendo DS game by Konami. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:33, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to it being notable (it's on par to Neopets) and the game coming out. --pIrish 13:15, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The game is coming out, and there's an interview with IGN that makes it slightly more notable. The article is good, just needs screenshot of the normal GoPets logo... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Abby724 (talk • contribs) .
Keep. Why not make an attempt to fix the article before AfDing it? - Lex 04:36, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yes lets edit it rather than remove it —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Snoopyd (talk • contribs) .

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AquaZone

Doesnt appear to be a notable software by Wikipedia standards (WP:SOFTWARE), the website 1 doesnt seem notable WP:WEB either. It's notability certainly isnt asserted. Thoughts? MidgleyDJ 08:40, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AquaZone, created by 9003.inc, is a computer simulation that lets you raise, feed, care for and breed simulated tropical fish on your computer. Copy+paste from some site? No third-party sources provided --> unverifiable. Delete. MaxSem 17:34, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. --Neo 05:46, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Salvage liquidators

Appears to be non-notable spam or quasi-spam. No categories. Only internal link is incorrect (wrong type of liquidation). Only external link is a commercial site. Legis 09:01, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not quite spammy enough to be a speedy. MER-C 09:04, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete same as above. /Blaxthos 12:05, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Article doesn't even mention what exactly is a salvage liquidator.--Hús ö nd 18:04, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SPAM — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpeob (talk • contribs) 01:44, 8 October 2006
Delete per above. D e lta Tango | Talk 12:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus/default keep. The closeness of her defeat makes an exception to the typical candidate requirements seem at least somewhat reasonable; since definitive consensus isn't here, this is a "when in doubt, don't delete" case. Xoloz 21:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sal Brinton

Non-notable failed candidate doktorb _words^deeds 09:23, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:BIO. MER-C 09:29, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - she's done a lot more than fight Watford for the Lib Dems, and she very nearly won it too, with what looks like an above average swing. It's the rest of her carreer that counts, though. She looks to me like an up and coming member of what used to be called "the great and the good". BTLizard 11:23, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That may be true but you need to look at WP:BIO, which this non-notable failed candidate obviously falls down on...doktorb _words^deeds 08:00, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. All things she's done are of borderline notability. The JPS ^{talk to me} 12:07, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. These several borderline things add up to a weak establishment of notability in my book. Dekimasu 10:44, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - Yomangani ^talk 09:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Reale

Not convinced about the notability of the subject. Contested prod. MER-C 12:52, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep See his entry at IMDb. I;m not sure this is enough though. -Nv8200p talk 13:00, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep beyblade entry is notable. NormR 13:10, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User just got blocked for vandalism. MER-C 13:22, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Bobet 09:26, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, couldn't find him listed on the CBC website. a marginal actor at best. Let him make a name for himself first. Atrian 01:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, played in quite a few movies and series according to IMDB. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 13:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete IMDB doesn't seem to show he has a major role in any of the TV series or movies. or that any of the TV movies is "major". Although he has 14 roles listed (and 2 as "himself"), he doesn't seem to be particularly notable. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:03, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Hmmm. Maybe "Kai" is a major character in the Beyblade movies, but can anyone tell me if those are "real" (i.e., broadcast one of the major Canadian networks)? He has a major role in some of the "shorts", but I don't know if those are notable, either. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - Yomangani ^talk 09:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James K.A. Smith

Contested prod, reason was "This may not be the best-formatted article, as it is my first. However, I think that it is necessary because while Smith holds the title of Associate Professor, he is relatively a young scholar with an already impressive body of work. In addition, he is publishing increasingly recognized popular works in his field." I still don't feel the article is notable. MER-C 10:00, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup and Keep has books published for sale on Amazon. Danny Lilithborne 22:59, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Bobet 09:26, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While having books listed on Amazon.com is not by itself a proof of notability, the reviews for a book listed by Amazon can offer some insights as to the importance of an author. In this case, I think the reviews by Evangelicals Now and Christianity Today (which I think are print publications which put their articles online), together with the customer reviews at http://www.amazon.com/Introducing-Radical-Orthodoxy-Post-secular-Theology/dp/0801027357/sr=1-2/qid=1160271326/ref=sr_1_2/104-7248986-9204703?ie=UTF8&s=books add up to a demonstration of notability under the multiple reviews criterion. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 01:38, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- "Together with the customer reviews..." Are you kidding? -- Kicking222 19:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keepsix books in print that he's either authored or is one of two co-authors of, interviewed by Krista Tippit on that National Public Radio show, articles written for Christianity Today. -- he's notable enough for me. And he's not restricted to academic subjects that have no resonance for the wider community.Noroton 22:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Faraz Bhatti

This is a question as to whether a parliamentary candidate has sufficient notability when there is no other coverage. If there has been an AfD on this point about Parliamentary candidates, please point me to it. Is a parliamentary candidate inherently notable? JASpencer 21:03, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Bobet 09:26, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Stretford and Urmston was unwinnable for the Lib Dems in 2005 and Bhatti came a not very distinguished third. He's not a notable party figure and as an opposition councillor in Manchester he doesn't appear to have any specific responsibilities. BTLizard 10:57, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ~~Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steven Carleschi is comparable.~~ BTLizard 11:03, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my mistake. There was a comparable case recently, but it wasn't Carleschi. It was a Scottish candidate, though. BTLizard 11:07, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. QuiteUnusual 11:10, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Long precedent (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antonia Bance for one) that Parliamentary candidates are not notable, nor are local authority councillors automatically notable. Fys. Ta fys aym. 12:05, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Didn't you mean Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antonia Bance (second nomination)?

Yes, but I rarely say what I mean. It takes away all the surprise value. Fys. Ta fys aym. 13:14, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, doesn't establish notability. Dekimasu 10:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, already transwikied. Xoloz 21:39, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Buggins's turn

The Phrase category and its subcategories tend to attract articles of questionable worth. I'm listing three here in order to generate some discussion. The first of these is 'Buggins turn', a phrase which attracts a grand total of 12 Google hits[36]. It's completely non-notable, as well as being a dicdef and a (mild) attack on Gordon Brown. Nydas 09:41, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki per nom. MER-C 10:21, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The phrase is certainly notable and widely used in the UK, but I don't think it deserves an article. If MER-C is proposing to transwiki it to Wiktionary then I'll support that. Otherwise delete. BTLizard 10:47, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the phrase has already been transwikied. Also, I mispelled the 'buggins's turn' in the Google search; it gets 143 hits with the double s spelling.--Nydas 11:23, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it has been transwikied. Dekimasu 10:40, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it has been transwikied. BlueValour 22:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. We have 4 delete/1 merge/1 keep/1 comment which has arguments for the retention, so this is in discretion area. I am calling this a delete decision, although evidence is sufficient to show that it is not a neologism invented here on Wikipedia, there is no evidence that this law or phrase has any widespread or popular use. As such, I cannot see that sufficient evidence for the term's notability has been provided. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

McLurg's Law

The second of three phrase nominations I'm doing today. This is a 'law' referring to the bias of the UK media towards London, which gets 26 Ghits.[37] There is an article to be made about media bias in the United Kingdom; this isn't it. Nydas 09:52, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While I agree that a page on media bias regarding main centres (and not just in the UK) is a good idea, this article seems to be either a neologism or a term in extremely limited use and as such it doesn't really belong here. Grutness...wha? 10:38, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sure looks like a troll to me, but I have no familiarity with Journalism. Google shows only mirrored wiki content. /Blaxthos 12:03, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Half those hits are just Wiki mirrors. -Patstuart 12:10, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with news values. I've heard the "law" mentioned here in Australia in a journalism context, though not as "McLurg's Law", and with different proportions to those mentioned. "McLurg" might just be a journalism student who started the article. Or perhaps it was an editor who decided to convince some new underlings that he was particularly insightful. The concept may well deserve an article, but the name doesn't seem to be justified in recording. matturn 13:04, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It's unlikely that the name of the law has anything at all to do with Wikipedia editors, given that the documents mentioning the law, cited in the references section of the article, pre-date the very existence of Wikipedia by several years. Uncle G 15:31, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - True, the name does seem to appear in an independent article. On the other hand, there's not anything to indicate that the article cited is actually from 1994, other than the fact that the author put that in the references section. Dekimasu 10:38, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - ... and the other citations of that same article in various places on the World Wide Web that give the date as 1994, such as this. Whilst the article itself isn't dated, one can deduce that it must logically pre-date its addition to the catalogue in 1998 on the University's web site, which is still several years before the existence of Wikipedia. Uncle G 15:40, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with modifications if necessary. At least for a while. This is a touchy area, particularly for indexing. At least three index labels seem to apply to the entire area with plenty of conflict between "trade" and "academic" applications.
- News Values From a journalist or editors prospective - sifting through potential news stories and rejecting most based on low news value. Selecting only stories that offer high “news values” improves circulation/audience. Since the profit to the media comes from monetizing that circulation/audience base there is a strong motivation to select content that maximizes News Value.
- Gatekeeping - perhaps a broader, more academic topic.
- Journalism – Objectivity This an index entry applied to the main academic article used to create http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_value. Again, this may be broader in the “objectivity” sense but more narrow or more “professional/trade” in the “journalism” sense.
- To further complicate maters most of the content on the News Values page is from cognitive psychology/perception/mind-brain research, etc. The "street smart" application of which is called, in the news trade, "news value."Rick 16:24, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Imbesi's Law of the Conservation of Filth

Another non-notable 'law', this time with 28 Google hits.[38] The article freely admits that there are no sources for this adage, but claims that it is 'quoted extensively' in the context of environmental cleanups. I would suggest that little-used environmental jargon is beyond the scope of Wikipedia. Nydas 09:57, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Just a specific statement of the second law of thermodynamics. Nothing more. MER-C 10:28, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, more like a quotation then an article anyway --Sirex 98 11:04, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Dekimasu 10:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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