Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 November 4

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by JohnDBuell (talk | contribs) at 21:04, 4 November 2006 (adding Hill Middle School). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
< November 3 November 5 >

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 delete. Disregarding "all schools are inherently notable", the arguments for deletion are stronger than the arguments for keeping here. The school is verifiable - we know it exists - but nothing has been presented to show that it is notable. There is hardly any mergeable information here. --Coredesat 05:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thayer J. Hill Middle School

Thayer J. Hill Middle School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable middle school. Nominated on Prod but was removed only on grounds that the information is "verifiable" - it is, and in fact that's about the only information on the school's official "About Us" page (which could be seen as violation of copyright if it hadn't been rewritten with so many typos). Only claims to fame are known locally, if at all (and I doubt the fact that the school being its district's first middle school is widely known by residents of Naperville and Aurora, Illinois). Article doesn't even seem to meet any notability requirements of WP:SCHOOLS. --JohnDBuell 20:56, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No assertion of notability, and doesn't come close to passing WP:SCHOOLS (even though that is just a proposed guideline and I disagree with parts of it). BTW, new AFDs are supposed to go at the bottom of the page. TJ Spyke 21:03, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, sorry, I bypassed one of the templates inadvertently. --JohnDBuell 21:06, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hill is actually mentioned in the Naperville, Illinois article already (it's in Naperville, not Aurora), and it also garnered a mention in Public school systems in Aurora, Illinois#Indian Prairie School District 204. A mascot might be worth adding to the Naperville list (if mascots of the other schools in that article are added), but otherwise I don't think a merge is really necessary, the information is already there. --JohnDBuell 21:13, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One other thing - if a redirect is used pointing back to any other article as a result of this discussion, I would ask that such a redirect be placed at Thayer J. Hill Middle School, the school's full name, so as to disambiguate with any other schools called "Hill Middle School." --JohnDBuell 21:20, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Moved to article title suggested. Hill Middle School can become the disambiguation page when necessary. Unfocused 00:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation page is now done, as I noticed a Hill Middle School in a California school district. --JohnDBuell 02:39, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No notability, no assertion of anything important about this school. It has no notable alumni, has had no teams or clubs perform at a notable level or anything else that might confer notability. As observed by TJ, it doesn't even come close to passing the highly generous WP:SCHOOLS. JoshuaZ 23:38, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - WP:SCHOOLS is just a proposed guideline. In my opinion, all schools are notable. --Ineffable3000 23:48, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Do you have some reasoning or basis behind that claim? Simply asserting it doesn't give it any validity. JoshuaZ 23:59, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, asserting it does give it just as much validity as asserting the opposite opinion. Unfocused 09:20, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually no it doesn't. The default status for things is to be not-notable. It doesn't matter how much I assert that corner stores are notable. Unless I give some argument as to why that's true that assertion holds no water whatsoever. JoshuaZ 14:40, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • The default status for a random item is non-notable, however this isn't a random article, it's a school, which for many editors includes inherent notability due to its mission function, and impact on its attendees. Unfocused 20:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Which comes down to an assertion by fiat. I could make nearly identical arguments for hospitals (people are born there) graveyards (after death you spend eternity there (in some sense at least)) and many other institutions. Furthermore, schools are largely interchangeable and have little actual impact on many people for whom schools are holding pens until they got jobs or for whom there are benefit from schools but they in no way benefit much based on anything unique about that school. There is nothing which distinguishes this school from any others in that regard. Nothing in the article indicates that students here are having a terribly unique experience they wouldn't get at any other school. Schools as a whole are notable, that doesn't make each individual school notable. JoshuaZ 21:31, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. Completely verifiable and important to the community it serves. Nice start on the article thus far. Unfocused 00:56, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Sorry but this is bugging me. I don't see how a near-verbatim copy of information already online at the school's own "About Our School" page [1] can be considered a "nice start". Looks more like copyvio to me. And why should Wikipedia be reproducing information found on the pages that schools have set up about their own history all over the Web? --JohnDBuell 03:22, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Because there's nothing to suggest that the pages run by the schools themselves are or will remain a neutral source of information. Unfocused 05:51, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's unlikely Wikipedia will ever be much better for a simple reason - public schools keep a LOT of information, especially negative information, out of the hands of the press. They don't want to alarm their public with all of the things that really go on within the buildings (thefts are a good example). But, as I only know this first hand, it would be considered WP:OR.... --JohnDBuell 15:20, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Being important to the community it serves is not a reason to keep it. Corner stores are important to their communities as is every little park and day-care. Do you think we should keep all of them? JoshuaZ 00:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The busses that brings kids to school are incredibly important; why not write an article on every bus? Why not write an article on every teacher- teachers are surely important to the community, no? What about town halls, courtrooms, and hospitals? How are these any less important (or, more appropriately, how are schools any more notable)? -- Kicking222 01:17, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No indication it's noteworthy. Directory entry. Doesn't even meet WP:SCHOOLS' broad standards. Would be gone already if it were anything other than a school. Shimeru 01:11, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per, among other reasons, Shimeru's. If this were a hospital, or a residence with possible historical significance, or any other type of building (or institution), it would already be long gone. The school is already mentioned in appropriate articles, so a merge is unnecessary. -- Kicking222 01:14, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: We _could_ add EVERY public school in the United States, making Wikipedia a HUGE directory of schools (against WP:NOT) and boost the count of articles by an obscene number, against even Jimbo's wishes for quality over quantity. --JohnDBuell 02:33, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Kavadi carrier 04:47, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a non-notable school, devoid of any historical or cultural significance. Montco 06:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, JoshuaZ and Kicking222. Encyclopedia, not a near-infinite collection of content-free stubs. Hasn't anyone told the every-school-is-sacred crowd that this year's big thing is quality, not quantity ? Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:34, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article has ample room for expansion. We're not going to achieve our collective goal pf having articles for every school in the US if we don't work together. Alansohn 19:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WHOSE collective goal? I'll say it again - why should Wikipedia repeat those things that are already posted on school district websites across the United States and elsewhere? --JohnDBuell 20:20, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I repeat myself as well, and from this discussion, no less: Because there's nothing to suggest that the pages run by the schools themselves are or will remain a neutral source of information. Unfocused 20:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? I don't understand how that's relevant to John's question. Could you explain in more detail? JoshuaZ 02:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, it's a nice copy of information from several pages at hill.ipsd.org - they must be so proud. --JohnDBuell 14:48, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lack of notability, and copyright violation of district web pages aren't "valid arguments for deletion"? --JohnDBuell 23:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unless I am missing something, the current version of this article is not a copyvio. If it is, the correct place to list this is Wikipedia:Copyright problems, not AFD. Notability is not a criterion for deletion here. Silensor 23:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It may not be word for word but there's NOTHING within the article that isn't already found at hill.ipsd.org, as I've pointed out more than once. --JohnDBuell 00:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, notability a deletion criterion. Its used all the time in deletion discussions and is officially enshrined in the likes of WP:BIO, WP:CORP WP:MUSIC and WP:ANYTHINGTHATISNTAFRAKINSCHOOL. JoshuaZ 04:56, 9 November 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 00:40, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gents

Gents (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Not notable - Plus the fact that I can't find much verifiable info on this fraternity. WhisperToMe 04:41, 4 November 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. Please defer merge related discussion to article talk. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tabb Middle School

Tabb Middle School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-noteworthy middle school. Article is a directory entry, containing nothing but basic ___location and attendance data, and is unsupported by reliable outside sources. Prod removed without comment. Shimeru 00:07, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep or merge per WP:SCHOOLS and/or WP:LOCAL. More than a directory entry. Doesn't actually have any indication of the school's size, unfortunately. Kappa 00:22, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • What criterion of the ludicrously-over-inclusive WP:SCHOOLS does this school meet? It's a middle school less than 50 years old with no implied notability, no listed notable alumni (which, in and of itself, does not confirm a school's notability, anyway)... how can you !vote to keep based on that criteria? And how does WP:LOCAL support the existence of this article? Wouldn't it first support a merge into a school district or town article? -- Kicking222 01:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. I'm not going over the whole schools arguments again. Nominator, please read WP:POINT and consider the number of times a fight has been started by nominating a school, then connect the two. Unfocused 00:32, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • How in the hell can you claim this is a WP:POINT nomination without any rationale? -- Kicking222 01:10, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • How in the hell? I suggested nominator read WP:POINT to understand why nominating this might be a bad idea. Once aware of the fight that is likely to ensue, perhaps an attempt to either improve the article himself, or a try to bring it to the attention of the Wikiproject Schools is a better first course of action. This argument has been burning steadily for over two years that I've been here, and I see no reason to throw gasoline at the other side's campfire when you know for a fact that there are dozens of good faith contributors willing to address shortcomings in this particular class of articles. Nominating one article is not WP:POINT, but a streak of four, if continued much beyond that, certainly is, and looks like the start of a certain "war of attrition" tactic tried (unsuccessfully) about two years ago that many WP editors still have bitter memories of. I have no desire for anyone else to go through that type of experience here. Unfocused 03:57, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment It has been well established that high schools will never be deleted. In my experience, middle schools and lower have been deleted more often than kept. Resolute 04:48, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Do you remember when junior colleges were deleted far more often than kept, and high schools almost always deleted? I do. Do you remember when high schools were deleted far more often than kept, and primary schools always deleted? I do. It's been my observation that currently these are more often merged or kept, and I don't see good reason to think that's a bad thing. However, constantly arguing about it is definitely a bad thing. The simplest solution is laissez-faire wikipedia editing. Don't start wars and we won't be warring.Unfocused 06:02, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • One could just as easily argue that constantly arguing about process is worse. An AFD can be perfunctory and non-combative whatever the result. --Dhartung | Talk 06:44, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Except for the fact that your solution destroys content and alienates good faith editors simply because they have different interests than you, you could be right. Unfocused 01:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • Oh please. We all have areas of interest that aren't notable. I happen to enjoy palindromes for example. That doesn't mean I make biographies on palindromists who aren't otherwise notable or anything similar. Similarly, there are number theory topics which I find interesting but would clearly not deserve articles. "I am interested in X" is not an inclusion criterion, and no one should be "alienated" from it. Saying that the removal of unencyclopedic not-notable material "destroys content" misses the point. JoshuaZ 01:34, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Oh, please, indeed. How about searching Amazon for encyclopedia. You'll find 121,736 books there, some serious, some scholarly, because it's more than just Britannica. Some of us want Wikipedia to be inclusive of "encyclopedia of educational institutions", a perfectly fine and legitimate topic for encyclopedic coverage. Quite frankly, if you can create neutral, verifiable biographies of palindromists, I'd be happy to read them here. They've made a unique contribution to the English language. Unfocused 05:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No claim of notability. Schools do not all need Wikipedia articles. They may be mentioned in an article about the city.Edison 00:40, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Edison and per everything I said above. -- Kicking222 01:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Please take a look at the current version of the article. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 01:19, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I looked. Claims some extremely minor distinctions. Not notable. JChap2007 02:15, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep seems to assert notability now. Kavadi carrier 02:19, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per TruthbringerToronto, this is now a valid stub. I also have the impression that schools are generally granted a lower "threshhold of notability" --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 02:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Even with those minor assertions, its still not notable. TJ Spyke 02:46, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per TruthbringerToronto. The evidence of verifiability with sources in triplicate as well as minor assertions of notability make this a firm keep for me. Yamaguchi先生 04:19, 4 November 2006
  • Keep, after rewrite, most schools are notable. --Terence Ong (T | C) 04:47, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Claims to notability are not that great, even after recent edits. Resolute 04:48, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Very little distinction between this and most other schools of a similar level. Not notable. Valrith 05:21, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I found this: http://yorkcountyschools.org/students/attendanceZones.html - More verifiable information! More stuff to add to this article! WhisperToMe 05:26, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I'm not ready to give a pass to middle schools. The "honors" listings are not really unique to the school. --Dhartung | Talk 06:44, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep after the rewrite.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 07:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close This has the S word in the title so will never get consensus delete. It can go one of two ways: merge, or expand. Neither requires admin powers. Guy 10:58, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn IronDuke 19:36, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

&Delete Per Dhartung and others. Nothing about this school is notable. JoshuaZ 23:41, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Worthwhile? Debatable. Notable? Only if you hold as an article of faith that "all schools are notable". I went to at least one school which is not only not notable, it is pretty much unverifiable. Removing it harms the project? Proof by assertion; there is no demonstrable harm from not having somehting which is trivially easy to obtain on the internet from the original source. Precedent? Yes, utter intransigence from the Church of the Inherently Notable School has made it impossible to remove any school article, but that is not a good thing, it's a triumph of sheer blood-mindedness over numerous offered compromises. Clusters of non-editors? Nice ad-hominem, but baseless. Given that the article is going to be kept anyway, Rob, I really can't imagine why you bothered writing the above since it appears calculated solely to add fuel to the flames. Guy 20:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to use the analogy of a body, those who insist on deleting items in face of known and certain opposition are the "blood-minded" cutters. You already have the ability and community support to merge ALL of these articles into their parent school districts and localities until they become large enough to warrant breaking out. Just copy the whole article as written, paste it into the district article, then delete the stuff you don't like. That way the detail remains in the edit history of the district. Finally, go back and change the source article to a redirect. It's really quite simple. Yet you insist that deletion is the only solution you're willing to live with. From my side, it appears you're the one unwilling to compromise. Unfocused 20:57, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A request for calm please. That said, I take some issue with the claim that the deletions are caused by "clusters of non-editors" since some people (such as myself) who often argue for deletion of schools do so while helping to improve the school articles in question and have helped improve schools that we think should be kept. Furthermore, Rob's comment isn't very relevant in that this isn't a K-12 school but a middle school. As to Unfocused's comments, we don't have a strong consensus for that, and the merging of many school articles would create essentially directories in violation of WP:NOT and would simply duplicate information that can be generally found on the district website. JoshuaZ 21:39, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, "K-12 schools" is short for "elementary, middle, and/or high schools". It makes clear the reference to "school" doesn't include pre-school, after-school, home-school, grad school, night school or some other "school". It doesn't mean a school necessarily teaches every grade from K to 12, inclusive (it may just teach some). Some people use the term "grade school", but often that's used in a less inclusive manner. If there's a better/clearer term, you wish me to use, let me know. But AFAIK, middle schools are a subset of K-12 schools. And that was what that component of my comments, was referring to. There is the precedent I indicated. --Rob 22:58, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification. Inquiry, do you mean to say that you think that any kindergarten should be kept per current precedent? JoshuaZ 23:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's no precedent for K-only inclusion, and I expect such an article to be deleted normally. I'm not aware of a single perfect commonly used term that precisely identify those schools, which we have precedent for keeping. "K-12 school" is close, but not perfect. I suppose "1-12" would be more accurate, but I've never seen anybody use the term "1-12". For any term, there's probably extra qualifications needed. For instance, when I say "school", I normally mean "real, full-time, accredited, and verifiable", even if I don't say so. --Rob 23:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if this school wasn't in the USA, it would be deleted. --SandyDancer 19:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's accurate. At this point schools outside the US are kept about as often as schools within the US. JoshuaZ 20:28, 6 November 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, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 00:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Haverford Middle School

Haverford Middle School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-noteworthy middle school stub with no sources. Directory entry. Shimeru 00:10, 4 November 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 Article has been speedied by Naconkantari under G11 Dina 22:28, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gizmotron

Gizmotron (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article is not notable, with only 45 google hits, and no official website I can see. h2g2bob 00:10, 4 November 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, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 00:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thornton Friends School

Thornton Friends School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

NN school, no outside sources, directory entry. Article has existed in the same stub condition for nearly a year with no expansion -- lack of media sources indicates to me that none is possible. Shimeru 00:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep or merge to local. Please consider the number of times a fight has been started by nominating a school, then read WP:POINT. Wikipedia is better served if you submit the article to WP:SCH for improvement instead of nominating for deletion. Duration as a stub is not a valid reason for deletion. Unfocused 00:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
From Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Precedents:
"Schools are frequently nominated for deletion, but consensus is frequently not reached. Most of the approximately 270 school articles nominated for deletion in the eight months January to August, 2005, resulted in no consensus, with fewer than 15% actually deleted."'
--A. B. 01:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This is not a super-strong "keep" -- I'm just going by what I've seen before, not some deeper belief or ideology re: inclusion/deletion, etc.
Comment: If merged, the place to put the school would be in Silver Spring, Maryland#Education where the current sentence on private schools reads: "Notable private schools in the region include Yeshiva of Greater Washington, Torah School of Greater Washington, Our Lady of Good Counsel High School, and The Barrie School." I noticed two things about the sentence: red links and the word "notable". Will we have a similar conversation about those red-linked schools? And how do we merge in this school if that word "notable" is in there? If you delete the "notable" word and merge this school in, will someone later revert, re-inserting "notable" and dropping out this school? My suggestion is that if the decision is "merge", then put a note on the Silver Spring talk page. --A. B. 19:56, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to put a note on the Silver Spring talk page making local folks aware of this AfD; they may have some perspectives pro or con. --A. B. 19:59, 5 November 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, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 00:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Signal Hill Elementary School

Signal Hill Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

NN elementary school, no outside sources, directory entry. Shimeru 00:28, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I may have jumped the gun on this one. Striking out my comment pending further research. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 04:30, 4 November 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 00:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hossam Shaltout

Hossam Shaltout (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Wikipedia is not Wikinews. Gnews results limited a PR release and a very few reports regurgitating it, which doesn't rise above trivial reporting. If WP:BIO is the appropriate notability guideline, the subject doesn't meet it. I assume that this is the same Hossam Shaltout who previously sued the US govt, which was marginally better reported, but appears to sunk without leaving much trace. A redirect would have been the obvious solution, but the only thing linking to it - Human rights in post-Saddam Hussein Iraq - didn't seem like a good candidate. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:31, 4 November 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 reply hazy, try again. Please re-list seperately where it may be appropriate to do so. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:42, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CrossRoads Middle School

CrossRoads Middle School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Ballentine Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
H. E. Corley Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Harbison West Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Oak Pointe Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
River Springs Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

WP:OUTCOMES says that while high schools are kept, middle and elementary schools aren't. J-ſtanTalkContribs 04:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've deleted a few blue ribbon winners, as those seem to be notable. But the others (including CrossRoads m.s.) don't assert notability. J-ſtanTalkContribs 15:28, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ALL-per WP:OUTCOMES only high schools are kept TonyBallioni 04:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete almost all Except for Nursery Rd and Dutch Fork. Those two seem to have won some semi-notable award from the Dept of Educ, which may make them notable (although I'm not familiar enough with the blue ribbon award to know if it's rare enough that winning it confers some notability). If it isn't that important, then delete all. Bfigura (talk) 04:51, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep All Above and beyond the nominator's failure to review and improve the articles in clear violation of Wikipedia:Deletion Policy is the lumping together of articles for which many make clear and unmistakable claims of notability as they existed at the time this laundry list AfD was created. In the few minutes since I saw the AfD, several of the articles have had multiple reliable and verifiable sources added to provide the clearest possible demonstration of satisfaction of the Wikipedia:Notability standard. WP:OUTCOMES does NOT say that all elementary and middle school articles are deleted, and the use of this policy to justify deletion, without describing any violation of Wikipedia policy by these articles, is problematic in and of itself. Alansohn 05:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment So after reading Blue_Ribbon_Schools_Program, it seems 4% of the schools in the country wins the award. I personally don't think that establishes notability, but I imagine that's a personal opinion. (And unless I missed something, that's the only claim these schools have to notability). However, I do want to second Alansohn's remarks about WP:OUTCOMES being used as a reason to delete. It's fine to use OUTCOMES when trying to decide whether to AfD something (so long as it isn't the sole/primary reason for nomination), but it is not a good reason to delete. Instead, we should cite the underlying reason(s) why this class of articles (and this article in specific) should be deleted. --Bfigura (talk) 05:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Huh 173.217.255.207 (talk) 09:11, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. To be frank, I've never read or heard of WP:OUTCOMES until today, but lumping together a number of Blue Ribbon recipients with other schools is no way to achieve a consensus. Worse case scenario, they should be merged to their parent school district or locality! Silensor 05:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all and reference better WP:OUTCOMES isn't close to consensus, each article must be on its own merits. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 06:00, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Can someone explain to me what exactly is encyclopedic about listing every school in the country? It just seems like wikipedia is not the place for some of this info. Even if the schools have won awards is that a reason to have them here. Not arguing with anyone just honestly asking. I'm kind of caught between the opinion that we include way to many things in wikipedia or that we should just list everything. I mean if we are going to get rid of bands and artist because they are unsigned local acts with no major national press coverage, why should every school be listed? Ridernyc 06:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all- ruling schools of this size automatically notable. Period.JJJ999 08:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • speedy keep and relist What OUTCOMES says is that we usually delete such articles, unless they have individual merit. so lets consider the individual merit. OUTCOMES is in any event just a summary of what usually happens here, and I note that it has almost always been considered that Blue Ribbon schools are sufficiently distinctive for their quality to be considered important. I personally have my doubts, but checking back it shows the consensus has been that this is sufficient for notability. DGG (talk) 11:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with DGG. Speedy keep and relist individually. shoy 12:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I could live with that. Should we close this one and reopen them individually, or should we just put a relist template, rm and list the elementary schools individually? J-ſtanTalkContribs 15:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I is valliant--Victor falk 23:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by that? i said 02:58, 10 October 2007 (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. —Cryptic 11:09, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brazil as a possible emerging great power

Brazil as a possible emerging great power (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Where to start? Crystal-balling (especially with a title like that!), WP:OR, WP:V, duplicate material article - appears to be a re-creation of Brazil as an emerging superpower and Brazil as an emerging great power, both of which were deleted on 21 Oct. This article is a random collection of 'Brazil facts' all of which belong in the various Brazil articles. Xdamrtalk 01:04, 4 November 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 to delete. A merge could be discussed on the talk page, no need for afd. W.marsh 13:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of references to Lost in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

WP:OR Eryyut 01:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)— Eryyut (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 01:36, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And this one imposes greater requirements for citation: nearly every item included is referenced, or has the particular source within the entry. This is rightly called a "list of references" until some diligent editor takes the initiative and starts the conversion process into prose. Many similar articles have started their life in this fashion; being a long list is no reason for deletion-- it is nowhere near the length of List_of_cultural_references_to_Star_Wars-- but for editing and pruning. This should not be re-merged, as it was moved precisely because it had grown to such content; removing it entirely would make the section Lost_(TV_series)#Fandom_and_popular_culture balloon. For further info on Lists, See WP:LIST and Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists).--LeflymanTalk 19:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: I should also note that there's a whole Category:In_popular_culture.--LeflymanTalk 20:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but Merge: I think that this article should be cleaned up (as per other comments) and merged with Lost main page - another show article that incorporates references in pop culture is the Buffy the Vampire Slayer main site, if anyone wants to check it out (just got featured article status recently!). Riverbend 20:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's a long list, and it is not unusual to spin off a long list from the main article. Plenty of other lists just like this one too, and frankly, while I might not find it useful, someone else might. We don't have to emulate Britannica here. Robovski 00:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge. Wikipedia doesn't need original research list pages of pop culture references. It's bad enough that many episode articles of shows have insanely huge lists of pop culture references. Yes, shows and films have pop culture references: but it's not completely necessary to have a huge list of them. Keep the important ones only. RobJ1981 19:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Per Leflyman Mahahahaneapneap 20:48, 9 November 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 Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Voice cast in the Kingdom Hearts series

Voice cast in the Kingdom Hearts series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Delete or Merge WP:LC. Eryyut 01:15, 4 November 2006 (UTC)— Eryyut (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 01:38, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep (see change in vote below), WP:LC is not a policy or guideline, nor is it grounds for deletion. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 01:34, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • "LC is not a policy" is not an argument for inclusion, and AfD is not a vote. Why do you think this article belongs in Wikipedia? Please discuss the article instead of criticizing the nominator. — Haeleth Talk 12:57, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • In order to delete an article, an appropriate argument must be presented. Unless such a reason is given, it is by default kept. The person who wishes that an article be deleted must explain why he wants it to be deleted. Those who want it to stay do not need to explain why it should be kept until a valid argument for deletion is set out. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 13:21, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per Dark Shikari. Also, per Eryyut's obvious ignorance with deletion policies. Cbrown1023 02:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Nominator is not an expert on Wikipedia policies" is not an argument for inclusion, and AfD is not a vote. Why do you think this article belongs in Wikipedia? Please discuss the article instead of attacking the nominator. — Haeleth Talk 12:57, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Quoting someone implies that they said something. Cbrown1023 did not say "Nominator is not an expert on Wikipedia policies." In addition, the nominator is a clear SPA. If you are the one who created the SPA to nominate this article, please say so. We won't hold anything against you--just please, as a general statement, nominate AFD articles with your main account, not a sock. It makes things so much easier. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 13:23, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Kingdom Hearts series], I see no reason for it to have its own article. TJ

Spyke 02:57, 4 November 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. W.marsh 13:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Patient

The Patient (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non notable fictional character, text in the article is copied and pasted from the articles for the songs on the album on which the character appears, in addition, the article suffers of original research and is largely unsourced -Nightmare X 01:16, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 series of attacks arranged under a neologism. Fails pretty much every policy we have. Guy 11:14, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Political Crossdressing

Political Crossdressing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable neologism, with a whole 47 google hits. Contested prod. Amarkov babble 01:21, 4 November 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 00:59, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anzor Kikalishvili

Anzor Kikalishvili (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

"The supposed head of the supposed russian mafia..." does not cite sources, I tried to find them but failed. -Lapinmies 01:26, 4 November 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. --Daniel Olsen 03:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mercedes Montgomery

del nn vanity radio singer `'mikkanarxi 07:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article should not be deleted. I made it, not Mercedes Montgomery. She's well known in her realm of work. countryfan

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Ezeu 01:42, 4 November 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. -- Steel 16:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Celebrity Laser Eye Surgery Patients

List of Celebrity Laser Eye Surgery Patients (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Not encyclopedic or maintainable. -AED 01:55, 4 November 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 Merge to Minor characters in Seinfeld. - Yomanganitalk 17:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Babs Kramer

Fancruft, minor character on Seinfeld, only appears in 1 episode - Coasttocoast 02:09, 4 November 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 - Yomanganitalk 17:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thermophobic

Seems like a hoax; a Google of "thermophobic" and "orgasm" reveals a whopping 2 results. The article doesn't provide much more context to work with. Crystallina 02:19, 4 November 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 patent nonsense. Guy 11:25, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Siantonian Proof

Siantonian Proof (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

"created between 2nd and 3rd November 2006". Original research. Slac speak up! 03:04, 4 November 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 claims of notability, speedy deleted, violates WP:BLP User:Zoe|(talk) 04:48, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Milagro Cunningham

Milagro Cunningham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Old stub of a news event which wholly lacks context GilliamJF 03:46, 4 November 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  01:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Skeet (slang)

Unreferenced and rather unorganized collection of unrelated lewd slang definitions GilliamJF 19:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep. Clear evidence of use in 3 pop cultures, complete with where it can be found in recordings. It appears to me that a good faith attempt to document that usage is presented. This article needs attention, and a lot of trimming, but doesn't merit complete deletion. Unfocused 04:05, 4 November 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. --Daniel Olsen 03:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ageiola

Not notable, not verified, questionable point of view, and does not meet criteria for bio of living person--"speculated A.G is a former mid level drug dealer" Glendoremus 04:26, 3 November 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 13:40, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sanguinarium

Sanguinarium (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Fails notability and verifiability metaspheres 04:14, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was Speedy Delete as reposted material (previous AfD). --Daniel Olsen 03:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Temple of the Vampire

Temple of the Vampire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Fails notability, verifiability, and practically nothing about the organization can be substantiated due to its secrecy. In addition, much of the present article is copyvio. metaspheres 04:20, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

The Temple supposedly exists in the town of Lacey, although its presence there is doubtful (Guinn, 1996: 50-55). Given that the Temple is largely a mail-order organization like The Church of Satan, the lack of an official establishment is hardly a surprise; Lucas Martel, the founder of the Temple of the Vampire, was a member of LaVey's organization. Many contemporary vampires become involved with the Temple for a time, but few continue because they disagree with its brutal world-view and come to believe that it is little more than a money-making scam.
from Kenworth, David. Socio-Religious Beliefs and Nature of the Contemporary Vampire Subculture. Journal of Contemporary Religion; Oct2002, Vol. 17 Issue 3, p355-370. Lowerarchy 03:02, 9 November 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 Merge to Steve Jobs and delete. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Nicole

A (poorly titled) bio article on Steve Jobs' daughter, Lisa. Lisa does not seem to be a notable individual; IMO she does not meet the standards of WP:BIO on her own, and being related to Jobs is not in itself notable. Some will argue that the Apple Lisa was supposedly named after her, but as far as I can tell neither Apple Computer nor Jobs have ever confirmed that theory, always officially stating that the name is an acronym for "Local Integrated Software Architecture". Therefore, the only "notable" information about her can't actually be verified. It could be argued that the industry speculation about the origin of the name is itself somewhat notable, but that is already mentioned in the Apple Lisa article and doesn't merit a separate article for Lisa Brennan-Jobs. -Big Smooth 21:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good finds. Personally, I still don't think she meets the notability guidelines of WP:BIO as an author, but you're right, it's closer than I thought. -Big Smooth 21:32, 27 October 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, Chick Bowen 04:41, 4 November 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 13:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Next Era Wrestling

nn wrestling promotion. Only 58 Google hits. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:45, 4 November 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. --Daniel Olsen 03:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Darla Sawler

Darla Sawler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Apparent Hoax, talk page violates WP:BIO Risker 04:43, 4 November 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. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-18 08:19Z

Joie

Joie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

It is an article that has been made up using singers for the band members Lillygirl 08:38, 13 February 2007 (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. No third-party sources were provided verifying notability or claims, and no other suggestions for fixing the article were offered. The article can be recreated if and only if those issues can be addressed and conflict of interest can be avoided. --Coredesat 04:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Jewish Magazine

The Jewish Magazine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I declined a speedy deletion under G11 (advertising) for this article, and thought to bring it here for deletion discussion. This is a Canadian free magazine, formerly known as the Israeli Magazine, that has as it's key audience the Jewish community of Toronto. The article claims readership of 500,000 but I could not find sources. I abstain procedurally. Samir धर्म 04:48, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sources for that 500,000 readership is needed, and I believe it does not assert much notability. If sources are cited, then it will be a keep, if not during the discussion period, it will be a delete. --Terence Ong (T | C) 05:06, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The official site [7] estimates the readership at about a fifth of that, with only half of those actually physically reading the publication itself. Going on messages left on the talk page and a user's talk page this seems a likely case of WP:AUTO/WP:COI. Without any assertion of notability and verification this is a borderline speedy as advertising spam. -- IslaySolomon | talk 05:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Hi there, please feel free to delete the 500,000. That number reflects the readership worldwide. The Jewish mag site reflects canadian #'s only. Remove the readership number so it doesn't sound like a sales pitch...what is important is the fact that there is another jewish publication that is not being recognized. Thanks kindly! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.116.156.201 (talk • contribs) 06:01, 4 November 2006HH, 4 November 2006— Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.116.156.201 (talk • contribs) 06:34, 4 November 2006
  • Comment The real issue here is notability. Does the subject of this article meet Wikipedia's notability criteria? So far, there is not evidence that it does. If you are involved in this magazine and are trying to get it recognition then you are in absolutely the wrong place. "What Wikipedia is not" and WP:AUTO are both worth a read. -- IslaySolomon | talk 06:36, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Okay, i'm new at this....you are obviously well versed in the wikipedia ways. I am an advid user of wikipedia and saw toronto life and numerous other publications on this site....help me understand the difference here....off to bed...i'll look for your response in the morning. Good night. HH — Preceding unsigned comment added by Helen Hatzis (talk • contribs)
  • Commentcan we agree to leave this article up deleting the readership numbers...i thought it would be useful to add under the Canada Jews section as a link to other Jewish publications. That's it, that's all....no alterior motive. The bottom line is that it is a successful cool ethnic magazine in the Jewish community...there is no advertising motive...it's a free magazine. I made haste when adding it to wikipedia as an article. I use wikipedia as a resource often...I was not aware that regular folks like us could add info to the site, so I took the opportunity. Next time, I'll be sure to read through the instructions properly. Have a great day.--[[User:HH]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. -- Shuki 22:30, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless notability can be demonstrated. Highly likely NN. - crz crztalk 22:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abandon AfD The writer has used those magics words "I don't understand" - it simply isn't possible to judge the article until they have had time to work out what is needed in the article, by which time the AfD will be closed - this AfD is a waste of time. He has asked for help, yet I see no offers. As a relatively new user myself I'm not in a position to help but until someone has actually worked with the user to bring out the full potential there is no information on which to base a delete - this appears to me as yet another instance of Wikipedia failing treat new users appropriately and is a serious failing in the AfD procedure --Mike 18:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • AfD has nothing to do with the user who made the article, and editors should not feel bad if articles they wrote are brought to AfD. This AfD is about to the notability of the subject of this article, as found in the article, and in sources discovered during the AfD process. -- Samir धर्म 01:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commenthi there...I have located the magazine contact info from their website, please feel free to obtain all the pertinent info needed 416.987.3210 thank you. User:HH
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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  01:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eli Makowski

Eli Makowski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

No apparent notability with uncited claims; Google shows nothing -- Tim D 05:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per evidence on talk page. Appears not to have won any awards for his work. Kavadi carrier 06:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The google hits are pretty damning. The article doesn't mention the names of his "more controversial films" and a google search for "Eli Makowski" and "conspiracy" only turns up this article. -- IslaySolomon | talk 06:10, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I believe it to be a Hoax.There is no notable Eli Makowski, filmaker. Google returns only Wikipedia entries. I previously (Nov 1) tagged it as a probable Hoax, and the creator of the article has removed that tag. The Talk page contains a garbled plea to leave the page but no references in rebuttal of the Hoax claim. They also blanked from the article previously asserted films (no record of which seems to exist anywhere) . Pudgey 06:11, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - oh dear. A weaker hoax I have not seen. Moreschi 13:19, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am creator of the article originally on Eli Makowski. For those who do not know, Eli Makowski is an extremely popular filmmaker in Australia and won several awards. He has left the 'public eye' and as a result, has made no more new films or won more awards. After further correspondence I believe it to now be okay to delete and re-published if his career in filmmaking proceeds. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 155.143.0.230 (talk • contribs) 22:57, 4 November 2006.

May I ask why this article still hasn't been deleted?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.143.0.230 (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, and there are two reasons why. "All schools are inherently notable" arguments were disregarded because no reasons were given for why. Secondly, part of this is unverifiable. The article may be recreated if these issues are resolved. --Coredesat 04:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

St Louis Grammar School

St Louis Grammar School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Article about an elementary school. No evidence of notability. Valrith 05:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. No assertion of notability. The editor doesn't even state what country the school is in, let alone what city. Vote changed to Weak Keep It is not an elementary school. "Grammar School" only means elementary school in a few countries, such as the United States. I Googled after I made my vote: this is a private school in Kilkeel, Northern Ireland for students up to 18, so the equivalent of an American high school.[8] Apparently it's well over 50 years old so may qualify as notable under WP:SCHOOL --Charlene 05:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joshuaz, I simply use the criteria that I would expect to find the entry. All schools appear in numerous official guides, they appear on local information sites, they have a huge local audience, and they contain probably the biggest user group for Wikipedia. The only reason I can see for not having schools, is their huge number, but there is a clear policy (WP:?) that says this is not a reason to prevent entries. --Mike 20:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Having a huge local audience isn't very relevant. So does every car dealership and movie theater, nor is having a large user group an assertion of being noteworthy. JoshuaZ 04:54, 9 November 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. --Daniel Olsen 03:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Darrell Bedford

Darrell Bedford (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Delete, fails WP:BIO Deproded by serial deproder Kappa, so have to turn it into a AFD nom Brimba 05:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This seems very much like an attack on Kappa. Please don't imply that another user's opinion is less valuable based on how he chooses to improve Wikipedia. We all have our preferred areas to edit. Unfocused 06:33, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, Kappa's recent activity (as far as a quick look at his/her contributions can tell me) is heavily concentrated in deprodding articles, often without comment beyond "deprod". While not every article marked with {{prod}} deserves deletion, removing the tag without supplied reasoning isn't the most helpful behavior. Zetawoof(ζ) 11:21, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And others recent activities have been directed at AfD's. So? WP:AGF. Address the article, not the editor. Edison 03:13, 5 November 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 13:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bonkum

Bonkum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User says he wants to "Trying to craft this into an article about unique furniture that can be used for health and sexual enhancement." Keep or Delete? No vote. -WarthogDemon 05:44, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:CSD: Blatant advertising. Pages which exclusively promote a company, product, group or service and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Note that simply having a company, product, group or service as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion: an article that is blatant advertising should have inappropriate content as well. MER-C 04:26, 5 November 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. W.marsh 13:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yuvashakti

Yuvashakti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is a sub-article about a religious organization, which does not have any reliable sources, and does not have any assertion of notability. Multiple attempts to merge/redirect the subject to a more appropriate ___location have been reverted by someone with a conflict of interest, so I am proceeding to AfD. Recommend speedy deletion, otherwise they're just going to trot in another herd of sockpuppets, like they did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sahaja Yoga International. --NovaSTL 06:06, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - bad faith nom. novaSTL has been persistantly pushing his POV in continuously labeling the organisation cult-like, not participating in discussion, and bad-faith attitude (see comment above for example). The article is a stub, more content is forthcoming, and yet, well aware of this fact, here we are. Sfacets 07:21, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
note: A reference has been added. Sfacets 11:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not a bad faith nom. The article has been around for a year, without any valid sources. That's plenty of time to allow for expansion, especially considering that there's been a merge template on it for the last few weeks. I would also point out that Sfacets (talk · contribs) has previously been blocked for disruption [10], and has a long history of reverts and false personal attacks. --NovaSTL 07:33, 4 November 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. --Daniel Olsen 03:59, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Videos Featured on Toonami Jetstream (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. It's a simple matter to check which videos are on the website. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 06:36, 4 November 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 13:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kurd-Dagh

Kurd-Dagh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Vanity (def #1) article. Unsourced, unreferenced and overall unhelpful. Article focuses more about controversies than the geological data. The name itself is a subject of controversy apperantly.

As Geography of Turkey article points out, south eastern turkey is a very mountainous area and I feel better to cover the mountain range (Taurus Mountains) in a single article as the individual mountains don't seem to have stand alone notability.

--Cat out 06:34, 4 November 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 as an advertisement. An article being the "only article on the subject" does not justify it being an advertisement. --Coredesat 04:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EMSN

EMSN (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Article was marked as {{db-spam}} and was deleted, but the original author contests its deletion, and so I am nominating this article for AfD, with no vote on my part. Tangotango 06:52, 4 November 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. W.marsh 01:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aplus.Net

Aplus.Net (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article was deleted back in August per a previous AfD nomination. The article was recently recreated, but the content has changed. The author opposes its speedy deletion, so I am putting it up on AfD for reconsideration. Tangotango 07:01, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep seems to meet WP:CORP now. Has been mentioned multiple times in independent reliable sources. Kavadi carrier 07:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree the company may meet WP:CORP, however:
    • the article is clearly Wikipedia:Conflict of interest it has been created and predominately written by the company sockpuppets: USER:216.55.131.77 and USER:Dnate76
    • This is not a company that anyone other than itself has seen fit to add.
    • Checking the history list, this article was recreated less than a week after the last WP:AFD (with only a trivial name change)
    • Neither of these sockpuppets have made other useful changes to other parts of the wikipedia
    • the sockpuppets have however unnecessarily been wikilinking it around as in: [11] [12] [13] [14] (presumably as a form of cheap advertising)
    • then they renamed it with the comment '(moved Aplus.net to Aplus.Net: Company name was capitalized incorrectly.)' back to the original article. It all seems a bit slimey to me. Personally, I've got nothing against companies in general, but in this case, I'm unclear what the advantage is for the wikipedia for having this article, and allowing this kind of stuff.WolfKeeper 17:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt. Absolutely not. See WP:SPAM, "Advertisements masquerading as articles". There is nothing substantive or encyclopedic here, just a laundry list of accomplishments and awards. Look at the author's contributions - they are all either working on this article, or spamming other articles with links to this one. --Aguerriero (talk) 17:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would say KEEP. This simply an informational page about a company that is large enough and has created enough notable products to be featured in Wikipedia. The fact that the company has been featured in such large publications means that they are doing something important that will benefit the Wikipedia community.
I would disagree with the “Conflict of Interest” point. I do not see exactly what part of that policy the articles breaks. I am assuming some users may think this is self promotion but the wikipedia policy is
Examples of these types (self promotion) of material include:
1. Links that appear to promote products by pointing to obscure or not particularly relevant commercial sites (commercial links).
2. Links that appear to promote otherwise obscure individuals by pointing to their personal pages (vanity links).
3. Biographical material that does not significantly add to the clarity or quality of the article.

I do not think the article breaks any of the above rules.
This is the first and only edit for Wiki-enforcer (talk · contribs) - isn't that weird? --Aguerriero (talk) 20:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It cleary states in the Wikipedia policy page that
When an article on an otherwise encyclopedic topic has the tone of an advertisement, the article can often be salvaged by rewriting it in a neutral point of view.
to me this article is written in very neutral point of view. Wiki-enforcer
there are some curious omissions however, it strangely doesn't cover the sleezoid google bombing techniques that push the company way up in the google ranking, described here: [15][16][17] Under the wikipedia rules, this would clearly need much more coverage in the article, including detailed description of how this works and why this means that the very high google ranking may be unjustified for the company. It's unclear that the article would end up in a positive light at the end of the day for the company.WolfKeeper 21:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do believe the artcile has encyclopedic value. The company is in the top 25 web hosts in the world http://www.webhosting.info/webhosts/tophosts/Country/US?pi=2&ob=RANK&oo=ASC. There are many smaller web hosting companies listed on Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Web_hosting .
apparently another decisive opinion by Wiki-enforcer WolfKeeper 21:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wiki-enforcer (talk · contribs) is a likely sock. Only 2 edits, both were to participate in this debate. Ohconfucius 03:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as spam. This is one of the better written advertisements I've seen, but it remains nothing more than an advertisement none the less. Few of the links under "recognition" actually talk about the company itself. The rest are included because an employee of the company got a one line question/answer in an unrelated article. The entire section is basically nothing more than name dropping in an attempt to add legitimacy. The blatant linkspamming does not help their cause at all. Resolute 00:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Notability seems to be better established, but I still don't see this meeting WP:CORP. The citations provided are rather trivial - just a one sentence blurb from the marketing director. In order to keep, I would like to see articles featuring the company and their contributions to the web hosting industry. With all the awards that they claim on their website, I would think this would be easy. I tried searching CNET, but found no mention of the Editor's Choice award and didn't go further than that. Keep if the awards can be verified. I'd also support Speedy Delete under G11 unless it is substanstially rewritten in a NPOV manner since the article seems rather spammish to me. Leuko 00:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete:Agree with Resolute and Wickethewok. The page may be able to be encyclopedic, but certainly not in its current incarnation (or last). Unless a neutral editor completely redoes the article, it needs to be removed, IMHO. --Benwildeboer 02:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as WP:SPAM. This is all very distasteful. Clearly the author's intentions are dishonest per research by WolfKeeper. It's a possible that the company could conceivably meet WP:CORP, but the author no favours by using tactics like what we have witnessed. Dnate76 (talk · contribs) has made no other meaningful edits apart from this article and associated spam links. The subject's website ranks a healthy 1,105th, and the Tophost award checks out. Curiously tophost ranks 22,111th (lower than the subject), As pointed out aplus consolidates hits belonging to many of its clients by googlebombing. pcmag (1 & 2) and cnet searches all reveal zerohits other than directory listings. the links to about.com and Hostreview are but infomercials, as is the Tophost article, which is completely written by the company's PR department. Also curious for someone who appears to be so well acquainted with wiki's policy on speedy deletion, the author is nevertheless guilty of WP:NPOV, using weasel words: I take issue with the unjustified use of terms such as "regularly profiled" and "drew national attention" when many of these articles linked to are clearly "trivial" (ie only mention the company fleetingly or where one of its officers is merely supplying a quote). I find that even the use of the word "Recognition" as a paragraph title is NPOV. "Ranked by" doesn't mean squat if you're not ranked #1 in a basket of important criteria, judged againts solid competition: so what if it's ranked by Netcraft? What is more, the Tier 1 Research ranking is unimpressive. I strongly suspect if we re-wrote the article and added references to the google bombing (which although are from blogs, are objective and easily reperformed), the author will beg us to delete the article ;-) Ohconfucius 03:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Amusingly, I did track down the CNET 'favourite web host' award[18] and it is sponsored by the top two recipients of the award. :-) It wasn't clear what they did to deserve it, but I speculate that the award goes to the CNET's favourite web hoster, which I would guess would be the ones that pay them the most money.WolfKeeper 05:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Not a dumb marketing move - create a category you know you can win, and sponsor a prize for it. The CNet site says the winning criteria are "based on how many visits per week they get from CNET Internet Services". Some expert can probably explain how they managed to click-bomb or link bomb CNET for 322 consecutive weeks. Ohconfucius 13:24, 8 November 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 Merge to Westlake High School (Texas). Yomanganitalk 00:24, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Westlake Featherduster

Fails AfD precedents and more or less fails WP:V. The only verifiable part of the article is part of the list of awards and the "founded in" date. Is that really an encyclopedic article or just a school newspaper's homepage? Seidenstud 07:58, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added content, no longer appropriate for speedy under A-1. Unfocused 08:51, 4 November 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. Clearly a consensus to keep (although I see the scenario playing out much as predicted by Bishonen). The "mistakenly created" argument doesn't hold much water, the nominator has edited the mistake hundreds of times and clearly believes there is case for an Erich Heller article, just doesn't like this one. Yomanganitalk 00:58, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Erich Heller

Erich Heller (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Deletion is requested under CSD G7. The cited rule has two conditions: both are met. The second condition, concerning the original post having been made in error, is certified by the user in question on the article’s discussion page. The fulfillment of the first condition is borne out by investigation of the article’s history. Some users, including User:Charles Matthews, and others, made objections to the proposed deletion on grounds extraneous to the rule. Those objections, as well as being predicated on false assumptions and unsubstantiated defamatory remarks, are irrelevant to the matter at hand.

The administrator who suggested the AfD process wrote here the opinion that ‘There is a case for speedy’ (3 November 2006, 09:05 UTC). — Prof02 07:40, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This is a page with a long history. To assert now, after half a year, that the original page was mistakenly created, beggars belief. We do not allow wikilawyering about speedy deletion to trump the basic principle that content once submitted should not be 'revoked' by an author, who finds that editing here is collective. CSD G7 should not be a loaded gun that any page's original author can point at the community, as a threat, in order to get leverage on the page's content. WP:OWN applies here. Charles Matthews 09:28, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Charles Matthews. 1ne 09:32, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nominator's amusing reasoning doesn't help his case, and has been amply answered by Charles Matthews on the talk page of the article and on this page. So that leaves us with only this professor's notability according to our academic biography guidelines to consider. However, any doubts that this person is notable are soundly demolished by pages like this obituary from the New York Times, the 13 boxes of papers he wrote, and the many other books he wrote which is surely more than the output of many academics. Hence keep. Kavadi carrier 10:21, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the above, it seems completely untenable to suggest an article created a long time ago with over 500 edits by the nominator was done "in error". The actual history of the article appears revealing edit summary such as "(art split off and moved from userpage without user's approval or consent, in an act of hidden vandalism)" and it's original userfication do support the suggestion that the nominator is actually complaining about their lack of ability to have long term exclusive control on the article, not a free webhost. Irrespective G7 is not a "will" be deleted, but "can" be deleted, we aren't in the business of deleting encyclopedic material to fulfil some bureaucratic process (not a bureacracy etc.) --pgk 10:53, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - CSD G7 does not apply here. As has been noted on the talk page, this is content that has been submitted under the GFDL. Please note the warning: "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it." - if you want to maintain control over a piece of text, don't post it to Wikipedia - it is as simple as that. Carcharoth 12:15, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Update: Or follow Bishonen's suggestion below. Carcharoth 01:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the log history of this article, seen here (or use the links provided above) show that deletion and recreation has occurred before. Carcharoth 12:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - furthermore, in support of the assertion that CSD G7 does not apply, from WP:CSD#Non-criteria we have: "Author deletion requests made in bad faith: Sometimes an author will ask to have content removed because they feel frustrated with the project and resent it profiting from their work. However, they licensed their work to be used in this way and they have no legal basis for asking for its removal. The article must be "mistakenly created", for example if the author created it unwittingly by misspelling a name. Of course, anyone may request deletion of pages in their userspace." See also Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion/Explanations#General: "Does not apply to long-standing articles or quality articles not created by mistake. Such articles were duly submitted and released by the author and have become part of the encyclopedia, obviating others who otherwise would have written an article on the subject.". Note that the article history goes back to April 2006, and there are 26 links to this article from other articles in the encyclopedia, establishing that this is indeed a long-standing article and one that has become part of the encyclopedia. Carcharoth 12:32, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, sort of: Keep at this time: the argument here is self-destructing, as the "author" is not the "author," having gotten an account change since beginning. However, this is, absolutely without doubt, not an "author blanked" article or an article created in error. Geogre 12:46, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which other account would that be? If you feel you can reveal this. Carcharoth 13:05, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, I would like to know that also. For the sake of explanation to other users above (not to User:Geogre, whose other misunderstandings of this very subject are recorded here), it may be added that the fact that the article was created in error on 24 March 2006 is borne out by the fact that the user, then relatively new, requested its transfer from the mainspace to userspace back on 19 May 2006 (memorialized here), indicating his mistake less then two months after starting off. So no, this is not a new tack on my part. Deletion under CSD G7 calls for establishment of only two facts, indicated in official policy posted at that address, not for voting: a rational response, on two issues of importance, is required (see also WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_Democracy). — Prof02 14:27, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
        • Oh, dear. Still thinking that I had some misunderstanding there, are you? That's fine, if you think it. Others can form their own opinions. Since your talk page has no official capacity and you were engaged in a Mad Hatter's tea party in your own mind, I really didn't feel there was any profit to being there. Unfortunately, your talk page is not your blog, and, if you cannot contribute and do not want to have your words edited, you shouldn't be trying to use it that way. Geogre 02:29, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • It has been pointed out above that the official policy you are quoting has specific sections that apply here, and which make clear that CSD G7 is not appropriate here. In case it is not yet clear, you will find that people here will greatly respect 30 years of scholarly work, but if you don't want to put this work on Wikipedia to be collaboratively edited by others, then you should publish it elsewhere instead (you still retain copyright on what you originally wrote, but cannot copy current versions without attributing Wikipedia). For example, you could publish your work on a website of your own. If you did that, the article on Wikipedia could be rewritten from scratch and include a reference to your website as an external link. Since most of the content at the moment is undoubtedly contributed by you, the ethical course for Wikipedia would most likely to agree to this (though technically I don't think we have to, as you 'released' your material under the GFDL by pressing 'save' in the editing window). Anyway, if this hypothetical website of yours ever died, Wikipedia could just revert back to the most informative version of the article (which would still exist in the page history). The ethical course for you would be to acknowledge on this hypothetical website that the material was first published at Wikipedia. For most people's contributions, which are tangled up in amongst other's, this doesn't work. Your contributions are still relatively easy to distinguish from others, so this course of action is probably possible. Others may have differing opinions though, as the possibility of someone later republishing what they have contributed to Wikipedia might be discussed elsewhere and rejected (ie. I might just be wrong here). Carcharoth 17:39, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • As you say he has copyright ownership over his own work, releasing it under the GFDL doesn' restrain him in any way on that, he can release his own work under an alternative license quite freely without any need to mention wikipedia or anyone else (The GFDL as a license is him as the copyright holder agreeing to license his works to others under certain conditions, not a license to himself...). Only if he makes use of other peoples work would he need to license their work under the GFDL and thus be subject to it's conditions. --pgk 00:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is in addition to the fact that he has not contributed as a signatory. I.e. his name is not "Prof02" at birth, and, since Wikipedia does not require the real name, we cannot "give" the rights to "him." I cannot call back all my contributions, for example, because no one at Wikipedia or in the software knows my legal name. We ran into this problem when we had reports of a contributor "dying" and then having "him" try to reclaim his account. We couldn't know if the "him" asking for rights back was the "him" who "died." Basically, Wikipedia is in a position of neither claiming nor granting rights other than the GFDL. Geogre 02:33, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not a speedy candidate, and seems to pass notability Avi 00:27, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I can hardly believe this article was nominated in the first place. Unfocused 01:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. G7 specifies 2 criteria, both of which must be met: (1) that the page's only substantial content was added by its author, and (2) that the content was mistakenly created. In this case, neither of these criteria is satisfactorily fulfilled:
Criterion 2: Prof02 created the Erich Heller article in mainspace on March 24, 2006 and edited it there hundreds of times. When making each of those edits, he viewed an edit page containing clear admonitions and policy links, which explain the operation of this wiki. He has long since forfeited the right to say "Oops, my mistake, I didn't mean to be here at all." That's like speeding down a highway marked with signage for hundreds of miles and then telling a police officer, "Oops, I didn't realize this was a public road."
Criterion 1: In mid-May at least one other editor made good faith edits to the Heller article. Prof02 expressed displeasure with this turn of events and explicitly characterized these edits as "arbitrary changes of substance" (see here). He then asked that "my article" be moved offline, a request which was granted on a temporary basis by a helpful admin, Bishonen. Prof02's own words clearly indicate that it was his own considered opinion that another editor was making substantial content changes to the Heller article. — WikiPedant 20:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • CSD G7 concerns itself, not with changes of substance, but only with additions of substance: the rule states that the only substantial content must have been added by its author. One could delete 236 words, or even all the words from an article, instituting as a result the most drastic changes of substance, without thereby becoming a co-author in the understanding of Rule G7 (to say nothing of common sense).
    • As regards the second G7 criterion, that concerning the author’s mistake, it is clear that I have created a work-in-progess in the main article space by mistake (from inexperience with the technicalities of the site, as this was only my second article on Wikipedia, and the first of this size and caliber), and that, when the concept of user subpages as the appropriate place for a work-in-progress is brought to my attention by User:Charles Matthews, I had never heard of the idea before, and declare openly that I do not know how to create a user subpage and need help with the task (the literal quote, recorded here, is: ‘I lack however the technical knowledge of how to do this’). The principle of ‘tough-cheese’, which seems to actuate at bottom some of the reasoning here, is not recognized by any judicial system in the world. — Prof02 07:16, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Please don't let's stand on ceremony and the GFDL in a case where common sense ought rather to prevail. The article is clearly of immense value to the main author and of little value to Wikipedia, being written in an unencyclopedic, reverential, circumlocutory mode. Did you people who want it kept actually read it? I don't mean to suggest anybody's commenting carelessly, I'm sure you checked out the facts in the text and the claims to notability, but did you read it as a piece of writing? Yes, it could probably be ruthlessly edited down to an encyclopedic stub, but why lacerate the user's feelings (and incur his flamethrower) for so little gain? It would surely be simpler to start over and write a new, Wikipedia-type, article about Erich Heller. I nominate Charles Matthews, who knows the subject. ;-) Note that I'm not proposing that the page be reuserfied, there's been enough of that. I'm sure the user has somewhere off wikipedia to put it. It has generated enough battleground, please let's get rid of it, and also of this newly created userspace fork, and any future versions which may be created using Wikipedia resources without being freely editable by Wikipedians. Bishonen | talk 00:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • I greatly respect Bishonen's fine track record as an admin and mainspace contributor. She makes sound points about the shortcomings of this article and the behavior of the original author. But I am not comfortable with her proposed course of action. Sometimes, to be sure, situations present themselves where rules should be held in abeyance. However, "common sense" can be a slippery guideline and the common sense page she cites is not an official policy page. While it is true that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, Bishonen is proposing a leap in the direction of frontier justice. G7 and the other AfD rules are the products of consensus and they should be respected in all but the most exceptional situations. Without the consistent application of criteria like these, all AfD discussions would degenerate into debates invoking ad hoc principles. And Bishonen suggests not only that the G7 criteria be bypassed, but that the working drafts of the article in the user's subpages be deleted too (I see 2 such copies: here and here). It is not clear to me that this extra step falls within the purview of an AfD decision. If the user is the real problem here (and he is, to say the least, a "civility-challenged" character), there probably are ways to deal with that, but this does not strike me as one of them. - WikiPedant 03:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, WikiPedant. Your keep !vote is very logical, and it's clear enough that the article will in fact be kept. I don't really object. I guess I was most of all expressing my feeling of how nice it would be to get the whole thing off of Wikipedia. I do have some logic of my own, though: as soon anybody but Prof02 tries to edit it, it is incandescently clear from User talk:Prof02 and Talk:Erich Heller that he will defend its present state to the death, then quickly be blocked for edit warring, then quickly be indefinitely blocked. Honestly, Wikipedia is a chrystal ball sometimes. What's the point? As for ways of "dealing" with the user's civility issues, I've been trying to do that since May or whenever it was, and I really doubt it. Never mind, though. I just wanted to explain my angle. Oh, and I was indeed thinking of putting the user subpages on WP:MFD, I quite agree that deleting them can't be decided on AFD. Bishonen | talk 05:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Yes, Bishonen, I think your prediction is quite likely to prove accurate. Perhaps there is a way out for all concerned. If the finding of this AfD process is that G7 has not been satisfied and the article stays, Wikipedia functionaries could make Prof02 an exceptional offer -- to delete the article and Prof02's userpages if Prof02 withdraws voluntarily and permanently from the Wikipedia project. He may well be as fed up with the contributors to this project as some of them are with him, and be quite agreeable to a mutual parting of the ways. But I don't have a clue who has the authority to make or implement such an offer. - WikiPedant 06:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Obviously Erich Heller is worthy of an article here, but is this article worthy of Erich Heller? That a man described as an essayist can have a page of this calibre devoted to him tells the world more about Wikipedia's standards than about Erich Heller. It cannot under any stretch of the imagination be described as objective or encyclopedic. If an editor is prepared to take it into userspace, and heavily edit it until it conforms to the standards expected of a Wikipedia article then perhaps it could be given a limited trial life in order to conform. I could prune this by a third and make an encyclopedic page within twenty minutes - but it's not my subject - I would probably remove something important, and this is the danger, editing this page cannot be tackled by just anyone, we could have something of even less use than the present article, if not downright misleading and dangerous to Wikipedia's reputation. - So for Erich Heller's and Wikipedia's sake this has to go - and then if necessary be re-created in a more encyclopedic fashion by a new editor at sometime in the future. Giano 09:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you realise that User:Prof02 has had this page userfyed, and edited it over 1500 times in that state? I'm sure the article could be improved. Since when has that been a reason for deletion? Charles Matthews 09:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In reality this is not about User:Prof02, nor should it be, it is about if the article is suitable for retention. 1.5 or 1500 edits is neither here nor there. Everything can be improved, but surely the pages sojourn here would have been the impetus for some one to do just that - no one has. This page does not cut the mustard - It cannot remain as it is - there is no one to able to fix it so it must be discarded. I would have thought you would welcome giving some one the opportunity to start again with a clean sheet. Giano 10:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But that's entirely to do with editors not wanting to be abused. I could quite happily start sorting out the convoluted Thomas Mann stuff, using Anthony Heilbut's book. I would want to retain the references, which are good, while removing more of the POV and tangled logic. Michael Hamburger has some useful things also. It seemed sensible to let the dispute over who was competent to edit the page run its course, ignoring some of the vitriol. Doesn't mean the page should be torched. Charles Matthews 13:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know whether or not User:Giano II is aware that the Erich Heller article he is looking at is not an article that its contributor, the undersigned, intended for Wikipedia. That article is still in the process of being prepared here, and at the present stage is still not ready to be released to the main article space. The article on Heller which Giano is looking at, and which constitutes the subject of the present debate, has been forcibly wrenched — in violation of Wikipedia guidelines — without the user’s knowledge or consent, from that work-in-progess on the user’s subpage (I use the Saxon genitive judiciously here). When I asked that the article be re-merged with the body from which it was truncated, the administrators involved refused point-blank, without stating valid (or indeed any) reasons. The matter, as a result, is a subject of a very, very serious dispute, involving pre-eminently User:Charles Matthews, User:Bishonen, User:WikiPedant, but also others, who are now locked in a battle of their administrative lives on Wikipedia. Let’s therefore keep the proceedings on this page simple, and constrain ourselves solely to the subject-matter at hand, which is the CSD G7 rule. Either it applies or not, and if not, why.
Parenthetically speaking, the reason why works-in-progress cannot be edited by others, even if they show the compulsive eagerness to do so exhibited by User:Charles Matthews, is the circumstance that the ‘progress’, as in ‘work-in-progress’, is arrested in such conditions. I have never had anything close to the unreasonable problems created artificially by a single user, with the support of a group of others who benefit from the protective umbrella that his membership of the ArbCom in their eyes bestows, with the ten or so other articles I have contributed so far. And this situation I do mean to change, permanently, even if I have to suffer mud being thrown in my face as I methodically pursue this. — Prof02 07:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Really, I am so 'compulsively eager' to edit Erich Heller that I have put up with half a year of this sort of prevarication from an editor who simply doesn't understand our policies, and, more importantly, our way of doing business, and, more importantly again, shows no signs of being able to take in any explanations of anything to do with Wikipedia. Unreasonable problems created artificially by a single user refers, apparently, to the operation of normal policy and collective editing. Can we cut the chop-logic short and just keep the existing page? Charles Matthews 23:04, 9 November 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 to delete. Note that references were added after many people commented. W.marsh 13:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Enochian angels

Originally researched, unsourced, list in relation to a 16th century text by by John Dee and Edward Kelley. Article was previously nominated for deletion in September 2005 here hoopydinkConas tá tú? 08:42, 4 November 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 merge (merge tags are up). W.marsh 01:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Croatoan Society

Croatoan Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Simple idea from only one issue of a comic. Has had no ramifications on any other title whatsoever. Chris Griswold (☎☓) 08:40, 4 November 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. Disregarding "all schools are inherently notable" arguments, the arguments to delete are stronger than the ones for keeping. The article also has little useful information ("the school is made of brick"), so there isn't really anything to merge, particularly if the outdated link on the school district is fixed to reflect the school's new designation. --Coredesat 04:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maurice And Everett Haines Elementary School

Maurice And Everett Haines Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Contested prod. My reason was given as primary school with no assertion of notability per WP:SCHOOLS or otherwise the prod was removed with comment deprod school, mergable but no merge was carried out nor a target identified. I would rather see this deleted as non-notable and lacking relaible sources, but if people prefer a merge, I urge them to carry it out rather than leave a poorly referenced stub of dubious notability. Eluchil404 08:48, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for lack of apparent notability (a rough Google doesn't even give many results, let alone independent ones). Merge to the locality if we must, but I doubt that's a great idea. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 09:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Kavadi carrier 10:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Gotta love de-prodders who give zero reasons why (and saying, "Sweet crackers! It's a school! Heavens forbid!" is not a reason). -- Kicking222 15:39, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment — Read the prod instructions. It only says to note the removal in the edit summary; not to give a reason why. Some of the prod postings themselves are similarly lacking in suitable justification. In some cases I think that just the lack of a prod comment is sufficient justification for removal of the PROD. The prod itself may simply be a form of vandilism or spite. — RJH (talk) 18:19, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Looks like just another elementary school, with no assertion of notability. TJ Spyke 21:19, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't think that I have encountered an elementary school restricted to a single grade (Grade 6, in this case) before. I hope that the school board will eventually publish some kind of evaluation to discuss the advantages and problems associated with a single-grade school like this. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 21:40, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this article about a very unique and interesting school, per TruthbringerToronto, but I will probably move it to its current proper name. Unfocused 01:15, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment How is it unique, and how is it interesting? If it's either of those things, please feel free to add sourced information to the article. Right now, it's just a school, and no interesting qualities are given. Your vote amounts to "keep all schools for no reason." -- Kicking222 01:31, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Given that I believe every school I've ever seen or read of serve their communities with an importance that far exceeds the societal impact of the average music CD, yet we keep those CDs, is not "keep all schools for no reason", it's "keep all schools for very good reasons that Kicking222 doesn't agree with". In my experience, a school that serves only one grade is unique and interesting. I'd never even heard of such a thing, and I've been editing schools here for over two years, logged in and anon. That you find them common suggests that more of them should have articles here on Wikipedia. Unfocused 01:40, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "The school is made of brick." Good, the 6th graders don't need to worry about the Big Bad Wolf. But no claim of notability. Mention it in the article for the town, until evidence of notability is found. Edison 03:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - school is already mentioned (and links to it are external, not internal) in the articles both about its community and its school district. --JohnDBuell 18:57, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per TruthbringerToronto. Delete votes are destructive; Why not merge?!?! Alansohn 19:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment If you think it should be merged then say so. And general claims about deletion being "destructive" with the use of many exclamation points is not an argument for the keeping of this school in particular, unless you want to go through and keep everything since deletion is "destructive"
  • Delete As another not-notable school. It doesn't even meet the generous WP:SCHOOLS inclusion criterion. The school has nothing unique about it, no notable alumni, no clubs or teams that performed at a notable level, no awards or any other distinguishing features. JoshuaZ 20:50, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into school district, per nomination, and then delete DesertSky85451 01:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and allow the article to be expanded; I would like to know about it personally and I'm sure that there are thousands of others who may as well. No opposition to this being merged in the meantime. Silensor 23:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no assertion of notability. Okay, it exists. It's required by state law to exist. —ptk✰fgs 11:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Lets start being honest, no school ever deserves to be deleted. It either stays or it gets merged. These AfD's are just a waste of time and very detrimental to Wikipedia's outside image! --Mike 19:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment None "deservers to be deleted"? How did you come to that conclusion? JoshuaZ 19:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The smallest level at which I would expect Wikipedia to have entries is the local area equivalent to a small village. In a modern village the school is often the main if not sole focue to the community. It therefore follows that it would be impossible to write an article on each geographical area without mentioning the school. So, much better is to turn it around and have an entry for each school and tag onto it a bit of information on the local area. By tagging it to the school it also ensures that sub-areas with less population than a school are not included. But most of all, I've often had to resort to school web sites to research local areas because the school web site is the only source of local information. If I have found information on schools of invaluable use, then I see no reason why numerous other people would not, and to my mind that warrants an entry on most schools (although I might merge infant schools by area). I hope that answers your question! TO recap: I use WIkipedia, I have need of information on most schools, and therefore as a user i wish Wikipedia to have entries on most schools QED -keeep --Mike 21:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • The school is the main or sole focus of a whole community? You cannot possibly be serious. This is true in a number of college towns, but it's beyond ludicrous to suggest that this elementary school is the sole focus of the community in which it resides. —ptk✰fgs 22:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Of course I am serious. There are many places where the only information on the locale is the school. WIkipedia does not pay its contributors, it can't force a comprehensive coverage of all areas, but if it has a positive attitude to school then it will achieve this. I'm amazed that I have to explain this! Of course schools are the centre of whole communities. Within our local, the only is the only social facility - there are no shops, no pubs, no hotels, no factories, no square, there's a garage, and around 5000 people. In fact, the only reason most people live here is because the secondary school (there isn't any other reason to live here!). I am much more a user of wikipedia than a contributor. I know what kind of articles that I find useful - and by far the most useful articles are the ones that cover micro-geographical details as contained in most good school articles. I explained that Wikipedia needs to work with schools rather than trying to piss them off! There is no good reason to delete this article except prejudice by those that don't live in the area (and I don't!) --Mike 23:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • First, let me state that you are welcome to delete articles about schools in my area. I really don't mind. Now as to the more substantial points, while we are concered with users of Wikipedia that isn't the be-all and end-all. As a user, I'd like to have all mathematical knowledge on the planet in Wikipedia. It would be quite convenient. And I'd like to have individual articles on each stamp ever issued by the US government, and each coin as well. That doesn't mean we should have that. Furthermore, we have no evidence that this school is the sort of hub that you are claiming it is. While colleges (and occasionally highschools) sometimes seem to be such hubs, the claim that an elementary school is such a hub is very hard to believe. If you had a reliable source that claimed that this school functioned as a hub or some similar comment, that would be worth something. It is however, very hard to credit things with the notion that because it might function as a hub we should keep it. (And there is always Wikitravel). JoshuaZ 08:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn school. Carlossuarez46 22:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All schools are inherently notable -- Librarianofages 01:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: meets all content policies. The sources provided are reliable, but of course they only cover a small amount of information. A merge might be a good idea. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:43, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In what way does it meet all content policies? The sources provided indicate that the school exists, which is a good start, but that's not what we're in the business of here. Additionally, since many of the sources are in fact direct from the school itself, I'm not sure they're exactly reliable in the way we define the term. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That in spite of a lack of reliable independent sources? BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dude the sources in there are fine. A source written by the subject about itself is considered acceptable per WP:SOURCE. Keep  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 06:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh really? I suggest you look at WP:RS. In general, sources are considered most reliable when they are "independent." Indeed, the guideline says "multiple independent confirmation is one good guideline to reliability" - these sources do not pass this guideline by any stretch of the imagination. JoshuaZ 06:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[Edit Conflict] Really? WP:V says that Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources. Point taken regarding WP:SOURCE, but I'm not convinced that the self-published sources here are in fact relevant to the person's or organization's notability. They prove the school exists, which is a nice start, but they don't go much further than that. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:V is all that matters however... the sources within the article prove its existance, back the content of the article up... what the hell else do we need a source for really? Are you guys claiming that some random person invented a school and then made up the web pages to prove its existance... I mean seriously. The sources are FINE for proving its existance and all data within the article.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 06:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, even if WP:V were all that matters (which it isn't), this wouldn't meet it. And actually we have had hoax websites of a variety of insttitutions up before, including schools. Furthermore, even if you had a verification of its existence would you really be in favor of the one line article "Maurice And Everett Haines Elementary School is a school" or something like that? JoshuaZ 06:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need to be overly argumentative. This school has references with the Lenape Regional High School District, the New Jersey Department of Education, and the National Center for Education Statistics (nces.ed.gov) so I have zero doubt that it is real and it exists. Yamaguchi先生 06:29, 9 November 2006
I'm real and I exist. There's considerable proof of that fact, so can I have an article here? BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please spare everyone the immature rhetoric. Yamaguchi先生 07:00, 9 November 2006
I'm just pointing out the problem here. That the school exists is great and wonderful, but Wikipedia's an encyclopedia, not a directory of everything that exists. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If the multiple sources cited above and within this article ever find reason to write about you, please let me know and I will consider developing a Wikipedia article in your name. Yamaguchi先生 07:07, 9 November 2006
That's the point, the sources cited in the article are duty bound to report on the existence of the school. One of them is the school's own website, and the others are simply organisations (School Boards and the like) which mention a series of schools, much like the website of a club or society having a membership list. The existence of the school isn't in doubt, in other words. Neither is my existence in doubt, but it's not proven by anything that establishes my notability (just the standard birth certificate, passport, bank account etc). BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:19, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Many people at this point comes with multiple indepenent sources. For example, in many areas, birth certificates and marriage certificates are open to the public, thus giving many people automatically two independent sources. However, these sources like the above are trivial. This school does not have non-trivial independent sources. JoshuaZ 16:05, 9 November 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 13:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dialects of the world

Dialects of the world (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article is not currently comprehensive and is too broad of a topic for a single article. Only 8 languages are listed and info can easily be placed under respective language articles —  AjaxSmack  09:44, 4 November 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. --Coredesat 05:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Insulator Company

Victor Insulator Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable company (despite its age), no context, not linked, no cat, not referenced, no sources. Ligulem 10:19, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I didn't know that age alone qualifies as being encyclopaedic. However, your are welcome to add something interesting to that boring article. It's rather like a directory entry. --Ligulem 13:20, 5 November 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 13:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Kalegi

Ed Kalegi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable voice actor, contested prod. 17 Google hits for "Ed Kalegi" and most of them are from message boards on which he posted using that name. None of his work appears to be notable, it's all local commercials and public address announcer for a second tier league (for those of you unfamiliar, check out American Basketball Association (21st century). Metros232 10:31, 4 November 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. W.marsh 14:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GFP Personal Finance Manager

GFP Personal Finance Manager (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Appears to be non-notable according to WP:SOFTWARE. Kavadi carrier 11:06, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Do not delete: I disagree, if you type gfp and “personal finance” on google you will see that the first 10 result pages are about the software, some of then not in English (Spanish, Portuguese, Arabic, Chinese, French), indeed the software is more used for people that does not speak English natively. Even if you type only GFP on google you will see that that 7th result is about GFP, but it isn’t in Enlgish. It was published in an article on Italian Magazine named “PC Professional” (It’s obviously written in Italian) as you can see clicking on the link in this article: http://gfd.sourceforge.net/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=12. There are articles about GFP on http://opensourceinstall.org/ (In Chinese), and http://www.clubedohardware.com.br/ (In Brazilian Portuguese). In any of these articles it is indicated as a good Open source and multi platform alternative to MS Money. Just because its popularity in other languages is grater them in English, isn’t a reason to remove it from English idiom articles (the idea is that with the English article on wikipedia users that speak others languages in witch GFP is more used can write their idiom translation).
  • Delete, spam Naconkantari 19:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not Delete I don't see it as a spam there are other similar software topics on wikipedia see, (some of then not so expressive):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JGnash http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddi (They will be deleted too? Why?)About the zero release:Many softwares that run on Linux are release 0 is just a matter of version control discipline; when the developer advice the user that the system will be more complex when reach the 1.0 release that will be considered full featured. There are others similar OpenSource software that are 1.0 relase but haven't all features that GFP has, and GFP web site was ranked as one of the 7 best sites for "Personal Finance Manager" according to search engines result, as you can see here: http://www.best7sites.com/finance/finance7/Personal%20Finance%20Manager/index.htm?k=personal%20finance

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 13:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nazmi

Nazmi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Augh... where to start? All 150 kB of this article were pasted in at once by a user who has made no contributions outside this article, and the article has barely changed since then - not because it's perfect, though, but because it's impossible to know where to start. The article starts out like a biography of Syed Aley Rasool Hasnain Miyan Nazmi (now that's a mouthful), but goes off on a series of mini-biographies on various other persons and anecdotes, then - around halfway through - launches into a treatise on Islam.

There isn't a single reference, and almost no wikilinks, in the entire thing. Almost none of the names show up on Google. If this isn't patent nonsense, it's unverifiable and unmaintainable. Tktech put a tag on the talk page noting that he was working on it, but that was over a month ago and nothing has changed since. Delete without prejudice to a well-written, well-referenced article if one can be created. Zetawoof(ζ) 11:12, 4 November 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 (CSD A7). utcursch | talk 12:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Team Semi

Team Semi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Doesn't seem to be notable, or assert notability. The article itself contains little information, all of it breaking neutral point of view. Ruaraidh-dobson 12:09, 4 November 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 under A7 by Fang Aili -- Dina 22:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fancey

Fancey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Content is " Fancey is the solo project of Todd Fancey who is a member of Canadian indie rock group The New Pornographers. Fancey released his first album in 2004." No assertion of notability whatsoever. It's a project, not a band and thus can't be speedied. Contested prod. MER-C 12:33, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete still. What this "project" sounds like to me is a one-man band. Therefore, still a band. The article says nothing to make me think that this is anything but an artiste going solo under a (not very imaginative) name. Therefore a resounding non-notable according to WP:MUSIC. Kavadi carrier 13:22, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as junk. Moreschi 13:33, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Delete I don't think this is a speedy, I just think its an awful article. The New Pornographers are a notable band on Matador Records (most well known in the US I think for working with Neko Case.) I think this might qualify as "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." from WP:BAND. I suggest renaming the article Todd Fancey (most of the other New Pornographers have their own articles) and including this info about his solo work. Dina 17:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Okay the creator of this article has created another one titled Todd fancey. I've dropped a note on his/her talk page about why that wasn't a really good idea. I might take a stab at cleaning that one up though, and then change my vote here to delete. Dina 17:31, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I worked on Todd fancey and am now changing to delete on this one. (Now if I can only get the title capitalized properly) -- if the editors involved still feel its not a worthy subject for an article, I suggest we find a way to speedy Fancey and nom Todd fancey to put it through its paces. Cheers. Dina 17:56, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've suggested the author "db-author" this article and concentrate his or her energies on the article Todd Fancey. We'll see how that goes. Dina 18:06, 4 November 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. W.marsh 14:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bharat Yoga

Bharat Yoga (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable "Orthodox Yoga". No sign of notability, no references. Delete. utcursch | talk 12:36, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep Firstly, in the context of international readers and a google search, I have to agree that this type of Yoga is not-notable. However, one must take into consideration of the verifiability of the content. It is indeed possible to verify the content based on a google search. This article also gives us a detailed explanation of this yoga. Considering the amount of subjects based on Western knowledge on Wikipedia currently, I feel that keeping this article with the addition of proper references would somewhat, albeit in a micro manner, balance the scope of this project. One must also remember that yoga in general is very popular in India and there are thousands of different types of yoga being practiced at a national level in this hoary nation. --Siva1979Talk to me 13:07, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless sourced. Kavadi carrier 13:31, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - unsourced and 28 Ghits shows an overwhelming lack of notability. The spelling and grammar make a pig's ear look attractive and the article contains advert-like statements such as "to double and even tripple the will power of an individual...and above all to go beyond the thought.". Also please note that Wikipedia is not the place for affirmative action. Moreschi 13:39, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep- whatever the contents are they are somehow attractive, its tru that yog has been originated from India I thing Bharat Yog z new and appealing concept. Sign of Notability is a different matter but concept sounds attractive.- nick280 — Nick280 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. W.marsh 14:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pratishtha Sharma

Pratishtha Sharma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Kathak dancer, who is not notable enough yet. Daughter of Bharat Bhushan, the founder of Bharat Yoga. No references, no sign of notability. She finds mention in a single The Hindu article, which is not about her. utcursch | talk 12:39, 4 November 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. *burp* Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Drunk blogging

Drunk blogging (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable neologism. No internal links. I doubt we could find any reliable sources for an such article; it consists basically of original research. Any mention of the topic could easily be incorporated into blog. --Slowking Man 12:44, 4 November 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 13:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KidCast

KidCast (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

More self-promotion from User:Peterrosen. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pronoia Tour. —Cryptic 12:48, 4 November 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 13:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Environmental interaction

Environmental interaction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Looks like some kind of essay, which falls under original research. I'm not aware if the term is commonly used; it sounds like a neologism to me. If the article can be improved, by all means go ahead. I'm just listing it here because I'm not sure there's anything else to do with it (the article was tagged as a speedy, but "original research" isn't a valid criterion for speedy deletion). --Slowking Man 13:03, 4 November 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 13:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aikido Institute

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

The result was keep. W.marsh 14:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inquisition Revisionism

  • Delete: This article is being used to promote original research and POV peddling.
The article is highly POV. under the title The Inquisition Myth the title is POV. Under the title Recent Scholarship the article is presenting highly controvertial work as being the current state of the field. The peddlers of the POV keep switching titles to avoid the term used by the authors themselves --Gorgonzilla 18:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and change title to Recent scholarship on the Inquisition.
This is a straightforward historiographical essay. There is no controversy over the work of Kamen or Peters. The former is the standard English language work in the field, originally published in 1965 and continuously revised, updated and republished for close to 40 years. Richard Kagan of JHU calls it "the best general book on the Spanish Inquisition both for its range and its depth of information..." Peters is the Charles Henry Lea Professor at U Penn, Lea wrote was was an earlier standard work on the Inquisition, and Peters continues his work. Despite repeated requests, Gorgonzilla has produced no evidence of any substantial controversy over their findings. "Recent scholarship" accurately reflects the content of the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hobomojo (talk • contribs) 03:14, November 3, 2006.
  • Speedy Keep. Nominator is using AfD to make a point about the article title instead of working it out on the talk page, or through the article rename process. Article title complaints have nothing to do with AfD - article titles are placeholders, symbolic of what is contained in the article, not statements of fact. As for "POV", there has been a revision of Spanish Inquisition history with recent new evidence that has come to light starting in the 1970's - if you agree with it or not, if you think it is good history or bad history, doesn't matter - it's a lengthy enough subject to warrant an article. -- Stbalbach 20:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the first AFD was inconclusive, many thought that the article could be NPOV if renamed. The fact that the article is repeatedly renamed in order to promote the assertions as fact shows that this is not a viable option. --[*[User:Gorgonzilla|Gorgonzilla]] 21:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, I agree with you and think "Inquisition revisionism" (or "Spanish Inquisition revisionism") is a neutral name, it's been in place for a while now without any problem. One user recently changed it, and he did so without following the rename procedures for contentious moves (he's a new user so probably doesn't know about those procedures). So, you are in the right to restore to the original article name and ask him to please follow the rename procedures for contentious moves - most likely you and I would vote against his proposal and that would be the end of it. Instead you chose to put the article up for AfD using his article rename attempt (and subsequent edit war between you two) as a reason. -- Stbalbach 04:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I happen to know User:Hobomojo does excellent work. After my pleas for help, he translated the entire Spanish Inquisition article from the Spanish Wikipedia (it is Featured there) - before that, the Spanish Inquisition article was a disaster zone of early 20th century polemics. It is now up to date with the latest scholarship and we have Hobomojo to thank. Hobomojo is a fairly new user so I don't think he has had any experience in renaming articles - I don't think he knew that your supposed to make a rename proposal and get consensus on controversial moves, which is why he ended up in an edit war with another use who should have known better. -- Stbalbach 13:48, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Translation, someone needs to check the Spanish version for similar POV peddling --Gorgonzilla 13:57, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's a featured article. Also if you could please respond to repeated and multiple requests on the talk pages why you think it is POV. You keep screaming "POV POV" -- it's old. -- Stbalbach 14:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not signing my comment above was an oversight on my part, nothing more. As for being a single article editor, guilty. I stick with what I know, and what I have time for rather than spread myself too thin and get overwhelmed and give up. I will say that I am always (or at least try to be) very explicit about the edits or reverts I make, in edit summaries and talk pages, something that can't be said for Gorgonzilla. Had he reverted my change and pointed me to the rename procedures, rather than start an edit war and an AfD, I would have learned something about Wikipedia and been happy to follow procedures. I would not object to merging parts of this article with Spanish Inquisition, Inquisition, and Black Legend. Hobomojo 20:38, 5 November 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. W.marsh 14:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James L. Clark

This page should be deleted because it is almost entirely self-referential and derivative of sources created by the subject. The subject also does not merit an independent entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArkansasRed (talk • contribs) 21:26, 2 November 2006

  • Keep sourced article, Google brings up 23,500 hits for "James L. Clark" "Wading THROUGH The Crap" which appears to be a best-selling work given by the numbers. [24] Further, it looks like he comes up over 4,400,000 times as the editor/author of other books including The Man Who Knew Too Much, Preemptive War, and others on both Barnes, Amazon, Albris, and so on [25] At what number would this person pass a given litmus?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.97.16.44 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete the 'Wading through the Crap' book has an Amazon sales rank of 1,296,458. How is this a best seller? Was it a best seller at a former time. and how would that be accessed? Where is the independent mainstream press coverage which might help to establish notability?Edison 03:58, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Edison, per Kavadi Carrier. Montco 06:34, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure yet, doing more research; you may all be right. Looks like the book came out back in 2003. There are a lot of ways a book can be a best seller, or so it would appear based on what I read. Sometimes it is based on numbers, but that is not always the case; it often based on category. I don't want to be so quick to rush to judgement just to delete this, but, like I said, you may be right. I added the quotes for the names and found it pulled over 14,000 on his name. I went through about 200 before I got tired of it and most looked to be this guy. Honestly, I am not sure what test works for an author and what does not. But it also seems there is more to the guy than this. I am not sure I would be so quick to remark that the lack of coverage online as "astonishing." I consider it remarkable that he (or anyone) has writen a book in the first place; I have never done so, have you? It is easy for us to debate this on Wikipedia, and who knows, he may not even want it here. Went to his site but saw no way to contact him. But also, people these days seem way to fast to want to get rid of pages and the tone concerns me. Has anyone else checked, because I do not see it the same way as Kavadi carrier who seems heck bent on getting rid of this entry and, at that, using "verifiable" when even that standard is in dispute right now - just my two cents. I just don't want this to be a vote of heads but a well reasoned process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.97.16.44 (talk • contribs)
  • I find it ironic that the above editor added the following comment to the article, which I happen to agree with: "This guy is a nobody! It should be deleted". Although it may be the subject's best seller, a book which ranks in the 1.3millionsths is to be dismissed instantly as irrelevant. "A Preemptive War" also ranks in the 1.33 millionsths, "Becoming a Man of Influence" is not available from B&N nor Amazon. The subject must not be confused with a namesake who writes "How to" books; ditto author Jamie L. Clark. BTW, the author of the article and the person above identifiable only by IP:68.97.16.44 can be traced back to the same service provider, Cox Atlanta. Ohconfucius 05:49, 6 November 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 redirect. W.marsh 14:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lady P

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 13:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mazzembly 1997

Delete. Non-notable roguelike game. Google for "Mazzembly 1997" -encyclopedia -wikipedia returns under 200 hits. Not listed on MobyGames. --Vossanova o< 20:54, 2 November 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 13:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Super Kids

Does not establish notability, contested speedy, contested prod HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 05:39, 3 November 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 Redirect to Taijutsu - it's not the same thing, but is a likely mispelling. This article on this particular style can be recreated if it become notable. Yomanganitalk 01:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tae Jitsu

Not notable. The actual term means body work and has a separate wikipedia entry see Taijutsu. As such this enty is just advertisment for some school. Please see the articles talk page. Peter Rehse 06:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. First, the article is not an advertisment for some school, several months ago, I saw that the article had no external links (and was tagged with a "references" tag), so I did a quick google search and added the links to 2 websites that described this martial art. This was before I had a username. If you think this article is an advertisment for the external links, then you are mistaken, becuase that was not my intention when I added them (I added them to provide sources for the article). Second, a google search seems to incicate that Tae Jitsu is, in fact an actual, indepentant martial art, even the articles talk page has someone who says they hold a black belt in it, and the two external links belong to two completly different websites, both saying that Tae Jitsu is an authenic art. as far as notability, what makes this any less notable than any other martial arts article? If it's an authenic art, then it should be kept. Furthermore, "Taijutsu" is a martial arts term while Tae Jitsu is a martial art. I really don't see how a martal arts term can be compared with a martial art (the two may sound similar but theres a difference between a term and an actual art) MasterGreenLantern 14:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to my above comments, I would also like to add that This site describes several different martial arts styles, and includes Tae Jitsu (about half way throgh). Which is a further indication of this style being authenic. MasterGreenLantern 15:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to taijutsu (except the disgusting Fictional practitioners section). Kavadi carrier 14:13, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect. --MaNeMeBasat 14:32, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect, do not merge. Taijutsu seems to be a hand-to-hand style for ninja, but this "Tae Jitsu" (Jitsu being a common western misspelling of jutsu, and the whole phrase being a bastardized mix of Korean and Japanese) thing doesn't seem notable enough to garner any third-party reliable sources. ColourBurst 15:11, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are many websites that describe Tae Jitsu as a hybrid martial art that combines Tae Kwon Do with other arts, making it a new, seperate (but still hybrid) martial art. What makes Tae Jitsu any less notable than AMOK!, Zen Do Kai, Vacón, and all the other mybrid martial arts? If Tae Jitsu is an authenic martial art (A hybrid, but still a seperate, indepentiant art, as I think I have shown in my orginal comments) than it should be kept. I don't understand why anyone would want to merge or redirect to TaiJustsu, when Taisutsu and Tai Jitsu are completely diferent. There are many websites, This site, for example, as well as the two external links in the article and other sites (Try a google search) all of which seem to show that Tae Jitsu is an actual (Hybrid) martial art, which people actually study and practice (even the articles talk page has someone who is a blackbelt in Tae Jitsu). So I still stand by my original vote to keep.MasterGreenLantern 19:04, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please read WP:RS and understand why we don't tend to use websites as reliable sources. Specifically, Look out for false claims of authority. Websites that have numerous footnotes may be entirely unreliable. The first question to ask yourself is, "What are the credentials and expertise of the people taking responsibility for a website?" Anyone can post anything on the web. If you can convince me that the credentials of the WIF (whose website you mention) is sound, it will help your case. ColourBurst 19:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't just mention one website, I also mentioned the two websites in the External links section. Additionally, this site, from the International Combat Martial Arts Unions Association, describes Tae Jitsu as a "Scientific street fighting approach". As far as proving the credentials of the WIF, I am unsure how to do that. But the fact is that there are several different schools that teach Tae Jitsu, and I found websites that list or mention people who practice it, including this site, which talks about a kickboxer who is also an expert and instructor in Tae Jitsu. Also, I still want to know what makes Tae Jitsu any less notable than AMOK!, Zen Do Kai, Vacón, and the many other similar martial arts articles. MasterGreenLantern 20:16, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please read Wikipedia:Inclusion is not an indicator of notability. An article should stand on its own merits, not because it's similar to another article on Wikipedia. Also read User:Uncle G/On notability which is an essay that describes the notability guideline in an objective way. However, I'm going to go ask the Martial Arts Wikiproject what they think about this, because it's a fairly specialist area (however, this article specifically is about a modern martial art and there should be verifiable reliable sources, see if you can find books on the subject) Again, the main question to ask is, how do we know if the WIF and the ICMAUA are really experts in the field of martial arts? (You can ask the question about the other three articles, and if they don't pass either, they should be listed for deletion.) ColourBurst 21:46, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge for non-notability and lack of authoritative sources. There is no evidence suggesting that the fictional depiction of "Tae Jitsu" in Family Guy is linked to an authentic school, rather than using a Japanese-sounding term. It looks like the art is taught out of a single school as a hybrid art, but there is no notable presence of it elsewhere. --Scb steve 22:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is more than one Tae Jitsu school. There are schools in the US and UK. (the external links section links to two seperate schools).MasterGreenLantern 22:46, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think User:MasterGreenLantern really feels strongly about this so I propose we hold off for a week to give him a chance to address the concerns in the article rather than here and elsewhere. The article itself (not the links) has to make the case for notability, it does not. I suggest using Hakko Ryu as an example of a minimal article. Who founded the art, when was it founded, where is it practiced, who's in charge? Of course if it is expaned beyond that great. I put a few tags into the article itself.Peter Rehse 09:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unless the article in significantly expanded (e.g. origins, how it's different) it dose not provide any useful info.
  • I'm trying to do some research and gather information right now. I'll see if I can expand the article in a few days. I honestly know almost nothing about Tae Jitsu (personally, my favorite martial arts are Jeet Kune Do and Systema, and I don't know much about martial arts beyond those two). But I'll see what I can do about expanding the article (unless someone more knowledgeable shows up). MasterGreenLantern 22:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I have spent the past week trying to get information about the history and background of Tae Jitsu, but unfortunatly, the only sources of information I can find are the two websites in the external links section (the two Tae Jitsu schools), and the websites I already mentioned above. So I can't find any independant sources, and everyone here seems to think that the school websites are not acceptable sources, so I am unsure how to procede. I sent Emails to both schools 5 days ago requesting additional information, but they have not responded. I thought about expanding the article using information from both Tae Jitsu schools websites, but as I just said, it seems they are not acceptable sources. So I am unsure of about what to do next. MasterGreenLantern 19:47, 10 November 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 13:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Lost Numbers

I thought there was some general consensus somewhere that we weren't going to have an article on this. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure we're not supposed to make a page on the numbers ShadowUltra 21:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or Merge): I have not been involved in those discussions and just came across this page today, so I don't know what has already been decided. The information on it seems to have been carefully gathered and it is interesting to look through, but there is already sort of an entry for the Numbers that other pages refer to, only much smaller and without details like this. I think that this page, as is, isn't really right for Wiki, but I think that the other Numbers article could certainly be fleshed out a lot more on its own. If this page gets deleted, perhaps some mention could be made on that article about the extent to which these numbers are interconnected to the characters and what happens on the island. I like that someone put the work into gathering this info, I just don't know that this is the right forum for it (but I will print it out and show to my Lostfriends!!) Riverbend 19:13, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that under Mythology of Lost the Numbers should definitely have their own heading, not just be under DHARMA Initiative (maybe they are somewhere else and I am just not seeing?). Riverbend 15:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/merge. The initial portion should be kept and merged into the orginal article, whereas the other is speculation/OR. If necessary, someone should put this speculation on a non-WP web page and then link it. Janbrogger 08:02, 6 November 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 redirect seems harmless. W.marsh 16:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Secret Art of Seamm Jasani

The Secret Art of Seamm Jasani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

*DeleteNon-notable. The information is basically contained in the wiki page Boabom so this article is just advertisment Peter Rehse 06:08, 4 November 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. W.marsh 18:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

William Bottin

William Bottin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Does not established notability, contested speedy and prod, seems to be written by the subject of the article. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 18:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also with no citations. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 20:31, 7 November 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 13:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Sdraulig

Harry Sdraulig (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Article about a non-notable child composer. His only works are those released on his personal page at sibeliusmusic.com. 100 Google hits. No internal links. --Slowking Man 13:30, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page because it is about another sibeliusmusic.com artist, and the above criteria apply to it as well:

--Slowking Man 13:40, 4 November 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 13:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mario series items

List of Mario series items (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This artice was PRODed, then contested at DRV. It is brought to AfD for full consideration. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 13:34, 4 November 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 regrettable delete as unverifiable. DS 18:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Troy Tedford

I firmly believe this to be a) a hoax or b) should be deleted as unverifable.

  • Zero google results Link shows two irrelevant results, the first is an example of all the possible Tedford names, the second is re a Billy Troy Tedford born in Texas.
  • Article originally stated one of the most decorated War hero's in World War II - the most decorated with zero google hits?
  • Numerous requests for sources have been fruitless - requested here and directly to author here
  • Prod removed, so here we are.

In short, we have two options - a or b above (in my opinion). Both result in Delete Glen 13:39, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Even without quotes, there's sweet FA (and I don't mean featured article). Moreschi 13:54, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe since he is going off the Honorable Discharge Papers the article should stay. War Heros aren't ness. on the web. he used the words "one of the most", that could be one of the top 100 or top 1000. millions served in that was and if the guy has Discharge papers saying he won 4 bronze stars than he was one of the most and he deserves his name to come out. lot's of those old was heros got lost in time. Johnmvp33dont delete Comment actually made by Johnmvp33 (talk · contribs)
Comment - Ummm - this isnt terribly convincing, and this was a very silly move and a major giveaway Glen 14:50, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I googled your name glen and came up with nothing. r u bogus??? Anykind of historian would know that people in ww1 and ww11 weren't automaticlly given there own link. I have the metals, Legel papers, Honorable discharge papers and diary of a man who was truley a war hero. just because he has been put on the internet doesn't mean a thing. Like i said, anyone can make a internet site and say whatever. Thats why it better to have papers from the US government than unclebobs candy site.com. The man was one of the most decorated ww11 vets. i'm part irish but i don't have my own link, does this mean i'm not even though my birth cert says i am???? Keep the page —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tedfordc (talk • contribs) .
Comment - actually my full name produces over 500 oops, 2000 hits on google, but, I'm not the one who has an article am I? (well, in all fairness I do have an article but this isnt relevant! Glen 14:50, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in current form. No sources either offline or online have been given which testify not only to the existance of this person but also to the impact of this person on society at large. If he were really notable we'd see evidence of that in two or more mentions of him in newspapers or magazines, or a list of decorated WWII veterans elsewhere. Nothing of this sort has been presented. Kavadi carrier 14:55, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No assertion of notability. Many hundreds of thousands of people were awarded many hundreds of medals in many different armies during the Second World War, we are not in the business of cataloguing them. Wikipedia is not a memorial. -- IslaySolomon | talk 14:58, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP THE SITEI found where glen was a faggot. r we in the business of this??? There is many many war vets who won metals and many more who should have and didn't. i don't give a shit that you can't find it on your little "links," many of these men aren't on the internet nor is a newspaper arkansas from 1945. i didn't say he was RAMBO, but his damn papers say he had 123 confirmed kills. how many damn people did he have to kill? i see other people on the "never bogus" wilkpeter that don't have half the shit. i will go and send deletion for them all. i have the damn metals in a case! they where actually re-org because his org burnt up in a fire. 4 bronze stars, not 2 or 3. but 4!

User has been indef blocked for personal attacks Glen 15:16, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not DeleteWW1 and WW11 vets hero and other wise may not be found on the net or in a newspaper. John Gotti is on the site and so should this 4 time Bronze Star winner! The last thing we need is the CNN saying we cut War Vets off because we said they weren't important and they didn't have their own Web link. Millions of Military records have been misplaced or lost. Stephenjones99 — Stephenjones99 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

How about I fax you the Legal papers? R i could make some web sites and then he would have a link. I am not a stock puggett? what ever that is, did glen stollery come up with that, nice web site GS, my friend was right! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tedfordc (talk • contribs) 15:34, 4 November 2006

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aggressive watersliding

Aggressive watersliding (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable sport. 60 Google hits returned on "aggressive watersliding." cholmes75 (chit chat) 14:22, 4 November 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 Speedily deleted as a non-notable website, WP:WEB refers. (aeropagitica) 13:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gaming World

Gaming World (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article was brought to VfD previously (January 2005), where the discussion was closed as reaching no consensus. After almost two years, the article appears to have changed very little, other than to accumulate a bunch of unverifiable trivia. Essentially, the article's subject seems, to me, to be a non-notable website for amateur game developers. There are no internal links to the article from other articles, which makes me doubt the article is necessary.

Sorting through Google results for the phrase "Gaming World" shows no dominance of the site in the usage of the term. Even the first page of hits is a random assortment of sites calling themselves "Console Gaming World" or something similar.

With no references from reliable third-party sources, the entire article qualifies as original research. There's been plenty of time for this article to establish the notability of this subject and provide sources for the claims made in the article. I believe the fact that it has not shows that the article cannot comply with Wikipedia's policies due to the nature of its subject, and therefore should be deleted. --Slowking Man 15:04, 4 November 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 13:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leich

Leich (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Computer game with no indication of notability and I can't find any third party mentions of the game. The author of the article is also the author of the game, and has stated before that this game is non-notable (the first keep comment here), but doesn't believe it's a reason for deletion. I disagree, so it's here. - Bobet 15:23, 4 November 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 13:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JHR

JHR (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

not notable. never heard of this term Sleepyhead 15:26, 4 November 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.

bread loses

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 13:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joyride to Infinity

Joyride to Infinity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Delete fails WP:BK Amazon.com Sales Rank: #3,462,126 in Books Brimba 15:37, 4 November 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. --Coredesat 05:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ninth Day of Creation

Ninth Day of Creation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable book per WP:BK. The book has already survived an AfD debate which ended in no consensus a year ago, with what seemed to be a couple of single purpose accounts and some particularly odd rationale[30]. The book's publisher admits to having created the article. Also nominating Immunological Technologies which was created to support this article. The article about the book's author Leonard Crane currently is tagged with a prod but I suppose that if it's deproded, it should be added to the current debate.Pascal.Tesson 16:05, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I disagree with some of Wikipedia's notable policies. The book was published, which I believe makes it inherently worthy of an article. However, by the strict Wikipedia guidelines, this book is non-notable. Still, I'd rather see the article stay than be deleted. - JNighthawk 16:40, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. Obviously verifiable. Guidelines are NOT policy, and the one referenced is particularly bad. I'd rather have future anthropologists decide the notability, thank you very much. Unfocused 17:01, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the main Ninth Day article but delete the Immunological Technologies one. The net change in the main article between this AfD and the last [31] has only been to remove the entire plot synopsis and insert an infobox. I suppose that the two reviews cited do come from third-party independent sources which choose books to review based on notability, and can hence be considered assertion of this book's notability. As for Immunological Technologies, I do not believe it is major enough to deserve its own article. Kavadi carrier 17:15, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd like to add that the book's publisher had published nothing else than this single book. According to Worldcat, the book itself is not in any public library in Canada or the UK, in only one in Australia, and in 37 in the US which is very very low. It's also a fact that the creation of this article was part of the publisher's effort to make this book more well-known [32]. Yes there are two reviews but the idea that they choose to review this book because it is notable does not make any sense. Anyone can send their book for review to the SF site [33]: ok so someone there liked the book and wrote about it but they most certainly did not choose to do so based on the notability of the book. The book gets 82 unique Ghits. If you go through these, you will get a definite sense that this book has completely flown under the radar. I just don't see how this article can be viewed as anything but spam. Pascal.Tesson 17:56, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both as efforts at spamming. Kavadi carrier 18:06, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both as spam. Also, the editor, Kappa, that de-prod'd this article the other day had just deleted (within the same minute) a key, relevant phrase from the proposed guideline, Wikipedia:Notability (books): "The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself, with at least some of these works serving a general audience. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews." He/she then removed the PROD tag, noting the article had two reviews. But they were not in "works serving a general audience" (Chemical & Engineering News and SF Site Games). The guideline change, made with no talk page discussion, was immediately reverted. So, except for when Kappa has deleted that language, this article does not meet the relevant notability criteria in the proposed guideline. --A. B. 00:16, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I will remove prod tags from articles which appear to have multiple indenpedent sources regardless of what WP:BK says. Kappa 05:40, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Kappa, are you saying that you will be the ultimate arbitrer of notability, not community consensus if it goes against you in the form of a proposed guideline you disagree with? --A. B. 05:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No. Kappa 20:13, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good -- I was worried. --A. B. 20:51, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I found out about the book after the book's promoter spammed multiple submarine-related articles and categories with links back to this vanity article. This single purpose editor hyped the book in various articles scattered across Wikipedia. --A. B. 00:16, 5 November 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. —Mets501 (talk) 17:22, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nanyang badminton team

Nanyang badminton team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article has no encyclopedic value whatsoever. JNighthawk 16:27, 4 November 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. DS 18:41, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cancer conspiracy

First Deletion Reason: Fabricated conspiracy cruft original research. Thought to implement a New World Order/The Brotherhood of Death (aka Order of the Skull & Bones) imperative to depopulate the Earth. Article fails to assert notability by reference to a single reputable source. Complete bullocks. Kill it before it has a chance to metastasize. Wikipedia commands you! Morton DevonshireYo 17:11, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Was going to but since writing that the creator removed my prod tag from another of his articles so figured I'd have to afd (as I had to with that one. Luckily (being lazy...) I was beaten to the punch :) Glen 17:31, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Andrew see my comment re prodding above Glen 17:47, 4 November 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. W.marsh 18:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

College Tonight

College Tonight (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

"As it turns out, this page was twice speedily deleted before, but since I can't see what was there before, I have no idea if this is substantially the same as before, but it reeks of advertising, and the company is so new that I suspect Wikipedia is not a crystal ball may also be in play." -- Sertrel (talk | contribs) 17:16, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't think this should be kept merely because of the two media mentions (one of which is a school newspaper). This site has an Alexa ranking below 300,000. It has an incredibly low amount of traffic. --- RockMFR 21:50, 4 November 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 14:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vanguard News Network

Vanguard News Network (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

In short, the subject fails WP:WEB. The limited media coverage of the site has solely focused on the actions of a few users of the website, all of which already have their own articles. The site itself is not notable, and a low Alexa ranking seems to confirm this (insert typical Alexa disclaimer here). --- RockMFR 17:21, 4 November 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.  Glen  11:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zionist Occupation Government

Zionist Occupation Government (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Wikipedia is not a dictionary, Organization is not notable, and content is redundant Tarinth 17:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Additional information:

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This is not a neologism, because it is not in common use outside of certain anti-semetic groups, and fails to cite any reliable secondary sources that meet the standards of Wikipedia's "Reliable sources for neologisms." At best, the subject appears to be a protoneologism, in which case it should be deleted because this article appears to exist only to promote the use of the term (despite that the article mostly contains critical discussion of the term, and many Wikipedians have attempted to correctly portray it as a fringe-term, they are merely playing into the hands of the individuals who wish to promote its usage.) In fact, the article has existed for several years and has neverbeen edited to include any references of sources.

If one considers the subject to refer to an actual organization, it should be deleted because it does not meet the criteria for the notability of organizations. Unlike significant items of historical interest, such as the Elders of Zion conspiracy-hoax, this "organization" is not notable; again, its presence as an article merely acts to ascribe notability to something nonexistant and invented by certain groups with ulterior motives.

Redundant: this subject is adequately dealt with as part of List_of_conspiracy_theories and therefore does not require more extensive coverage (and debate) here. If there is any content in the article that is additive to the subject of Jewish world domination conspiracy theories, it should be dealt with there. If it is determined that there should in fact be a separate page on Jewish conspiracy theories, it should be relocated to there.


There are pages for Antisemitism and List of conspiracy theories that would be more appropriate for this. Also, the page Jewish conspiracy currently redirects to this page. I'd suggest that when/if the content is merged elsewhere, that that page redirect to the new page (Jewish Conspiracy is clearly a larger subject than one particular acronym that hasn't met widespread usage.) Tarinth 18:02, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and Comment The term, despite its dubious merits, is notable. We aren't going to start deleting neo-Nazi terms like 88 next are we? ZOG is referenced constantly on supremacist websites, forums and propaganda. Comment though, can we clean up the talk page and keep it only to the article content? The tit-for-tat jokes and assorted silliness is not what talk pages are for. They are for discussing the current, past or future content of the main article. Thank you.--Son of More 00:18, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — The article is appears nicely neutral in its current form, and this is a frequently used propaganda term of bigots and hate groups. It's a fine example of what's wrong with some members of the human race, and it's definitely encyclopedic. — RJH (talk) 18:12, 5 November 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. W.marsh 16:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anything But Monday (magazine)

Anything But Monday (magazine) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

disputed PROD for NN-humor magazine delete DesertSky85451 18:02, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I remember this book. They sold it in comic book stores. They also talked about it in a course I had in college called "Ethics and Laws of Mass Communication". The content apparently caused some kind of furor throughout New Jersey.

Keep this article. It is sourced well enough, and the author has demonstrated his willingness to continue his contributions to this entry. Anything But Monday must have had enough of an impact on Americana if a "soon to be famous" pop band has assumed the publication's name over 20 years later.


Not sure what the objection to this article is. The author HAS established notability with the links that point to the magazine’s inclusion in various comic book guides and databases. This makes it at least as notable as other lesser-known comics (of which there are many that have articles in Wikipedia.) As to sourcing, besides the comic itself, the author has included an audio news report as well as links to podcasts that discuss the publication. That being said, I do see a few instances where citations are needed. (The reference to the creators of Anything But Monday having worked for MTV, for example.) But those parts should be flagged "citation needed" or edited out of the article rather than deleting the whole article itself.12.193.56.130 20:39, 7 November 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 WP:CSD A7 Tizio, Caio, Sempronio 20:12, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Skinsize Kings

Skinsize Kings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

disputed PROD for NN-band delete DesertSky85451 18:06, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete Alex Bakharev 11:32, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stable band

Stable band (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Article about a band that has no released albums, as far as I can tell. The article looks like a collection of unverifiable original research, and the only sources of any kind given are a few MySpace band pages. Google shows no relevant hits for STABLE, STABLE band, or Stable band.

The article was tagged as a speedy delete, but the tag was removed by the creator. I basically didn't feel 100% sure it was a speedy, so I figured a few extra pairs of eyes couldn't hurt. --Slowking Man 18:30, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page because it is about a song by the band:

--Slowking Man 18:32, 4 November 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 14:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Esato

Esato (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A web forum that doesn't seem to have ever been covered by any reliable sources. Even the Bigboards website, which people often like to quote to get their forums kept, is unimpressive regarding this forum. Delete as failing WP:WEB and WP:V. Wickethewok 18:38, 4 November 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 redirect as an alternate spelling. --Coredesat 05:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gil Fox

Gil Fox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The alleged creater of the covers of a comic book series. It is unreferenced, and unnotable. Borjon22 18:38, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You don't understand. I never said he created anything. I said he drew covers for comic books. There is a difference between the two. Rhino131 18:46, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you wrote contributed. Not that it matters, but i just want the facts to be right. 11kowrom 01:50, 6 November 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 01:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suzanne Rhatigan

Suzanne Rhatigan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This person is non-notable, there are no working refs in the article, and wouldn't be appropriate if they did. IronDuke 18:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep There is an article from The New York Times that has Suzanne Rhatigan as the focus of an article[34]. However, I also found this[35] (she's 135). I hate saying this, but there is some sort of lurking notablity existing here, I just can't put my finger on it. Yanksox 00:43, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The NYTimes thing is from 14 years ago (and covers many, many bands who, like Ms. Rhatigan, go nowhere), and the website you refer to (and thanks for actually taking the time to look) refers to her as "unknown." Did she chart anywhere? Influence anyone? Win any awards? It seems to me like we're entering a phase where people are notable if anyone has ever mentioned them in any newspaper, magazine, or blog, or they get over a thousand hits on Google (never mind that they're mostly WP mirrors) or if they're "clearly notable," like elementary schools. Sigh. I kinda thought this would happen, but it's still depressing. IronDuke 01:01, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete appears tantalisingly close to notability but stops just short. Kavadi carrier 08:29, 5 November 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, Seems unclear... also references were added late, giving this another chance.W.marsh 16:21, 10 November 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. Harro5 08:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Dixon

Jeffrey Dixon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Suspected hoax. The current article contains obviously ridiculous claims, like finding and losing the first graviton, but even the earliest version has silly claims (Googling for his name with Survivor turns up a handful of irrelevant hits, graduating from college in three months, being cast in Spiderman 6). Groggy Dice 18:51, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Eyre (1973 TV serial)

Jane Eyre (1973 TV serial) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable, no refs IronDuke 18:57, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment It could indeed. And yet, a warmed-over copyvio sidestep from IMDB wouldn't make it notable. As for the BBC, they do indeed have a long tradition of etc., etc. That's why, I think, we have an article on them. IronDuke 20:11, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You mean this page? It provides nothing. IMDb is a reference, but it is NOT a reliable source. Like WP, anyone can add anything to IMDb. I could list myself as a cast member in Casablanca, and it wouldn't even be corrected for a few weeks. IMDb can confirm cast lists, but nothing else; what could one pull from an IMDb listing, a bit of trivia that may or may not be otherwise verifiable? -- Kicking222 01:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; the subject is clearly notable. However, all four tv series articles appear to be nothing else than year+cast+summary (the latter is really redundant). Merging all of them into one (if no info is added) could be an easy solution to their lack of content. Tizio, Caio, Sempronio 20:22, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Even an ancient review by a faceless hack in `73 would not confer notability, per se. IronDuke 21:27, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • (to IronDuke) There is a difference between citing a source to support a statement and citing a source to backup the notability of a subject. The latter only shows that someone who is independent on the subject has considered the subject interesting/important enough to talk about it. I myself would not made an article out of Amazon reviews; the Amazon reviews only show that someone was interested in the series enough to write something about it.
      Of course, if your idea of notability is "having a lasting impact on a culture", what I said makes no sense to you. Good luck on trying to enforce such definition of notability on Wikipedia, then. Tizio, Caio, Sempronio 21:21, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      Thank you for your warm wishes. It's true, I'd like to keep WP from metastisizing into a giant cruft-magnet, and urge other editors to join me in this. However, I completely understand if you don't want to be a part of that. IronDuke 21:27, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
dumb joke, comment cos it's difficult to work out where to start. but seriously, what it is yr NN claim based on other than some version or other of "i haven't heard of it?" regarding the no-sources, there's a specific template for that, & u shld have put that up 1st. & if u don't know, for instance, how well known the book is (from which some notablility follows), maybe u cld leave these subjects to others. (yes, this happens to be a personal crusade of mine, but realy, you cld have been informed of all this on the article's talk page, & the article probably wld have been improved, all w/out clogging up afd). & obviously point of above is (as the guidline says, but perhaps shld spell out in bold) high hits is prob. notability, but not necessarily other way around esp. frm 1973. so, justifications pls? → bsnowball 14:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no way to prove something is non-notable. Is that so hard to grasp? If someone puts an article up about their dog Fluffy, and I wanted to delete it, how would I prove Fluffy wasn't notable? It would be up to the article's editor to, when challenged, come back and say "Oh, Fluffy saved a schoolbus full of kids from drowning." If somebody wanted to come up with a reference saying that this production was somehow notable, as opposed to all the many, many adaptations there have been before and since, please do so. Happy to be proven wrong. And no, no notability whatever "follows" from the trivial reproduction of a non-trivial work. IronDuke
Who is giving it attention? And I know that there are UK folks reading this, love to have them provide a source. If I may use the language of your people, Jeff, that would be wicked cool. IronDuke 17:48, 6 November 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 01:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Susanna Gregory

Susanna Gregory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

No reviews or awards, non-notable IronDuke 19:02, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Have you seen WP:BIO, where notability is conferred for "Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work"? Being on Amazon is not a review, and the interview you reference is from a source I've never heard of. Is the source itself notable? IronDuke 21:51, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In fact, I do agree that this author isn't the best sourced I've seen around. But with so many books published and thousands of results on Yahoo! and Google, I'd say that she appears to be notable enough to justify inclusion. The article is likely to be expanded so I believe there's no need to delete it.--Húsönd 22:01, 4 November 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. W.marsh 16:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Crossroads of Destiny

The Crossroads of Destiny (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)


Textbook case of a source source claiming false authority. This article's source, TV.com, gets its information from a mysterious and unnamed person at Nickelodeon. There's no way to verify it. Listed here because of a contested PROD. --Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 19:12, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom unless other independent reliable source mentions this. And the talk page argument comparing this to Watergate Scandal is ridiculous. Watergate information initially all came from a leak, to be sure, but it has since then been mentioned in many, many sources. The information in this article, however, appears not to have been. Kavadi carrier 04:57, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hence the quote on every article that is talking about a future product, " This article or section contains information about a scheduled future television show or episode(s). It may contain non-definitive information based on commercials, a website or interviews. The information may still change as the date of broadcast approaches." Tv.com has been quite reliable in the past, with many correct predictions of future episodes. It may change though, because, all of these types of articles are based upon speculation that may or may not be true. The people who read the article, take the risk of having the information in the article being false, by viewing the notice at the top. Likewise, I don't think this article should be deleted. --Black Stone157 16:35, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're still missing the point. The source of this is not official in any way, shape, or form. We don't even know who this "source" at Nickelodeon is. Adding the future tv template doesn't render Wikipedia:Verifiability void.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 20:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok, I get it now. I have no further comments against the deletion of this page. The only information it really provided was, the title of the episode; which seemingly seemed to come out of nowhere. And, I see Kavadi's point, how Tv.com is the only site, with any claims to the name of the site, and its airdate. --Black Stone157 03:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I say we definitely keep it with some sort of notice at the top. If/when the episode is confirmed, it would be annoying to go back and make it all over again. We should keep the article, but putting it on the list of episodes is a whole other discussion. -Dylan0513 03:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT a crystal ball. Delete. Interrobamf 03:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
it's a shame that we can't just make barebone pages in preparation of a page, but if everyone were to do that it would get kind of crazy. i say we delete it now and when the episode comes out, or we have reliable info, ask an admin to undelete it. -Zappernapper 17:15, 9 November 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. W.marsh 16:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exceptional balance

Exceptional balance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

DELETE - There is no such term in accounting called "Exceptional Balance" and the article does not provide any citations to support its existence. Octopus-Hands 13:20, 4 November 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 Alex Bakharev 11:27, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Damian O'Doherty

Damian O'Doherty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Completing incomplete nomination. Procedural only. -- NORTH talk 21:06, 4 November 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 rename. W.marsh 01:38, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Route 309A (Florida)

Route 309A (Florida) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article has been nominated before in September. (Prior AfD here.) Since September, the article has not been touched. The article is still a one-sentence stub about a road claiming to be a Florida State Road when in actuality it isn't. (According to SPUI's comments in the prior AfD it's now County Road 308B.) It is a non-notable former state highway that doesn't fall under the precedent (which I agree with) of keeping all state highways. NORTH talk 21:01, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • This will contradict the "keep all roads" policy that I have admittedly adopted, but delete unless the article is significantly expanded and the importance of the road is made clear. Optionally, the road could also be moved to represent its current status as CR 308B and expanded upon, including a mention of "Route" (whatever type of route it was, as this fact is not clear either) 309A in the history. But as it stands right now, I would support its deletion, not because of its short length, but because it has not been altered in any way since the last AfD, which tells me personally that no one was willing to add to the article, even when it is on the verge of deletion. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 22:06, 4 November 2006 (UTC) Now that enough information has been added to the article to determine what the route was/is and where the route is located, I say rename to County Route 308B (Putnam County, Florida) or County Road 308B (Putnam County, Florida), depending on what other Florida CRs are named. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 21:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable road. Kavadi carrier 04:48, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unless multiple independent sources are shown to have written about the road. I do not see how every road in the world is deserving of an encyclopedia article. Edison 04:51, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename County Road 308B (Putnam County, Florida). Sorry about the non-conventional vote, but this one threw me for a loop. I think all highways are notable... but this FORMER highway? I'm surprised that there was no improvement of this since the last AfD. But I did a couple of things. I learned it is an actual road and added its current status... which is no longer Route 309A and now County Road 308B... and added a citation (I even kept it cached so you can find it in the link!). I say rename this and include its former designation of Route 309A in the article --Oakshade 04:57, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and the Wikipedia:WikiProject Florida State Roads folks should give their wisdom on this (left message on talk page). --Oakshade 05:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is it "Country Road 308B" or "County Road 308B"? --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 19:08, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
County Road. --NE2 20:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am very sorry, "Country" was a typo. It's "County Road 308B" --Oakshade 22:50, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - With regards to the former highway question, Wikipedia is supposed to be timeless and not have a bias to current items. So a former highway has just a right to have an article as a current one. --Holderca1 01:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I was aware of those other articles when I nominated this one. My plan was to nominate a single article for deletion to see where community opinion lay. This weekend when I have some time, I'll close this discussion (unless someone else beats me to it), move this page, and move all the other ones created by that user provided I can find an appropriate destination for them. If I can't figure out where they're supposed to be, then those leftover ones I'll nominate again, and maybe someone else can provide the necessary information as they've done here. -- NORTH talk 00:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just moved a few, some of them I am not sure of and would have to do a little research. They say they are a county road, but don't say the county it is in. --Holderca1 01:31, 10 November 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. Disregarding "all schools are inherently notable", the arguments for deletion are stronger than the arguments for keeping here. The school is verifiable - we know it exists - but nothing has been presented to show that it is notable. There is hardly any mergeable information here. --Coredesat 05:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thayer J. Hill Middle School

Thayer J. Hill Middle School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable middle school. Nominated on Prod but was removed only on grounds that the information is "verifiable" - it is, and in fact that's about the only information on the school's official "About Us" page (which could be seen as violation of copyright if it hadn't been rewritten with so many typos). Only claims to fame are known locally, if at all (and I doubt the fact that the school being its district's first middle school is widely known by residents of Naperville and Aurora, Illinois). Article doesn't even seem to meet any notability requirements of WP:SCHOOLS. --JohnDBuell 20:56, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No assertion of notability, and doesn't come close to passing WP:SCHOOLS (even though that is just a proposed guideline and I disagree with parts of it). BTW, new AFDs are supposed to go at the bottom of the page. TJ Spyke 21:03, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, sorry, I bypassed one of the templates inadvertently. --JohnDBuell 21:06, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hill is actually mentioned in the Naperville, Illinois article already (it's in Naperville, not Aurora), and it also garnered a mention in Public school systems in Aurora, Illinois#Indian Prairie School District 204. A mascot might be worth adding to the Naperville list (if mascots of the other schools in that article are added), but otherwise I don't think a merge is really necessary, the information is already there. --JohnDBuell 21:13, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One other thing - if a redirect is used pointing back to any other article as a result of this discussion, I would ask that such a redirect be placed at Thayer J. Hill Middle School, the school's full name, so as to disambiguate with any other schools called "Hill Middle School." --JohnDBuell 21:20, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Moved to article title suggested. Hill Middle School can become the disambiguation page when necessary. Unfocused 00:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation page is now done, as I noticed a Hill Middle School in a California school district. --JohnDBuell 02:39, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No notability, no assertion of anything important about this school. It has no notable alumni, has had no teams or clubs perform at a notable level or anything else that might confer notability. As observed by TJ, it doesn't even come close to passing the highly generous WP:SCHOOLS. JoshuaZ 23:38, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - WP:SCHOOLS is just a proposed guideline. In my opinion, all schools are notable. --Ineffable3000 23:48, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Do you have some reasoning or basis behind that claim? Simply asserting it doesn't give it any validity. JoshuaZ 23:59, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, asserting it does give it just as much validity as asserting the opposite opinion. Unfocused 09:20, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually no it doesn't. The default status for things is to be not-notable. It doesn't matter how much I assert that corner stores are notable. Unless I give some argument as to why that's true that assertion holds no water whatsoever. JoshuaZ 14:40, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • The default status for a random item is non-notable, however this isn't a random article, it's a school, which for many editors includes inherent notability due to its mission function, and impact on its attendees. Unfocused 20:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Which comes down to an assertion by fiat. I could make nearly identical arguments for hospitals (people are born there) graveyards (after death you spend eternity there (in some sense at least)) and many other institutions. Furthermore, schools are largely interchangeable and have little actual impact on many people for whom schools are holding pens until they got jobs or for whom there are benefit from schools but they in no way benefit much based on anything unique about that school. There is nothing which distinguishes this school from any others in that regard. Nothing in the article indicates that students here are having a terribly unique experience they wouldn't get at any other school. Schools as a whole are notable, that doesn't make each individual school notable. JoshuaZ 21:31, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. Completely verifiable and important to the community it serves. Nice start on the article thus far. Unfocused 00:56, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Sorry but this is bugging me. I don't see how a near-verbatim copy of information already online at the school's own "About Our School" page [37] can be considered a "nice start". Looks more like copyvio to me. And why should Wikipedia be reproducing information found on the pages that schools have set up about their own history all over the Web? --JohnDBuell 03:22, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Because there's nothing to suggest that the pages run by the schools themselves are or will remain a neutral source of information. Unfocused 05:51, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's unlikely Wikipedia will ever be much better for a simple reason - public schools keep a LOT of information, especially negative information, out of the hands of the press. They don't want to alarm their public with all of the things that really go on within the buildings (thefts are a good example). But, as I only know this first hand, it would be considered WP:OR.... --JohnDBuell 15:20, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Being important to the community it serves is not a reason to keep it. Corner stores are important to their communities as is every little park and day-care. Do you think we should keep all of them? JoshuaZ 00:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The busses that brings kids to school are incredibly important; why not write an article on every bus? Why not write an article on every teacher- teachers are surely important to the community, no? What about town halls, courtrooms, and hospitals? How are these any less important (or, more appropriately, how are schools any more notable)? -- Kicking222 01:17, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No indication it's noteworthy. Directory entry. Doesn't even meet WP:SCHOOLS' broad standards. Would be gone already if it were anything other than a school. Shimeru 01:11, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per, among other reasons, Shimeru's. If this were a hospital, or a residence with possible historical significance, or any other type of building (or institution), it would already be long gone. The school is already mentioned in appropriate articles, so a merge is unnecessary. -- Kicking222 01:14, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: We _could_ add EVERY public school in the United States, making Wikipedia a HUGE directory of schools (against WP:NOT) and boost the count of articles by an obscene number, against even Jimbo's wishes for quality over quantity. --JohnDBuell 02:33, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Kavadi carrier 04:47, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a non-notable school, devoid of any historical or cultural significance. Montco 06:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, JoshuaZ and Kicking222. Encyclopedia, not a near-infinite collection of content-free stubs. Hasn't anyone told the every-school-is-sacred crowd that this year's big thing is quality, not quantity ? Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:34, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article has ample room for expansion. We're not going to achieve our collective goal pf having articles for every school in the US if we don't work together. Alansohn 19:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WHOSE collective goal? I'll say it again - why should Wikipedia repeat those things that are already posted on school district websites across the United States and elsewhere? --JohnDBuell 20:20, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I repeat myself as well, and from this discussion, no less: Because there's nothing to suggest that the pages run by the schools themselves are or will remain a neutral source of information. Unfocused 20:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? I don't understand how that's relevant to John's question. Could you explain in more detail? JoshuaZ 02:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, it's a nice copy of information from several pages at hill.ipsd.org - they must be so proud. --JohnDBuell 14:48, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lack of notability, and copyright violation of district web pages aren't "valid arguments for deletion"? --JohnDBuell 23:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unless I am missing something, the current version of this article is not a copyvio. If it is, the correct place to list this is Wikipedia:Copyright problems, not AFD. Notability is not a criterion for deletion here. Silensor 23:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It may not be word for word but there's NOTHING within the article that isn't already found at hill.ipsd.org, as I've pointed out more than once. --JohnDBuell 00:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, notability a deletion criterion. Its used all the time in deletion discussions and is officially enshrined in the likes of WP:BIO, WP:CORP WP:MUSIC and WP:ANYTHINGTHATISNTAFRAKINSCHOOL. JoshuaZ 04:56, 9 November 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_November_4&oldid=85721684"