Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 November 18

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Brokendowntoyotacamry (talk | contribs) at 15:30, 18 November 2006. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
< November 17 November 19 >

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.--Húsönd 01:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Berlin

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

Does not appear to meet the guidelines at WP:PROF. The "Glaucoma Institute of Beverly Hills" is Berlin's private practice. Despite what one may infer from the article, his academic involvement is not impressive: 8 total papers (only 1 in the past 10 years) and only two on glaucoma (none in the past 10 years).[1] Not convinced that work on "Excimer Laser Trabeculostomy" is that notable enough per guidelines at WP:PROF. AED 00:25, 18 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. Shella * 22:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Office 2.0

Office 2.0 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Appears to be a neologism. If you notice that the article has one source, that's because there's one person behind the entire idea, organising conferences and all. Also see: WP:NOT crystal ball. --user:Qviri 01:08, 18 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. Kimchi.sg 08:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James Marcinkowski

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

James Marcinkowski was an unsuccessful candidate for Michigan's 8th congressional district. As per WP:C&E, it is preferable for articles created for congressional campaigns to be removed and included under an article about the campaign, which has been created at Michigan 8th congressional district election, 2006. Contents of the Marcinkowski article have been copied to the destination article for future revising. The debate is whether Marcinkowski represents a notable person in his own right, outside of the congressional race, as per WP:BLP guidelines. It should be noted that Marcinkowski did not have an article until his run for Congress, and that the majority of the article's content comes from his Congressional campaign. Jeff 23:22, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the statement that "Marcinkowski did not have an article until his run for Congress" is false, as I noted below. His article was created in the wake of his testimony to the Senate in July 2005.- csloat 00:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Good call. Ok, modify it to "having a stub until he ran for congress at which point his campaign filled in the article" -- Fair disclosure: I voted for Marcinkowski in the general election. --Jeff 00:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Marcinkowski had a bio page up before he announced his run for Congress. As you can see here, it was active in 2005 (though barely a stub). Unfortunately someone moved the page without consensus to Michigan 8th congressional district election, 2006 instead of AfDing it first, so the link I gave has the wrong page title. In any case, Marcinkowski was known for his work with the CIA and for his outspoken response to the Plame affair. He testified about it to the Senate well before his unsuccessful congressional run. Prior to that, he was known for prosecuting suicide Dr. Kevorkian when he was a prosecutor in Michigan. He may not be the most well-known person to ever run for Congress, but he is not an unknown, and his congressional run was not the only reason he was considered notable enough for a BLP. His testimony to the Senate committee is here; David Corn called it "perhaps the most powerful rebuttal of and rebuke" of the testimony that day; the testimony is quoted in numerous places, including Todd Gitlin's book The Intellectuals and the Flag excerpted in The American Prospect.--csloat 00:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Marcinkowski is not mentioned by name in the Plame Affair article or the Jack Kevorkian article. I think though your "keep" argument is certainly the synopsis of the other side of this debate! Looking forward to more outside opinion. --Jeff 00:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Aside: That can easily be fixed by editing the Plame Affair article or the Jack Kevorkian article :)-csloat 00:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If you're merging the content into another article, why not just turn it into a redirect? That doesn't require afd, makes the information easier to find, and preserves the page history needed for GFDL. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That's what was done, but csloat objected and wanted an AfD... So I went ahead and started the AfD request. Guess it probably could've just been a merge discussion back at the article, but I'm not really the best bureaucrat. --Jeff 06:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The prob with redirecting is that it turned a biography into a page about a historical event.--csloat 07:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If a person is only included because of one event, and the only thing worth writing about them is in relation to that one event, it's logical to redirect their name to that one event. The question of whether this guy has notability other than the election is a content dispute, and not an issue that needs to be brought to AFD. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 07:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The question of whether this guy has notability other than the election is a content dispute, and not an issue that needs to be brought to AFD. Odd, I thought that the point of AfDs was to determine notability, and that "content dispute" occurs when editors agree on notability but disagree on wording. John Broughton | Talk 14:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nevertheless, I agree that simply moving the article was a bad idea. An article about an election needs a fundamentally different structure from a biography and we'd be better off with a decent article written from scratch to cover the election (or just a paragraph in the page on the district). This is really a mess. User:John Broughton's move has made things way screwy. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 07:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, the article on the campaign - Michigan 8th congressional district election, 2006 specifically says the information below [which is about Marcinkowski] will be edited down and will become part of a full article about this race. My intent is to turn that draft into a decent article - in fact, I'm setting up a wikiproject to recruit editors for this and a number of other races. While I'd love to be able to instantly create a complete article for the Michigan 8th race, I'm putting most of my efforts into the wikiproject, which hopefully will result in almost 100 good articles about House races in 2006.
I hope you won't use the same methods to create the rest of the articles; these moves just lead to a mess. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I did 15 or so of these moves, trying to be judicious - almost all the articles were short and the candidates clearly non-notable. This one was probably the longest and the most "on the cusp"; with hindsight, I probably wouldn't have done what I did, despite WP:BB. I do note that no one has objected to any of the other moves, as far as I know. John Broughton | Talk 21:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And my move didn't make things "way screwy" - what made things "screwy" was the copy/paste done by Commodore Sloat; he could have just done a move to put the article back where it was. Or he could have asked me about my move, and I could have told him him how to reverse it. John Broughton | Talk 14:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The more I look at this the worse it gets. The election article needs to be moved back to the guy's name to restore the history. This should be deleted for housekeeping as a copy-paste move, but with care to merge any new content with the moved over copy. I pity the admin who has to sort this out. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 07:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to post a note on the discussion page of James Marcinkowski saying that the page history and prior versions of the article are available at Michigan 8th congressional district election, 2006, for those who want to look at those. And someone looking at the page history can also figure that out, since the oldest entry is a move. As for getting an admin involved - perhaps the AfD should be finished, first, since there is a disagreement here about whether Marcinkowski deserves an article or not? John Broughton | Talk 14:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per csloat above -- Sholom 15:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable and certainly verifiable. Note that the high-traffic election site www.electoral-vote.com started linking to our articles on both incumbents AND challengers for congressional seats this year; it's a sign that coverage of congressional challengers here is already EXPECTED by the world outside Wikipedia. Unfocused 07:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 01:34, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The AfD template was removed from the article a few hours after the AfD started and never replaced, I am adding it and relisting, just to err on the side of caution. --W.marsh 01:34, 18 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 23:31, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dick Couch

Non-notable author dockingmantalk 01:37, 18 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. Kimchi.sg 08:22, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roy Gum

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

Non-notable bio, possible WP:COI. Article was proposed for speedy and prod, but those tags were deleted by author. Shunpiker 01:45, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. In addition, the author has a verbatim copy of the article as his userpage. -- dockingmantalk 02:09, 18 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 -- Samir धर्म 04:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikIran

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

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate directory of businesses, websites, persons, etc. Heja Helweda 01:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikIran pales into insignificance when compared with LyricWiki. Merely existing isn't an assertion of notability and therefore cannot be used to argue for the keeping of this article. MER-C 08:33, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Alleged copyvios on that site are no reason to delete a Wikipedia entry. It is not just a Wikipedia mirror, it is a Wikipedia spin-off that has developed in its own way.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 02:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
May I ask why you put the word encyclopedia in quotes, as if to suggest that it's not a real encyclopedia? So, from your perspective, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, but this one isn't, right? :) That's nice. Now, the history of the article you mention was started by Zereshk, and if he's involved with wikIran, the copyvio issue is a bit moot. But there's another thing, which makes that point even more moot. It's released under the GFDL as well, just like Wikipedia, so someone can easily go there and put the attribution there if it's missing. Right? I mean, that is the entire purpose of the GFDL, is it not? Floodlands 20:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, also please note that linking WikIran (being a small wiki) "should be avoid", according to our policy. I see that to some extent the spamming of Iran-related pages has already been began. :-) bogdan 06:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Which policy is that? I've been looking through the policy pages, and can't find anything that says Wikipedians aren't allowed to link to small websites or wikis. That's nonsense. As an admin, you're really shouldn't make things up. If an editor incorporates text from wikIran or another public GFDL corpus provider, they can also add an attribution link. By virtue of that fact alone, your claim is incorrect. By the way, why the antagonism? You want to delete this article, that's fine. But please do not make false accusations of "spamming" against other users. Assume good faith, and leave your sarcasm at the door. Thanks. Floodlands 19:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
from Wikipedia:External links: "Links normally to be avoided": Links to wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial numbers of editors.. bogdan 19:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nice try. That's a guideline, not a policy. As an admin, shouldn't you have a clear understanding of the difference? ;) Floodlands 20:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikiran appears to be a one man show, as the only person who edited it in the last week is a certain User:Aeon, so it fails to meet the criteria. bogdan 19:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually judging from the history of articles User:Fesenjoon looks to be the more active user. But this is a moot point. The importance of any website is the quality of its content, not the quantity of users involved. What's interesting is that this wouldn't even be an issue if this site experiences what another editor here calls the "Slashdot effect" and achieved significant notability. I'm sure you would still use that "one-man-show" bit as an excuse for deletion, but you would never be able to dispute the notability criteria. What is nice to see are the other editors here who are positive in their outlook, desiring to delete now, but recreate later when notability is attained. And it is also of note to mention that these editors refrain from making accusations and the use of a sarcastic tone. Wikipedia needs far more positive, level-headed editors like that. Floodlands 20:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's a bad faith assumption!--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 16:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't think so. Not based on the edit history. metaspheres 18:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Some so called admins are already taking it upon themselves and deleting all links to WikIran articles on WP. Note User:Bogdangiusca's edits for example. His deletions are not "policy" as he claims, but guidelines, and he knows it. Yet he persists. Sad part is that if you take a closer look, most WikIran articles are more complete in content than their WP counterpart. I see such moves as purely intentional and obstructive.--Zereshk 22:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Wikipedia:Spam is also a guideline. That doesn't prevent people from removing "Enl4rge Y0ur Pen1s" ads. :-) bogdan 22:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That comparison is totally out of line. There is no way you can pass off adding links to wikIran as "spamming" especially considering both the nature of the site and the fact that Zereshk has been by far the most active editor in the sphere of Iranian articles here on Wikipedia. Respect and manners go a long way in this world. Before his arrival, the vast majority of Iran articles were mere stubs. Accusing a long-term editor of his class, expertise and sincerity - not to mention all the incredible amounts of time he has dedicated to Wikipedia - of spamming is in, to put it bluntly, incredibly bad taste and is a borderline personal attack. Floodlands 01:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not arguing with your objection to this comment, but given that you've only been on Wikipedia two days, it is amazing that you know so much about Zereshk's edit history.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 01:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention that this user certainly has never edited alongside Zereshk; except for one edit to his userpage, this user has never edited outside this AfD! --Rory096 01:39, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
... although the user's evident interest in this AfD has not prompted them to vote.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 01:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you have any specific objections or problems with me, there are other, more proper channels for that. Otherwise, please refrain from any further commenting on my responses, unless you are objecting to any points that I have raised. Thanks. Floodlands 01:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Have you got any proof of this? Are you referring to those named here [4]? It could have an impact on the article's content, if the article is saved - I still maintain my keep vote, but think that such details should be included if they are true.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 21:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An interesting point: WikIran was started on 7 May (according to the history of its main page), which is coincidentally the same date as the remedies concluded for the Aucaman arbitration, which set out topical bans [5]. I think there is a fair point here [6]. Personally, I think WikIran is just the first of many, created because collaborate projects work better when the editors are unified behind a certain editorial line rather than the despair and futility that Wikipedia generates - and what's wrong with that?--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 21:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you and the above anon are going to make accusations against specific editor(s), please name names. And provide a name for yourself as well, and your background in that case. And of course, please provide concrete evidence. Otherwise, please refrain from such speculations. Also, I have to ask the anon if s/he is also a banned user, and if so, please provide your banned username(s) for the record. Floodlands 01:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are you joking? Why should I give you my name, address and occupation simply because I have made an enquiry. And it is a bit rich for you to make demands as someone who has only created an account to participate in this AfD!--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 01:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me? Please keep your outrage to a minimum and read my post carefully. And by the way, this is not a message board for general discussion. Thanks. Floodlands 01:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are extremely knowledgeable about Wikipedia rules for someone who has only just signed up. Some might say that you are a sockpuppet. But I could not possibly comment :o)--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 01:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To use your own words in a comment further above, "that's a bad faith assumption!" Floodlands 01:39, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia - we're all hypocrites here! ;o)--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 01:51, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what that's supposed to imply, but to each their own, I guess. Floodlands 02:53, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It implies a joke.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 02:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Believe me, I'm laughing. Floodlands 02:59, 23 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 this and Dev Sibwarra to The Truce at Bakura -- Samir धर्म 04:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dev Sibrawa

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

Minor Star Wars character. 1 ghit (not quite a googlewhack, if you remove the quotes you get three), thus unverifiable. Crufty and unreferenced. Contested prod. MER-C 01:58, 18 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. hoax.. Aksi_great (talk) 20:08, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clayton, Oregon

Clayton, Oregon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hoax article. After consultation with several editors we can find no sources proving this place exists. The one article that links to it may be in error. Katr67 02:10, 18 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 attack pages. Kimchi.sg 08:29, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Garth Wintergreen, Matthew Hüygens-Villeneuve

Tagged for speedy deletion by an anonymous user saying this article is a hoax. —Quarl (talk) 2006-11-18 02:58Z

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Cryptic 01:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quadri-

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

Topic is subsumed by Wiktionary entry wikt:Quad- Myasuda 03:14, 18 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, also withdrawn although it's irrelevant now. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 00:53, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kansas Sampler

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

Fails WP:ORG based on local scope & lack of third-party sources, and content is taken almost entirely from the various websites associated with the organization, only slightly reorganized. – Little Miss Might Be Wrong 03:15, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Needs editing, but there seem to ample hits at unrelated sites

--Hjal 09:12, 18 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. —Cryptic 01:49, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wooden Wars

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

Contested prod. Non-notable computer game modification. Khatru2 03:51, 18 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. —Cryptic 01:50, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quake and Kaik

Quake and Kaik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Appears to be made up out of whole cloth. Analogous Spanish-language page now well on its way to being deleted for that reason Jmabel | Talk 04:41, 18 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. —Cryptic 01:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aarón González

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

Appears to be made up out of whole cloth. Analogous Spanish-language page now well on its way to being deleted for that reason Jmabel | Talk 04:46, 18 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. —Cryptic 01:58, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Geremy Olkous

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

This appears to be hoax. Virtually all of the ghits for this person (in English or otherwise) appear to be WP mirrors and the Roseau Warriors are a high school team in Minnesota... author looks to be the same as the author of Quake and Kaik and Aarón González, both up for AfD as hoaxes. Tubezone 05:18, 18 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. At the end of the day, notability and verifiability count the most; while the existance of the show can be verified from [10], discard the (unsourced) season summaries and you get a show that is not notable enough for its own article. Kimchi.sg 09:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gettin' Later

Gettin' Later (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Vanity article about a college TV show. Unverifiable. Recury 20:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep I've googled and found clear sources. Will add to article now. Gekedo 21:31, 12 November 2006 (UTC) And Comment - This is far from unverifiable...there is an official website as well as numerous references to the show, upon a Google search. However, I do think there is rather too much information here. Could do with a trim. Gekedo 21:35, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No indication why this TV show is supposed to be notable. One source is actually a mirror of the Wikipedia article, two are associated with the show, one is a college newspaper article that briefly mentions it. Not really overwhelming. Sandstein 21:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep This show, it's guest list, and some of it's subject matter dig surprisingly deep into college and professional sports as well as entertainment, particularly in the Pittsburgh region. I do agree that some details are a bit overkill, but as a whole, this show provides a meaningful look into the regional sportscape as well as the opinions and perceptions of those who are/were a aprt of it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.60.153.103 (talk • contribs) .

Strong keep This show was the flagship of a once dead University television station, and pretty much single-handedly brought it back to life. It laid the groundwork for a station that is still functioning to this day. Also, the show had on many regional guests and even a few national guests, rare for a local talk show. It allowed viewers to see local personalities in a way they normally didn't see. There are many sources online related to the show. It was available every week online long before networks began carrying shows online. It is an important piece of local programming history and reruns can still be viewed online to this day. Definitely deserves to keep the entry.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.46.6.70 (talk • contribs)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, trialsanderrors 05:37, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per prior precedents on AfD, college or university broadcast stations which ONLY broadcast to their particular university do NOT deserve separate articles (though they can and should be mentioned on the article about the university itself). An article about a TV show on a college station that is only seen by students of said college is doubleplus not notable. The lack of verifiable third party sources confirms this. If multiple references in reputable press (unconnected to the show or college) about this show can be provided, I would change my vote. --Jayron32 05:51, 18 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. 1ne 06:36, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CHR Global (second nomination)

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

We've been fighting this one off and on for almost a year now. Article was unanimously deleted as advertising in February 2006, and attempts have been made off and on to recreate it ever since. A quick {{db-repost}} tagging has taken care of it each time, until now, when the creator managed to get an admin to back him up on it. So back to AfD it must come. My rationale will remain exactly the same as it was the first time, as the new article has the exact same problems today as the old one: "Pure advertising. No links to any other Wikipedia pages." (Except pages related to the last AfD, anyway [11].) Aaron 05:58, 18 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. Proto::type 09:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comixpedia

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

non notable websites. as WP:WEB. Duyouknows 05:49, 18 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) 04:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the Heavyskies

In the Heavyskies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. as non notable fan films or fancraft. Google 490hit. Imdb no films page. Duyouknows 05:54, 18 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 (web content). Kimchi.sg 08:45, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vangelis (Buffyverse)

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

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. as non notable fan films or fancraft. see Imdb no films page. Duyouknows 05:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete - being mentioned in a random podcast or discussed on a blog aren't assertions of notability. This falls in the unremarkable web content basket called CSD A7. So tagged. MER-C 08:17, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Speedy delete Pure fancruft WP:CRUFT SkierRMH 08:35, 18 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. —Cryptic 02:02, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Akron Wiki

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

Non notable Wiki. It has been speedied twice before, but I see it has sources which may be an assertion of notability. Nevertheless, it is not the "subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself" in order for the page to meet WP:WEB. Khatru2 06:53, 18 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 -- Samir धर्म 04:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Backpacker (hip hop)

Backpacker (hip hop) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Unreferenced silly neologism found in the speedy backlog. Deleted once via prod and partially reposted. Opabinia regalis 07:01, 18 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, default to keep. cholmes75 (chit chat) 17:47, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of watch manufacturers

List of watch manufacturers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Wikipedia is not a directory and this list appears to be listcruft. There is no good definition of what a "watch manufacturer" is and listing every brand name is not appropriate.

This article was under proposed deletion, but it was disputed with the claim that it "Should be a fairly trivial excercise to decruftify this." On the contrary, I think it will be very difficult to decruftify.

First off, note that there already is a Category:Watchmakers, I'm sorry for failing to mention this in the prod. Many of the problems with this list, however apply to that category also.

Secondly, I confess I was hoping this list would go away quietly because an explanation of why it is a bad idea is not simple nor obvious.

Watch manufacturing goes back about 500 years. The listcruft article says that any "list of something" that doesn't have a definition for that "something" is highly questionable. The closest thing to a defintion of a watch manufacturer is a watchmaker, but as noted in that article, this includes most people who just repair watches. Imagine if people who repaired cars were called automakers rather than auto mechanics, or anyone who assembled white box, repaired or upgraded computers was a computer maker.

For the last couple hundred years, a "watch manufacture" could be anything for one person to a large company. A "watch manufacture" could produce almost all parts of a watch assemble, test and finish them, but never have its name put on the dial or be sold under its name. Or, a "watch manufacture" could do little more than contract with others to produce a, possible stock, watch with their name on it. Or, a "watch manufacture" may produce a few watches, but mostly resell other watches under their name. Or, a "watch manufacture" might make only a few easy to make parts, such as the case. Or, a "watch manufacture" might not make all the parts, but do all the work required to turn a rough movement (or an Ébauche) into a usable timepeice. Or, a "watch manufacture" might take a fully working movement and add a few flourishes. Or, ....

If you removed all current "watch manufactures" that didn't just buy generic quartz movements or ETA mechanical movements, you would eliminate almost all the names in the list of watch manufacturers, and end up with a handful such as Swatch and Rolex. However, in order to do that, you would need to know a great deal about the actual watches, something that many "watch manufactures" try very hard to keep private. The watch industry makes heavy use of branding, and has for hundreds of years, with effectively idencial watches selling for 10 or even 100 times as much with one name as another.

Because of long historical and legal precedent, basically any name that has ever appeared on a watch face has a solid claim to being a "watch manufacture". Attempting to apply more modern defintions/ideas of what qualifies as a true "manufacture" will result in strong resistance from both those companies and loyal customers.

There are whole books that just list "clock/watch manufactures". For example, look at some that are still in print on shentonbooks.com: "WATCHMAKERS AND CLOCKMAKERS OF THE WORLD: 21st CENTURY EDITION" at 720 pages, "GREATER MANCHESTER CLOCKS AND CLOCK/WATCHMAKERS" at 344 pages, "COMPLETE CHECKLIST OF AMERICAN CLOCK/WATCHMAKERS 1640-1950" at 52 pages, and several others from just that one book seller.

A complete list of watch manufacturers would easily contain thousands of entries. 

Wrs1864 07:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are more than 40 links to WP articles in that list, which suggests that there is a fair amount of interest in watch makers/manufacturers/sellers. One or more of the entries are annotated--the list could be improved by annotating it further. --Hjal 09:29, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "There are whole books that just list "clock/watch manufactures"" — This is a pretty strong Keep argument. Not to mention "more modern defintions/ideas of what qualifies as a true "manufacture"" sounds like WP:OR. Demiurge 13:16, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, listcruft. Seraphimblade 14:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/questions My argument is not that there isn't interest, nor that the list would be short, but rather that the list will be effectively unlimited and unmaintainable. Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists)#Appropriate topics for lists. Remember, any name that has appeared on a watch face, any person who has or had a career as a "watchmaker" would qualify. Right now, this list is primarily external links to small companies that most likely manufacture very few, if any parts of the watches they sell, along with internal links to things like Diesel (clothing company), DKNY and Victorinox which do not actually manfacuter watches, or internal links such as Roamer, Skagen, Xemex (redlinked in the list) which don't link to articles related to watches. Is there any criteria for what does or does not belong here that can make it less of a website directory? For example, there are things like list of people, but those lists seem to be restricted to internal links. Would that be a reasonable restriction? Remember, there already is a category for watchmakers, which automatically restricts the list to internal links. I will keep an eye on this, and if people can convince me that this list can be "easily decruftified", I will withdraw my AfD. Originally, I was just going to delete what I thought were inappropriate entries, but realized that would delete almost everything. Wrs1864 15:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you see any bad entries of non-watch manufacturers, the solution is to delete those entries, not this list. FrozenPurpleCube 15:14, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, but that is kind of my point, what qualifies as a "watch manufacturer"? WP:lists explicitly says "For example a list of brand names would be far too long to be of value" and the historic definition would include a huge number of brand names. For example, I have a web page that lists a couple hundred names that I could add to this article, and this list is only for one particular "real" manufacturer that has been defunct for decades, it was known for *not* selling watches under other names, and I collected the list over a relatively short time. I think that if I either deleted 90% of this list, or added hundreds of new entries, that I would violate WP:POINT. Wrs1864 18:07, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • This list isn't for all watch manufacturers, it's for notable watch manufacturers (the "notable" is implicit in all lists on Wikipedia). A good rule of thumb is that, if it wouldn't deserve a Wikipedia article of its own, it doesn't deserve inclusion in the list. Demiurge 18:22, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Your question is something that can resolved. For example, by removing any entries that are just brand-names labels that buy from another source with their labels put on. (Though I'd make a distinction with those that assemble from stock components). For another example, take a look at List of automobile manufacturers. Obviously the details would require some knowledge of the subject, but I suggest taking it to the list's discussion page, and seeking input from other informed persons. FrozenPurpleCube 22:09, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • As I said in my AfD commentary, I don't think trying to apply modern concepts of what a manufacturer is will work. As Demiurge points out, any such new definition would be WP:OR. I mentioned carmakers in my AfD so, yeah, I have looked at it quite a bit. Compared to watches, cars are a very modern invention and have a comparatively modern definition of what a "manufacturer" is. Also, as I mentioned in my AfD, these companies try very hard to hide just how much or how little they actually do to qualify as "manufacturers", which will make WP:VERIFY very hard to do and result in a lot of WP:OR for each company. There are far too many examples of "watch manufactures" that really were nothing other than a shell that sold watches with their name on it. See below where I talk about the "Advance" name. Wrs1864 03:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • First, you seem confused about what OR is. Deciding the criteria on this list is not necessarily original research. All we really need is a reliable claim about the company that they make watches. Anything else is just a convenient restriction to what's useful for Wikipedia. Where that would be on Watch manufactures, I don't know, but this AfD is hardly the place to decide. If a company is just a "shell" then I think it would be clear they should be mentioned at most under the original company, assuming the brand itself is more or less notable. If something else, then that can be determined on a case by case basis. What you talk about Elgin doing with Advance is really no different than what many electronics and appliance companies do today. (For example, Sears has several brands, including Kenmore but they are manufactured by other companies from Maytag to LG). In any case, none of your arguments add up to deletion. They are merely concerns for the individual entries on the list itself. All of which can be resolved, if you commit yourself to doing so, not just giving up and throwing it in the wastebin. FrozenPurpleCube 03:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Funny you would use Sears as an example. R. W. Sears started out selling watches and hired a watchmaker named Roebuck. Their late 1800s-early 1900s advertising, at best, implied that they were watch manfacturers, even though they just resold things like Elign watches. Again, this would be considered acceptable at the time they did it. So, Sears certainly should be in a list of "watch manufacturers". I kind of doubt they would could reasonably be placed in a list of "washing machine manufacturers". Wrs1864 05:29, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • Sounds like information to be added to this article then(at least in summary form). It might also help to round out the information in the article on Sears and Elgin Watch Company. (The Sears article does mention Watches, but not Elgin, or why Roebuck was hired, the Elgin article is itself pretty bare of content. And if somebody made a list of home appliance manufacturers, they would be silly not to put Kenmore on the list in every place that it was appropriate. FrozenPurpleCube 15:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the long AfD to the contrary, none of the arguments presented indicate a grounds for deletion. All of this information should, if true, be included in the article on watchmakers or possibly at the top of this list, to inform folks. Deleting this list would accomplish nothing except the removal of potentially valuable information to folks. I don't know about you, but I prefer lists to categories myself. If you are concerned about the criteria, go to the talk page, establish some sustainable criteria, put it on the talk page, see if people accept it. FrozenPurpleCube 15:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What a nauseating linkfarm. The only way I can see this list being of any use whatsoever to Wikipedia is if inclusion criteria limiting it to companies which already possess articles on Wikipedia were both adopted and enforced, with the list page primarily serving as a honeypot to find newly-spammed articles. Category:Watchmakers is and would remain the tool that both our readers and our editors use; this unadorned list is harder to maintain, comparatively quite incomplete, and ridiculously prone to self-promotion. Unless someone is willing to commit to removing the two or three new redlinks and external links that people who ignore a nice, friendly <!-- Please do not add external links or entries that do not have an article. --> will put into the article every day, delete. —Cryptic 15:46, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as pointless list. There is no encyclopedic value is providing a list of links.meshach 21:08, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is neither a directory nor "listcruft." Fg2 00:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, directory AND listcruft AND very lousy made. Mixes manufacturers (those who actually build) with resellers (those who put a brand label on a box). Contains pearls like Advance and "generic" names as Andy Warhol. Pavel Vozenilek 01:54, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
More, it contains names from a few Western countries. A really complete list of mere manufacturers would be huge. Pavel Vozenilek 01:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, Advance is a great example! You dismiss it as if it wasn't a "watch manfacturer, but it almost certainly was represented as such. The Elgin National Watch Company made about 115,000 watches using the Advance name betwen 1875 and 1900. During this time, there were several recessions in the US and recessions hit watch companies hard since a good watch will last many decades and they are expensive. These Advance watches were made to much lower standards than Elgin's normal watches. Elgin also had a distribution system with jewelers such that everyone expected that Elgin would *never* sell direct to the public. Now, was the Advance name simply a name that Elgin used in order not to damage their own good name and sell direct to the public? Or, was it a shell corporation? Or, was it another company that contracted with Elgin? Besides the Elgin manufactured Advance watches, there are also examples made by the Trenton Watch Company. This could be evidence that the folks selling the Advance watches were separate from Elgin, or it could be that there were two companies with the same name.
All this happened "only" around 100 years ago. Lots of people are interested in this kind of trivial and have investigated it, but I am reasonably certain that no one alive today knows the answers to the above questions. What is clear to me, however, is that any list of "watch manufacturers" would need to include Advance, and that Andy Warhol watches are no less qualified to be in that list than Advance. Wrs1864 03:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Advance is dismabiguation page for a generic word. I pointed the approach this list was created - copy something, link every word, forget about it. If kept the list should be separated into the true manufacturers (they aren't that many - here's one from Czech lands [16]) and list of watch brands where marketeers could promote and battle. Pavel Vozenilek 04:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the Advance link being incorrect, in fact, I'd say there are rather a lot of them on this page once I converted it from external links to internal ones, but I felt it was more important to have it done and make it right than check each and every name for an existing article. Obviously, this list needs to be fixed even if kept, but that's a job for another day. FrozenPurpleCube 05:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Sorry for not getting back to this sooner. I have taken a hack at trying to clean this list up. Those that wanted to keep this list, please look at it and make sure what I did was acceptable. Those that wanted to delete this list, please look at it and see if it now is worth keeping. FrozenPurpleCube had previously gone through and replaced all external links with redlines, but I don't think that is a good idea because he didn't check to see if the external links were even notable watch companies. I think just creating redlines will simply encourage people to create advertising articles about the non-notable companies. Instead, I reverted his changes and removed all external links. I then went back and added in some of the more obvious notable watch companies and reorganized them into parent companies and brand names. I also deleted any internal links to articles that weren't about watch companies, but added in a few internal links to ones that had been omitted. I am certain I did not do a complete nor flawless job. However, I think this makes a much better basis for moving forward. Wrs1864 16:12, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I've taken another hack on this. I have replaced the list with an exact copy of Category:Watchmakers since it was far more complete, didn't have double indirects, and linked to the right articles. I still don't see the purpose of having both a list and a category, but I guess some people like it that way. Wrs1864 16:44, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me. Oh, and one advantage of this in list form is that it can be organized in various ways, such as by date, by country, or whatever. Whether that's worth doing, I don't know. We'll see. Glad to see you take up some of the work though. Kudos to you! FrozenPurpleCube 07:58, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because this list could be fairly usefull. If it gets too long, break it up.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete all. Aksi_great (talk) 20:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nightstreak

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

Appears to be a work of complete fiction, part of an elaborate fictional history being created - Wikipedia is not a web host. Zero relevent google hits. Creator removed all prods without comment. Resolute 07:08, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating: Kyle Kain, Rhylin, Magnate Industries Resolute 07:10, 18 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 (there's nothing there to merge). Proto::type 09:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Woodlands Civic Centre

Woodlands Civic Centre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

non notable commercial premises Nuttah68 07:12, 18 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 Shella * 22:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Julia Morgan School for Girls

Julia Morgan School for Girls (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Found in the speedy backlog, where it really doesn't fit. School with no particular claim to fame, written with a degree of POV expected from an article created by a student. Four cleanup tags and counting. Opabinia regalis 07:16, 18 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 until a policy change is enacted. This article is verifiable, which is good enough for now. cholmes75 (chit chat) 17:57, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elmhurst (Metra)

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

Not notable: the article is about a small commuter train station in a suburb of a city, just one of hundreds of thousands of such stations in the world. TheSeven 07:33, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually, there are thousands of train station articles, and there's a lengthy discussion going on User:Mangoe/Wikipedia is not a timetable about that very subject, the large number of station articles and their maintainability. IMHO, that's where this discussion should be headed, rather than arguing about the notability of stations on an AfD for one station. Still, at this time, precedent should decide the issue. Are you trying to make some kind of point? ;-) Tubezone 23:33, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • CommentThe guideline WP:AFDP cited above says "Subway and railway stations are allowed, but notability is currently under discussion [1]" This means there is no inherent right to maintain an article for each of the thousands or millions of them in the world for no apparent purpose. Edison 23:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment / Reply - I knew someone would say that. I'm actually part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Stations where we are trying to create an informative comprehensive collection of articles of stations from around the world. All of us don't simply want stations listed, but to have encyclopedic information of each station like its history and/or importance, for instances. Yes, just like Tubezone said above (better than I have, actually), there is a current ernest discussion at User talk:Mangoe/Wikipedia is not a timetable about the standards of station inclusion, and even if there should by any standards. But as it stands now there's no reason to single out this station for AfD against precedent (or for WP:DISRUPT) as no official WP outcome of that discussion has been reached. --Oakshade 23:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Bus stops and train stations are not inherently notable unless multiple independent news stories or other indices of notability are provided which talk about the station in a nontrivial way. No function is served by copying everything from every directory in the world into a Wikipedia article which is soon out of date. A mention of the station could be made in an article about the transit system, with a link to their website for schedules and travel times. Edison 23:16, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is your POV and not official WP policy or guideline (except for the bus stops bit - different subject) and you are free and encouraged to be part of the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stations and/or User talk:Mangoe/Wikipedia is not a timetable regarding the inherent notability of train stations. --Oakshade 00:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: I think that an important thing to note is that bus stops almost always get deleted at AfD, while train stations don't. Further, I agree that dumping the timetable into a Wikipedia article is unwise, to say the least. However, there can be much more to train stations then simply what time the trains come, such as there history, architecture, etc.-- danntm T C 01:17, 19 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. Aksi_great (talk) 20:23, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lesley (color)

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

(a) I cannot find any source to very this claim about a future event; it might be a hoax by a fan, but that isn't the key point because (b) even if I could, Wikipedia does not need to list every brand name chosen as a shade for every product made (consider the tens of thousands of names of shades of paint). Notinasnaid 09:25, 18 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 as fork of the history of deconstruction. If you want to see this "article" just pick it out of the history. No need to split the old version into its own article. Kimchi.sg 09:34, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deconstruction/Archive1

Deconstruction/Archive1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Incorrect use of the article space. This article was created after a complete rewrite of the Deconstruction article. The problem is that that's what the history is for. :) This should be userfied or deleted. Just no reason or purpose for it. Woohookitty(meow) 09:27, 18 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. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 00:55, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Kong International School

The article contain a lot of unverifiable data. Nobody care to mantain the article and it is a constant subject of vandalism. Then vandals inserted obscenities I know it is vandalism. If the vandals change the name of the principal I have no way to check if it is a real info or a vandalism. I suggest deletion per WP:NOR Alex Bakharev 09:50, 18 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. Aksi_great (talk) 20:26, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Awksglokin

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

Reads like original research. A single direct source given (Mental Floss) but I can't find any information at all on 'Dr. Boris Shleskin'. Zero ghits for 'Awksglokin'; no relevant ghits for 'The Ultimate Theory of Really Big Numbers'. The Hitchikers Guide connection is tenuous. Apologies in advance if this is notable and verifiable. Marasmusine 10:24, 18 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 Bizarre adventure. The AfD is being closed many years later, because it was never properly closed back then, because it was never visible, because it was never transcluded on any of the daily logpages. Technically, it has still been open this whole time.

Nobody else could ever be admitted here, because this door was made only for you. I am now going to shut it. jp×g 07:25, 18 October 2022 (UTC)(non-admin closure)[reply]

John Boston

John Boston (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article not important enough for WP. Snowman 11:16, 18 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. Kimchi.sg 11:37, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John boston

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

The result was keep and cleanup. cholmes75 (chit chat) 18:04, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hermann Simon

Bio written by Hesi who has contributed nothing else. Looks like self-promotion. Is he notable? -- RHaworth 11:54, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Amazon has 6 of his books. He gets up to $20K as a speaker too. Nice! Page just needs a deep clean up.Obina 17:16, 18 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. cholmes75 (chit chat) 18:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fearsome

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

Contested Prod, tag removed by page creator. Original Prod reason: Subject may not be sufficiently notable to merit an article, see notability guidelines. – Gurch 12:04, 18 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. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 00:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Zimmerman

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

No evidence of notability or WP:RS. Leibniz 12:17, 18 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 Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:00, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Communist Party of Warwick

Communist Party of Warwick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Vanity article on a non-notable organisation. User has a history of creating such non-notable vanity/original research articles. Please see post #34 at [http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?p=3554529], which explains that the author, "Peter Watson (of Warwick, Qld.) has claimed to represent all sorts of groups, and - in forums - likes to pretend he is several people at the same time. He has a habit of claiming to be the President of organisations he has made up on the internet. He says he is 14 (or 16) years old." —Psychonaut 12:26, 18 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. —Cryptic 02:04, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sindre Rørstadbotnen

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

Junior/youth weightlifter. No significant achievements. 13 Google hits outside of Wikipedia. Punkmorten 13:37, 18 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 - Yomanganitalk 13:02, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Stallberg

I really appreciate all the work that this contributor is putting into the Saw pages, but minor characters like Paul (who have only appeared in for one scene) are not deserving of their own articles. CyberGhostface 13:42, 18 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 - Yomanganitalk 13:00, 24 November 2006 (UTC) ===[[sukkkkkk ittttt[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. This was just nominated in October and shouldn't have been nominated again, but it passes again anyway. A case could be made for moving this to Wikispace, although I'm not sure what the mechanism would be for such a contested move. Herostratus 04:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Airline destinations (2nd nomination)

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

Creating page, since the user who put up the nomination never did so. DB (talk) 00:16, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - a meaningless list, and one which is unmaintainable. It's hard enough to keep per-airport and per-airline lists up-to-date. Also remember what Wikipedia is not. Thanks/wangi 00:36, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    As I mentioned in the first discussion, it's easy to maintain, since airports aren't constantly shifting back-and-forth from having and not having commercial service. It's much more difficult to maintain the individual lists within the airports, but few have argued that those should be removed. DB (talk) 00:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but there's a good reason for it; it belongs in project space. I'll do the move if anyone wants... --SunStar Net 00:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep per VegasWikikian, this was only afd'ed a few weeks ago. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 00:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep... pretty weak, but still a KEEP -- There's a few concerns I have about this article, now that i look through it, but both Vegaswikian's arguments and a few things stated in the last afd have convinced me to keep it. I'm mostly concerned with the accuracy of the article. It's really a very difficult subject to really keep track of, and it will be very challenging for whomever moderates it to keep it accurate considering destinations are dropped left and right in the worldwide airline industry and in some low profile countries/airflines this may not be known for weeks. Also, the article's a bit large to scan through and comes off as disorganized, but that part can be fixed easily with some work. Still, I do see people coming on here to look for this information... the list of airports category and article contains every airport, commercial or not, while this list contains airports with commercial service, something I know is of interest to regular joes, and that itself makes it worth a keep; it's weak one on my part, but I may not change my vote unless something drastic happens. -- SmthManly / ManlyTalk / ManlyContribs 03:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
heh, ironically, firefox froze on me and had a shutdown error when I pressed the back button after posting my vote here because the list was that much of a burden on it. The list is just waaay too large, it needs to be cut down somehow, I'm still keeping though, but it really needs to be scaled down. -- SmthManly / ManlyTalk / ManlyContribs 03:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely agree on splitting it. We're actually working on that. The talk page has a discussion on how to organize the info. Once that's decided, it will be split. DB (talk) 07:37, 19 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 move to Multiply (website), and redirect to Multiplication. The reason I didn't move it to Multiply.com is that generally websites, and all pages for that matter, have the (brackets) to disabmiguify. If I am wrong on this, please move the page to Multiply.com - I didn't create the redirect so that if I am incorrect on this, it doesn't require Administrator intervention to delete the existing redirect. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 01:04, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Multiply

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

Article doesn't make any claims to notability. I admit its Alexa rating is rather high, so there must be some kind of notability I'm missing here. Still, wouldn't it make more sense to redirect Multiply to Multiplication? Just seems a little out of sort. Brad Beattie (talk) 10:41, 18 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. Jpeob 20:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fawaz Hussain

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

Does not seem to be notable or meet criterium for inclusion. Few unique google hits for this person, since search also shows lots of other names who are not this person. Khorshid 14:01, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guarentee you that, if Kurds were a more wealthier nation who could all afford computer and DSL Net access at their homes and all spoke English perfectly, you would be getting much more hits. That's all I am saying, I don't know this guy or his works, but we shouldn't be deleting an article just because the guy is not on google. Baristarim 23:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
1) Why are you replying to yourself? 2) There is "criteria of notability" on WP, see WP:BIO -its not just about google but also 3rd-party sources. this guy is just a prof - see WP:PROF Khorshid 23:55, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was not replying to myself!! I was talking to Savas, the other guy who possesses my brain from time to time. Hey, wait a minute? (Baris=peace, Savas=war) :)))) Baristarim 00:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh great, here he goes ... this is called "wikistalking" Khorshid 23:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me? Argue on content, not on people. Is there something wrong with what my post above? I also have a right to browse wiki, and in the likelihood that we run into each other, I also have a right to voice my opinion. This is not relevant, argue on content and not people. Baristarim 23:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
LOL You are excused Khorshid 23:55, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The first persian translation of The Little Prince was done by Mohammad Ghazi. I beleive there should be anarticle about him, as he is also very important. Moreover I have not created articles for all Kurdish translators, but only for the important ones.Heja Helweda 22:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the English Wikipedia has scores of articles on English authors and translators, and there doesn't seem to be any reason to exclude this author. Khorshid, I would ask you to keep it more civil and less personal.--Prosfilaes 19:18, 22 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 per concensus, as well as being withdrawn by nominator. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 01:12, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Music Box Tour

Music Box Tour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Google turns up few (more precisely no, that I can find) hits aside from fan sites. While the artist is certainly notable, the tour seems not to be-better handled on her page or deleted, as reliable sources regarding this seem to be in short supply or nonexistent. Sourced after all, appears I was incorrect. Please withdraw nom. Seraphimblade 14:07, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep. This article is just getting started, as work is progressing on all of the Category:Mariah Carey tours articles. Having an article on a major artist's tour is no different than having an article on an album or a hit single, of which Wikipedia has zillions. There are about 275 tour articles now on Wikipedia, see Category:Concert tours. Mariah Carey tours as a whole are in fact more notable than many, because she tends to play outside her native country more than most U.S. artists and she tends to play in unusual regions of Asia, the Middle East, and so forth for a U.S. act. There is no reason to delete this article; with it, it completes the coverage of the six Carey tours to date. Wasted Time R 14:15, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, and disclaimer-I'm also strongly against "albums are notable enough for an article just because the person who wrote them is." A lot of albums would be better handled on the artist's page. However, that aside, it doesn't seem that this tour is notable or reliably sourced, even though her later ones seem to be. Seraphimblade 14:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment In fact, there are non-fan-page sources on this tour, since it was given poor reviews by newspaper critics and written about in the Shapiro Mariah Carey biography. The Mariah Carey main article mentions this and gives a book cite for it. The bad reception is part of the reason she avoided playing in the (continental) U.S. for several subsequent tours, and so is important to describing the arc of her career. This article has just begun and needs work, but that is no reason for deletion. Wasted Time R 14:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Further comment Please note that I now have a significant number of non-fan-page sources for this article, and I believe I have also conclusively demonstrated the tour's notability, as it gained a lot of national media attention at the time as well as having an effect on Carey's subsequent career. Wasted Time R 00:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • [implicit Keep] At first it was not fully completed it still is not it has a lot more information there are a lot of concert tour pages I do not think this one should be deleted. Interestedscholar 14:25, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per others. Velten 00:03, 23 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 09:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ms. Kelly

Ms. Kelly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article is about an unreleased album that has been cancelled. See [18] - Donald Albury 14:09, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I should elaborate a little. This article is about an album that was due to be released in June 2006. It was originally to be called Ms. Kelly. The name was changed to My Story at some point, and a second article was created for that title. Someone recently redirected My Story to Ms. Kelly, but neither album has been issued, and Kelly Rowland is now planning an album, as yet unnamed, for release next year. -- Donald Albury 14:31, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The album was orginally entitled Kelly Rowland: My Story and had recently been renamed to Ms. Kelly. I posted a link to an audio interview with this information on the site a few days ago. -- Noboyo 16:30, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Agent 86 23:19, 24 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 - Yomanganitalk 12:58, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KiwiLyrics

Delete - Prod'd, but has already survived an AFD. UtherSRG (talk) 14:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Link to old deletion discussion page is broken, not sure how this ever survived an AfD, and can't find out! In any case, delete as non-notable website. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Seraphimblade (talk • contribs) 14:34, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I've linked the previous afd above; it was typo'd on the article's talk page. Of the two keep votes (omission of ! deliberate) there, one is a classic WP:ILIKEIT from a user of the site, claiming that it was "fast-growing" (i.e., not yet notable, but someday it may be!) and that it's "heavily linked" (though it should not be linked to from Wikipedia at all, as we should not link to copyright infringements). As for the other, I'd repeat Uncle G's mantra that counting google hits isn't research, but this vote didn't even bother to count them. Of the 98 unique results that Google found for kiwilyrics, I didn't notice a single one from a reliable source. Plenty of forum posts, blogs, and SEO, though.

    Were it not for the previous afd, the article as it currently stands would be a clear WP:CSD#A7 candidate, as it makes no assertion of any sort of notability. Nor does it cite any third-party sources. There isn't even any primary source linked for any of the article except for the digression in the third paragraph. With the site gone, and nothing promising showing up on google (did I miss something at all usable?), the article is and seems likely to stay unverifiable. Certainly it doesn't meet WP:WEB. Delete. —Cryptic 15:15, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom and Cryptic. --Charlene 17:16, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nominator the first time around. Punkmorten 22:27, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as prodder. HawkerTyphoon 22:31, 20 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 biography WP:BIO refers. (aeropagitica) 21:15, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eva Green M5 motorway controversy

I believe this article is a probable hoax, as I can find nothing on any search engine, nothing in the newspaper archives, no ghits. No sources have been given for this article either, so it's a probable hoax. SunStar Net 14:21, 18 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 - Yomanganitalk 12:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

International Mathematical Olympiad Preliminary Selection Contest - Hong Kong

Non-notable lower-level competition. Seraphimblade 14:30, 18 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. No assertion of notability, advertisement; in addition, no indpendent sources. —Centrx→talk • 01:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Escondido Tutorial Service

Escondido Tutorial Service (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

non-notable tutoring service. 355 unique Ghits. Fails WP:CORP and WP:SCHOOL (although it's not a school, despite having been categorized there). wikipediatrix 14:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This service qualifies for as notable under the following catagories for schools.


WP:SCHOOL #3 Many ETS students have performed very well in the national debate championships held by ncfca.org- notably the 2005 national speech champion, Amy Scofield. Three ETS students have been finalist in the national spelling bee, including Evelyn Blacklock- 2nd place 2003
WP:SCHOOL #4 The ETS program is unique in that is offers a five year Great Books program taught from a biblical perspective over the internet use live conferencing through webex. ETS was also one of the first institutions offering live conferenced classes for homeschoolers over the Internet.
WP:SCHOOL #6 ETS graduate Becky Perry recently co-authored the cover story for WORLD magazine at just 23 years of age.
WP:SCHOOL #7 The ETS facility is timberframed. Please see http://www.gbt.org/yearbook/ , http://www.gbt.org/yearbook/wesolekfling2003/daythreeb/DSC_0259.JPG and http://www.gbt.org/yearbook/wesolekfling2003/dayfoura/DSC_0264.JPG User:Fischerfritzusa

Full disclosure: Former student here, I put up an article because it serves as an umbrella for other online tutoring programs. Some possible sources for WP:SCHOOL: Homeschool World Magazine There is some local news coverage including an article in the north county times, an article in the New York Times Technology Section as well. [19] (link requires registration)--BigCow 19:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Criteria #1 for WP:CORP is that a company or corporation is notable if it has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company or corporation itself. I believe I can establish at least three publications which have written about it, including the homeschooling magazine and the NYT, how many would you consider to be neccessary?--BigCow 23:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The magazine article is not about the company itself. It's about the use of computers in homeschooling, and it just gives the company a passing mention. The NYT article is essentially the same thing, and the only mention of this company is: "...said Mr. Hinrichs...who founded Escondido Tutorial Service close to five years ago." Two of the references in the article are not third-party sources, and the third one doesn't mention this company at all. That doesn't cut it for WP:CORP. --Coredesat 23:59, 18 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 copyvio from [20]. Kimchi.sg 05:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Acoes

Deprodded by creator. 12 UNIQUE/35 total googlehits appear to mostly be the University's or the Acoes's webpages. No assertion of notability in the article other than using the word "notable." [Lots of hits, many not in English for "Acoes", which appears to be a word in other languages. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 14:50, 18 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 Kept due to nomination withdrawal. I take this as a non-controversial close. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:06, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zaytuna Institute

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

Probably should be speedied: the article consists of nothing but one external link. wikipediatrix 14:59, 18 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 - Yomanganitalk 12:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Illiana Christian High School

Non-notable religious school. No source given for the article's claim of accreditation. 223 unique Ghits. Fails WP:SCHOOL. wikipediatrix 15:06, 18 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 - Yomanganitalk 12:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pentium 5

The article is about nothing; about a thing that some people speculated would exists, but which never actually existed, and now given the new intel policy is very unlikely to ever exist; about rumours with unconfirmed sources. Also, see Wikipedia:Patent nonsense. MureninC 15:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for comments, I was just a bit confused to see other people both nominate and vote in their nominated articles recently, hence my own vote... We have some bad trends, I guess. :) MureninC 20:08, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that the article that FrozenPurpleCube wants this redirected to is actually called Pentium brand. --65.95.18.64 20:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, silly me, I didn't even notice. Thanks for pointing that out. FrozenPurpleCube 23:20, 18 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hydrogen cycle

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. cholmes75 (chit chat) 18:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yaaḵoosgé Daakahídi Alternative High School

Yaaḵoosgé Daakahídi Alternative High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable "alternative" school, gets 48 unique Ghits. "In recent years, the school has hosted nearly 100 students." Hmmm. wikipediatrix 15:22, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. It sounds to me like this school "has a substantial and unique program, structure, or technique that differentiates it from similar schools", especially given its Tlingit language name, which renders it worthy per the proposed WP:SCHOOL. - Smerdis of Tlön 18:27, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No reliable sources, claim to notability weak at best. A non-English name does not constitute a "unique program" -- if there is in fact such a program (currently the only potential claim of such is "less mainstream high school experience"), it needs to be dealt with in a little more detail and sourced. Currently fails WP:SCHOOLS3 and WP:V. Shimeru 22:37, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment WP:SCHOOLS3 has no basis or justification for use as a Wikipedia guideline as it has never been presented for review and approval by Wikipedia users, let alone reached consensus as a basis for any purpose in Wikipedia. The failure to make the most trivial investigation of this program that is derided as a "unique program" solely because of its non-English name seems to be blatant prejudice. Questioning the existence of teh program only proves that this entire vote is baseless. Alansohn 10:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Reading prejudice into a factual statement ("A non-English [school] name does not constitute a unique program") is a personal attack, and shows bad faith. Desist. As for the program, as you are very well aware, there was no evidence within the article that one existed at the time I cast my !vote, and I reject your attempt to obscure the issue through barely-veiled accusations of racism. Furthermore, I do not feel that any reliable sources have yet been provided that show it is in fact a "unique program." Finally, WP:SCHOOLS3 has at least as much justification for use as WP:SCHOOLS. Shimeru 10:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment You can try to spin "A non-English name does not constitute a "unique program" -- if there is in fact such a program" as being a good faith disagreement with the qualifications of the article, but to any reasonable person it comes off as a patronizing dismissal of the schools' program. I sincerely hope it's mere ignorance and not prejudice, and I hope that your protests are justified. Unlike the far more thoroughly developed WP:SCHOOL, WP:SCHOOLS3 has received no review or any consideration whatsoever from Wikipedia users as a guideline. As it has made no attempt at all at reaching consensus within the Wikipedia community, it can't possibly be justified for use as a guideline, and the extreme deletionist bias it demonstrates makes it unlikely to ever be a basis for a consensus guideline. Do the facts provided in the current article satisfy your concerns? Alansohn 10:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • There is no spin involved, but since you've already shown you're not prepared to assume good faith, I won't waste my time with you further. I simply ask that you refrain from any and all speculation upon my motives in the future, and repeat my request that you cease to use such terms as "ignorant" and "prejudiced" to describe me. On the other topic, as you realize, SCHOOLS3 is newer than SCHOOLS; this does not mean it is not valid, and, unlike SCHOOLS, it has not been rejected. When it is presented, then we will see. Finally, I thought I had made this clear, but no, the current article does not meet my concerns. I do not feel that reliable sources have been provided that show that the program is "unique." Shimeru 11:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-existant notability. And I agree, a non-English name does not fulfill the requirements of a "unique program". I would need to see considerably more from this article to reverse my vote. Trusilver 00:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, Shimeru and Trusilver. JoshuaZ 08:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC) Changing to tentative keep One of the articles about the school's program did make it to the AP wire. I'd prefer more but this is getting there. JoshuaZ 21:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/merge, I don't see why you shouldn't allow us to read about high schools, alternative or not. Kappa 08:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Is there a guideline or policy based keep in there. WP:V is non-neogtiable among other issues. Claims that somehow deletion would be akin to some amorphous group not allowing another amorphous group to "read about highschools" is unhelpful and unproductive. JoshuaZ 08:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The school offers a substantially unique program aimed at serving students at greatest risk of dropping out of high school. A significant part of the program focuses on the Tlingit culture and language used by the many Native American students who attend the school and are at greatest risk of falling through the cracks, which addresses criterion 4 of WP:SCHOOL. The school and its programs have also been the subject of several reports in major local newspapers, in fulfillment of criterion 1 of WP:SCHOOLS, with sources that are reliable and verifiable, in compliance with WP:RS and WP:V. As such, the article meets and exceeds the WP:SCHOOL criteria for retention. Use of "scare quotes" for "alternative" in the nomination and "unique program" regarding the non-English name are patently offensive and a sign of ignorance for those who are willing to delete anything they are unwilling to attempt to do the most basic research. Alansohn 09:01, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Well-referenced article on alternative high school fully qualifies for inclusion. Nominator has not provided any valid deletion reason (i.e. google hits or student numbers are not grounds for deletion). --JJay 13:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
When I say "non-notable", that means non-notable for inclusion. And our guideline for inclusion in this case is, of course, WP:SCHOOL (if we choose to accept it). wikipediatrix 13:29, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In that event, I assume I could have just typed "Notable school" and that would have been a sufficient argument for inclusion. I would ask that in the future you explain in detail what you mean by "non-notable" because I don't have a clue. In the present case, it would seem that the school's focus on Tlingit culture [21], as well as other independent coverage [22] means that it is fully within the scope of our non-existent school guidelines. --JJay 13:59, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The "news coverage" is all local papers and it's a given that any school is going to get some sort of mention in their community papers. Also, none of the links to them are accessible, but from the titles, it's clear that the school is not even the primary subject of all these articles. wikipediatrix 14:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The coverage is from both the Alaska state capital's largest newspaper and the state's largest publication. Where is this "no local coverage" criteria you've presented come form? There is no mention of it in the "multiple non-trivial coverage" standard that appears throughout Wikipedia and is very well defined at WP:CORP and WP:BIO. You can sign up, as I did, for online access to the Juneau Empire, but "easy clickability" is not a requirement of WP:RS or WP:V. If you read the articles in question they all directly reference the school and its programs. Alansohn 14:25, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! You can't read the articles at all, but you can divine they're content from the titles. Read the article first, and then you can question their validity. I will acknowledge that if any of the sources include constitute trivial coverage, then I would be unable to use them to prove notability. See WP:CORP for the definition of trivial coverage as "newspaper articles that simply report extended shopping hours or the publications of telephone numbers and addresses in business directories." I will even add sports scores to the trivial coverage criteria for schools. If any article fails this criteria, please let me know and I will withdraw my claim. Alansohn 14:59, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) First, if you have not read the sources, you should not speculate on their contents. I have read both articles, and the school is either the exclusive or primary focus of both. Second, there is no policy basis for your comment on "local sources". I sugggest you review WP:RS. Third, your characterization of these sources as "local", implying that they are somehow subpar, is inaccurate and highly disrespectful to residents of Alaska. The Anchorage Daily News has the highest circulation of any Alaska newspaper. The Juneau Empire ranks third. --JJay 14:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep The school serves students at risk of dropping out, about half of whom are from racial and ethnic minorities and the fact that it teaches the culture and language of the Tlingit make it notable in my opinion. However, I have seen no such verification of this from any source but their own website. Per WP:V this needs to be confirmed, and without confirmation the article cannot stand. This is savable, but without saving it should be deleted. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 17:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment See the current version of the article, which includes sources such as 1. ^ School district plans to double Yaakoos quarters: The alternative school serves about 100 students and graduates about 40 each year, Juneau Empire, May 17, 2005; 2. ^ Group helps schools infuse Native themes into curriculum, Anchorage Daily News, February 27, 2005; 3. ^ Ceremony honors Native students: Students benefit from more high school options, Juneau Empire, May 21, 2006; 4. ^ Students complete domestic violence education program: Alaska has one of the highest rates of such abuse in the nation, Juneau Empire, October 20, 2006. These sources come from the largest newspaper in the state capital (the Juneau Empire, the third highest circulation in the state) and the largest in the state (the Anchorage Daily News). All your concerns regarding WP:V are more than satisfied. Alansohn 17:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Three of those citations require registering to view. I know it is free, but I don't like making hundreds of accounts all over the internet to look up references. They require an e-mail address and I end up getting more spam. Perhaps this information is available on an open website? HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 17:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • In trying to improve the article and provide the verifiable, reliable sources that WP:RS and WP:V require, I was forced to use a source that requires registration. If anyone is concerned that the sources do not exist or do not accurately reflect an in-depth review of the school's unique program, I would be more than happy to cut and paste the articles and send them to you. Alansohn 17:56, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I changed to weak keep because references do not need to be instantly accessable online to be valid. A book in a library can be a reference, so why not a newpaper article that is not instantly accessable online. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 17:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep notable school!!! Audiobooks 21:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Do you have a substantive reason why this school is notable? Note that adding exclamation points doesn't make the assertion any more convincing. JoshuaZ 05:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I think he meant notable school!!! as per our notability guideline and the lengthy discussion above. Hmmm. Ok, he didn't actually provide a long, detailed explanation of notable school!!!, but then neither did the nom who wrote "Non Notable alternative school". Neither did you when you wrote: Delete per nom. Shimeru and Trusilver. Instead of hassling other editors over their use of punctuation, which is "unhelpful and unproductive", perhaps you would care to provide a "substantive reason", i.e. policy based, why this school, despite the references, fails WP:V!! --JJay 11:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment It wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that the nom, Shimeru and Trusilver summarized the matter well? WP:V isn't all the matters. If it were we'd have articles on every single common murdered and the victime. WP:N matters and I have yet to see any independent sources discussing this school in a way that demonstrates notability. If sources that actually say that the language and cultural material is notable then I'll change to keep. JoshuaZ 19:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment:Yes, of course, the nom summarized things well with a comment restricted entirely to google hits and student numbers, both of which have no bearing on inclusion. You are certainly entitled to contest that the references "actually say that the language and cultural material is notable". However, if that is your position, I have to assume that you have not perused the sources, which discuss the infusion and public funding of Tlingit language and cultural studies into a school that consists largely of Alaskan minorities. I encourage you to do so, unless you have decided that WP:V and WP:N are not important here, which is certainly your right. However, in that case, I would ask that you not challlenge users such as Audiobooks who have formulated arguments in keeping with wikipedia policy. --JJay 20:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • The references are purely routine local coverage. Now, while you may argue that they are in some sense not local that is more because Alaska is large and sparsely populated than anything else. I have seen no indication that anyone outside the immediate area has considered this to matter at all. JoshuaZ 20:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I won't address your comment's elitist and vaguely ethnocentric undertones and denigration of large, sparsely populated areas as somehow unworthy of our attention. I will ask that you: (i) point me to the policy, guideline or essay (yes, even including your schools3 essay) that precludes "local" sources; (ii) provide some proof that Alaska's leading newspapers (all available worldwide through the internet) qualify as "local" sources not suitable for wikipedia. --JJay 21:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete another wholly nn school. Eusebeus 01:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the commenters above, specifically for offering a substantially unique program aimed at serving students at greatest risk of dropping out of high school. Yamaguchi先生 03:33, 22 November 2006
  • Keep, sources 1 and 4 provide enough substantive information for an article. Seraphimblade 14:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, very useful and interesting article. Unfocused 08:58, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional keep: if the school is accredited, then keep; if not accredited, then delete. 38.100.34.2 23:10, 24 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 keep, frivolous nomination. Add references or remove contentious unreferenced bits for accuracy, but it's silly to say that this should be deleted. Already plenty of sources and it's verifiable. Cowman109Talk 15:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PlayStation 3

This article is receiving far too much press. There are numerous unsourced facts, and grammar mistakes are everywhere. We simply do not need this article, as the news stories and websites are enough. --Brokendowntoyotacamry 15:29, 18 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_18&oldid=88628969"