Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 July 7

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Zzzzz (talk | contribs) at 18:17, 7 July 2006. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
< July 6 July 8 >

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 of the discussion was keep. Mailer Diablo 15:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WebTV Networks

Redundant to MSN TV Nominating for deletion. This article is almost completely redundant to the MSN TV article. Any relevant content should be merged, and this article deleted with a redirect in its place. Ameltzer 18:10, 7 July 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 of the debate was Keep by popular demand - CrazyRussian talk/email 02:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dacha

This article is untruthful, incomplete, biased to overestimate the poor conditions and poverty in Russia, and lacks citations

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Mangojuicetalk 02:25, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Gagliardi

Very limited assertion of notability as writer in college paper and advisor for highschool newspaper. No evidence of passing WP:BIO Eluchil404 00:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One book from a vanity press and 184 unique google hits do not constitute proof of notability. Eluchil404 00:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Legitimate" writers don't need vanity publishers. --Calton | Talk 01:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "highly rated on amazon.com"... Are you refering to the 4 stars which are the result of a whopping 5 anonymous votes? Or are you refering to the fantastic 1,384,727 amazon rank? Either way, I think this is making the case for this guy weaker if anything. Pascal.Tesson 18:05, 7 July 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 of the discussion was keep. Y.Ichiro (会話|+|投稿記録|メール) 01:47, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Buttigieg De Piro

non-notability and copyright questions (see talk page, copyright question has not been satisfactorily resolved. Original article at searchmalta.com that was cited appears to have been written by the subject of this entry, so it appears to be a vanity page Akradecki 19:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, —Centrx→talk • 00:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Here is a site that includes a picture and a brief description of De Piro and it seems genuine enough. http://www.germanmaltesecircle.org/newsletters/2003/200309.htm Gretnagod 00:56, 7 July 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 of the debate was speedy delete —Quarl (talk) 2006-07-07 01:37Z

Little Skunk X

Little Skunk X is told to be coming to Nicktoons Network but I can't find anything on Google about Little Skunk X. --Caldorwards4 00:35, 7 July 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 of the debate was Speedy deleted as extreme hoaxery. JDoorjam Talk 01:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tokeville Hotel

Hoax article, along with Tokeville, Washington. Neither one appears on Google. Author claims it is on the 2003 Rand-McNally Road Atlas; I have that as a computer program and it's not there. NawlinWiki 01:15, 7 July 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 of the discussion was delete. Consensus favors deletion, and besides, this article as it stands isn't about this list, it just gives the list. If the list is such a valuable source, perhaps it could go on wikisource? Here, though, it's inappropriate. Mangojuicetalk 05:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guitar World's 100 greatest guitar solos

Copyvio, wasn't listed correctly (not the nominator for deletion) Ryulong 01:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have given the original AfD lister the right to change my comment to show the true reason behind his listing of the page. I do still think it should be deleted, though. --Ryulong 01:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The world loves a trier, but there are limits. If any magazine creates a database, and publishes it in its own magazine, it owns the copyright. It can even own the original design of the format if it is a unique format. You or I cannot reproduce it without approval of the magazine. We can refer to it for various reasons, but not reproduce it in toto. Moriori 09:46, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
From United States Copyright Law: "In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work." -From the 1976 Copyright Act (17 U.S.C. § 102). I reproduced no more than the information itself, no commentary or writing. I really don't think this is copyvio. --Daniel Olsen 06:02, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ahem. You mentioned the words "an original work of authorship". That is exactly the description of the work you have copy and pasted. Moriori 06:15, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure... or discovery...". The copyright protection for their original work of authorship (their original article) does not include the information they discover, therefore listing the information is not a copyright violation. --Daniel Olsen 07:54, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ya know, I am pleased this seems destined for the chop. Moriori 08:30, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why would you be happy that a useful page is going to be deleted, especially after it seems it ISN'T in violation of anything? Shouldn't you be trying to figure out if this page truly warrants deletion instead of trying to get it deleted regardless of WP policy? Why do you have such a passion for getting this page killed? --Daniel Olsen 08:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep

If this page lists it also [1] would that not imply that this is not a copyright violation? --Javsav 15:19, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No it doesn't. You apparently missed something at that site - "©2006 About, Inc." Just in case you are unaware, "©" means copyright. Moriori 21:54, 9 July 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 of the debate was Speedy delete.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 13:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Krazee Eyez Killa

Curb Your Enthusiasm episodal minutiae; single character from single episode of television series. Effectively cruft — pd_THOR | =/\= | 01:57, 7 July 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 of the discussion was Delete, 3-1 to delete, with the only keep vote based on the need for a rewrite. Since it was not rewritten, the article at its latest form was just a resume, not an encyclopedia article. - Bobet 18:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Layla Al Sayed

AfD submitted by AlasdairT. No reason specified. This is a procedural nomination - my own opinion is Neutral Tevildo 20:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment She does have entries on non-Bahraini websites (Bogata University) and given the problem of translation of arabic into english she may well be notable to a degree. OTOH The article appears to be a copyvio of her webpage. --Richhoncho 21:40, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Needs to be re-written, but appears notable. --Aguerriero (talk) 03:06, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless this gets 100% reworked. All the other language WP entries are missing except the Arabic one, and this seems a 1-1 translation. Not saying anything about notability but we're not a repository for resumes. ~ trialsanderrors 05:49, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Just because this exists on AR.WP does not mean it should be here (maybe they haven't gotten to it yet.) I don't see how this fulfills WP:BIO in any way, although she sounds much more driven than I am... Grandmasterka 05:20, 10 July 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 of the discussion was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Offended Bus

NN Neologism, even UK ghits are few[2]; US ghits: [3] --NMChico24 02:08, 7 July 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 of the debate was Speedy keep.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 13:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of Hinduism

This article was PROD-tagged by a new user (<50 edits). It is a substantial article that a number of editors have clearly been working on. An article of this calibre cannot be arbitrarily deleted, and therefore I am putting it up for a vote. ImpuMozhi 03:05, 7 July 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.

Delete: All these are wrong just delete these article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.215.1.66 (talk) 20:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was PWN3D. Mailer Diablo 15:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Counternoobs

Neologism; original author removed Prod tag Rklawton 02:32, 7 July 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 of the discussion was Keep. - Bobet 18:18, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Software Virtualization Solution

Blatant advertisement; parts were originally copyvios against this training document; author has reworded copyvio paragraphs. --NMChico24 03:15, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment/Response:That is true, there was a previous version that was deleted. This has been my first entry (of what I hope is many) and I didn't realize that I couldn't pull in information from other sites. I do now realize this and am trying to make this article purely informational and factual. --Jeremydallas 03:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep After cutting down the google searches([4]), I found some reviews in PCMag, Inforworld, TUCOWS (no rating from there, it is too new), etc. It won Best New Product Award at TechEd ([5]). It definitely needs some cleaning up so it doesn't look, feel, or read like an advertisement. While not official policy, and subject to change, it easily fits the criteria for Wikipedia:Notability (software) (proposed criteria 1 and 6). It is marginally notable. TedTalk/Contributions 03:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]



  • Comment:I'll keep working on the wording to make it not seem like an advertisement. It also won PCMag's Editors Choice, co-sharing the spotlight with Firefox, FOSE best new product of the year, Best New Product at Microsoft Management Summit, and many other awards. It's definitely noteable...it's has nearly 15,000 downloads on download.com with the latest version (less then a month old). I would also think it would fit criteria 2 and 3 and when Vista ships it will meet 4.


I will work on the wording later this evening to try and clean it up.


    • RESPONSE to "No evidence company being advertised meets WP:CORP".

      Actually Altiris has been ranked among the 25 fastest growing companies by Forbes for three years in a row (Forbes Article), is a publicly traded company Google Finance for ATRS, and has won an award or two (or 50). Altiris Awards

      .
      SVS Press (sampling) :
      • PC Mag Technical Excellence Award
      • PC Mag Best Products Q1 2006 (tied with new Firefox)
        • “Altiris' Software Virtualization Solution could reshape the PC landscape at the IT level…. SVS impressed us enough to share the spotlight with Firefox. And that's saying something.” – PC Magazine

      • InfoWorld Excellence Award
        • “…fundamentally alters your perception of what is possible with IT…SVS will have long-term ramifications for the Windows configuration management market…SVS is paradigm-shifting technology.” - InfoWorld

      • CRN Review
        • Everything you know about software deployment is about to change…SVS has the potential to rewrite the rules of how software is pushed down to client systems.” – Computer Reseller News

      • Best of MMS 2006 Best New Product
      • Best of TechEd 2006 Best New Product
      • FOSE 2006 Best of Show
      • “SVS could be one of those disruptive technologies we hear so much about.” – Government Computer News
Patiently wait until the deletion process runs to the end. Normally, it is 5 days to a week, then an administrator will look over the comments and make a decision. TedTalk/Contributions 01:16, 9 July 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 of the discussion was Merge to university article. The actual discussion concerning the worth of this particular article isn't very convincing in either way, but in its current form the article doesn't say anything that makes it worthwhile in a wider context, therefore the merge. - Bobet 18:25, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Lumberjack (Humboldt State University)

A students newspaper that's restricted to one university. How can this be notable? Andeh 03:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If this newspaper breaks a story that becomes national news, then it might deserve an article. Dgies 06:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are many student newspapers in the category Category:United States student newspapers. Student newspapers and their web sites are often the most reliable published source of information about a university and related cultural and sports topics on campus and in the community, and many people who work at student newspapers go on to become professional journalists. As well, a student-run newspaper can also be where people learn business and interpersonal skills that are valuable in the real world. And student newspapers bring a student perspective to the news, sports and cultural coverage that is missing from commercial newspapers. TruthbringerToronto

(Talk | contribs) 06:08, 7 July 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 of the debate was Speedy delete per admin Pilotguy.--Andeh 03:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Omer adhia

Notability in question. ghits: [6]; seems like possible hoax/vanity --NMChico24 03:19, 7 July 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 of the debate was out of place, debate to be moved (momentarily) to WP:MFD. Mangojuicetalk 04:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Makaiju/merge

A temporary page that was created to merge several articles into one. As the contents have been merged into the main article, Makaiju, the temporary page is no longer needed. Couldn't find a speedy criteria to fit this. -- ReyBrujo 03:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just realized, when the header was a red link, that the temporary page was created as a sub section of a talk page. Finishing the nomination to prevent leaving this page orphaned, but the article could be speedied per CSD:G8. -- ReyBrujo 03:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ehem... it cannot be speedied, I thought the root page was Makaiju/merge, but was Makaiju. So, back to my original assertion: the contents of the temporary page had been included in the article, so there is no need for this page anymore. -- ReyBrujo 04:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SUPER SPEEDY DELETE I the original creator of the article wish it to be deleted. I went to change the rational on the speedy, but the admin got to it first. --Kunzite 04:03, 7 July 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 of the debate was Speedy delete all.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 14:15, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stereo Motion, Phat Chance, Bryan Nance

Delete per WP:MUSIC. The group renamed themselves from "Phat Chance" to "Stereo Motion" and were not notable with either name. They sold a total of two albums, which Bryan Nance states sold a combined "40,000 CDs". (Note that the album at Phat Chance, which states 30,000 copies sold, links to a totally unrelated song). In order of importance, Phat Chance may be slightly more notable than the other two articles, which essentially state outright that they are not notable, but none of the three meet WP:MUSIC. —Centrx→talk • 03:16, 7 July 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 of the debate was speedy delete as nn-bio/possible attack page. JDoorjam Talk 06:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Werner

Deprodded. In addition to notability concerns, none of this is verifiable. The original prod tag was: no evidence of notability other than harassing celebrities; google turns up nothing about this person ("Nick Werner" gay porn) Chaser T 03:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC) After comparing the articles, I see that this one is more attackish than the one I prodded. I agree with the speedy suggestions below.--Chaser T 04:25, 7 July 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 of the discussion was Userfy and delete redirect. - Bobet 18:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seth Cluett

Vanity page. Recommend userfy and delete. cholmes75 (chit chat) 03:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete vanity page --Xrblsnggt 04:08, 7 July 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 of the discussion was Delete. - Bobet 18:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One good cop

useless page, about nothing in reality. Vague concept ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 03:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT: no Wikipedia:Deletion policy compliant justification has been given for this nomination. Nominator: please state specific reasons and justifications for this AfD nomination. Georgewilliamherbert 09:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for completeness' sake, I also listed the companion article Cop on the edge, despite a somewhat weaker case for deletion. Opabinia regalis 05:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Actually Opabinia regalis we already have the That random ensign that always gets killed in Star Trek. BJK 22:32, 7 July 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 of the discussion was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sabioacademy.com

advertisement and fails WP:CORP hoopydinkConas tá tú? 04:13, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nom hoopydinkConas tá tú? 04:13, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Big ol' advertisement. Ryulong 04:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revise of course I'm going to say this because I made the page and would hate for my time and well-intentioned effort go to waste, but I'm curious as to what you think makes it so much of an advertisement and I'd like to revise it so that it does not have such a connotation.Mathninja 04:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The mention of the money-back guarantee is probably what makes this read like an ad the most. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 06:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Mathninja, it looks like an advertisement because the current version says things like "Sabio is known for...hiring only teachers that have perfected the course they teach..." and "Sabio Academy offers a money-back guarantee for all of its classes." That isn't what would be in an encylcopedia. But even if you revised these statements, it would still almost certainly be deleted because it doesn't seem notable. It doesn't meet the standards in WP:CORP#Criteria_for_companies_and_corporations. It's a shame that this is happening to your efforts, and I believe that they were well-intentioned, but I hope you see it as part of learning more about Wikipedia. I think you might be wasting your time trying to revise this article but I really hope keep contributing to other articles here. Flying Jazz 06:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It looks like an advertisement. *~Daniel~* ☎ 20:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess i was comparing it with the sites of competing companies on wikipedia like Sylvan Learning who had things listed like "The Sylvan Advantage" and talked about their policy of a token reward system, and in the same way, I am just making mention of their hiring and money-back policies. I cannot see what makes this site different.Mathninja 14:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • For one thing, Sylvan Learning is huge, and notable, and people have heard of it. Compare both companies against the standards listed in WP:CORP and you'll see what makes them different. Fan-1967 16:36, 8 July 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 of the discussion was Keep. - Bobet 18:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Magie Dominic

A cut-and-paste job from the poet's own website. Does not conform to W:MOS. Victoriagirl 04:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep First, stop comparingg sales on Amazon, There are many other Canadian online bookstores and I stopped using them for my publishing company years ago. When I found the misplaced article in the Canadian Poets Category, I removed the whole thing and cleaned it up and put it in its own article. I was unaware of her own website Bio and tried to make it more neutral less vanity as I could. She seems to have some notability in Canada as she is a member of the prestigious League of Canadian Poets of which I and most Canadians know is hard to join. So my vote is KEEP WayneRay 16:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)WayneRay[reply]
  • Weak keepWhilst I am not certain of notability, I am prepared to give the article a chance and WP:AGF. -- Alias Flood 16:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep The article, as nominated, has now all but disappeared. Unfortunately, what is left is something that, at best, can be decribed as bare bones. While I disagree that the League of Canadian Poets is a difficult organization to join - and, therefore question the relevance - I am noow of the opinion that the article should be given a chance.--Victoriagirl 16:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete can't see this being notable. I don't think we should keep articles on the basis that they may possibly be notable in the future. michaelCurtis talk+ contributions 16:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very weak Keep She certainly seems to be fairly notable in her field DavidHumphreys SPEAK TO MEABOUT THE THINGS I MESSED UP18:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, good stub. --Aguerriero (talk) 03:10, 8 July 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 of the debate was Speedy Delete per CSD A7. Naconkantari 16:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blessed By A Broken Heart

non-notable band; fails WP:MUSIC hoopydinkConas tá tú? 04:20, 7 July 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 of the nomination was delete. DS 20:44, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Songs Containing the word Fuck in a Prominent Position

Listcruft, prominent is a subjective word. Creator removed prod. So here it is. Crossmr 04:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete,per the nominate, listcruft — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.54.244.34 (talk • contribs) 04:25, 7 July 2006

commentProminent may be in the title but there are very specific guidelines in the article itself and no way around using "prominent" in the title. --Lord mortekai 04:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment and as pointed out, creating those guidelines is an attempt to control the article and a violation of WP:OWN--Crossmr 04:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I created the guidelines because people felt that prominent was not clear enough so I am providing a definition of prominent in this context. This has nothing to do with ownership of the article I merely made the guidelines to make a better case against deletion. --Lord mortekai 04:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then you move the article to a better name. Creating guidelines for adding content to an article regardless of the reason is attempting to control the article. That still doesn't address the issue of it being listcruft.--Crossmr 04:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Where does it say on WP:OWN that adding guidelines is ownership? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lord mortekai (talk • contribs) 04:40, 7 July 2006
Read the guideline. Controlling content is a violation of WP:OWN. Creating guidelines is an attempt to control the content. They don't have to spell out every single behaviour that could be interpreted as a way to control content.--Crossmr 04:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:LIST says that lists are supposed to have clear guidelines as to what is included. It's not OWNing the article at all, unless he's trying to prevent anyone else from changing them. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 05:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


How do you figure that it is indiscriminate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lord mortekai (talk • contribs) 04:48, 7 July 2006
please make sure you sign your comments and thread them appropriately. Its indescriminate because its a random, non-notable criteria to base a song list on.--Crossmr 04:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

commentAs I said, no more so indiscriminate than many other similar lists. --Lord mortekai 04:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Something got lost in an edit conflict, regarding other lists: The article has to stand on its own. Other poor lists are not justifications for this list.--Crossmr 04:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

commentHow do you figure that it is indiscriminate? If you are asserting that this nature of article does not belong in wikipedia you have a lot more deleting to do. Articles of this kind are what make wikipedia wikipedia, in my opinion and many others'. You fail to bring up a specific guideline when suggesting that it is indiscriminate. --Lord mortekai 04:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

no, these articles are not what make wikipedia wikipedia. This is an encyclopedia, not a home for random trivia.--Crossmr 04:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

you certainly enjoy making people miserable don't you; nobody gives a shit about wikipedia as a source of knowledge it's banned at many schools as a citation source. nobody will give two shits about it once you take away any vaguely interesting pieces of information like this --Lord mortekai 05:03, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA--Crossmr 05:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that does it then. If we delete this, students won't be able to hand in school papers citing our list of songs that use the word fuck. Oh, the humanity. Opabinia regalis 05:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is Songs About Hair less indiscriminate than this? --User:Lord Mortekai 05:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can't justify this article based on another.--Crossmr 05:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

commentanswer the question --Lord mortekai 19:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What question? Sign your comments and follow proper thread order please. --Crossmr 05:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Since "pointless list" is being questioned as a valid reason for deletion below, I should amplify my reasoning. The article fails policies WP:NOTA7 and WP:V. These policies are referenced in an apposite way in Wikipedia:Listcruft. --DaveG12345 18:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "pointless list" is not a valid CSD and my comment was adressed to the user immediately below. Since you are amplifying your resaoning, please explain specifically how this violates WP:not (without referring to the listcruft essay, which has no validity here). --JJay 18:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia." I would argue a collection of songs containing an unremarkable word is precisely an "indiscriminate collection of items of information", in violation of "Wikipedia is first and foremost an online encyclopedia." The door is opened to other lists of songs, containing other unremarkable words, ad infinitum. If you cannot see that (or if you can see that, but could not care less) then you need to re-read WP:NOT. Incidentally, the primary source nature of the list (it appears no one verifiable has catalogued these songs per some or all of the list criteria, allowing WP editors to then cite them as a verifiable member of this list) also helps it fail WP:NOR. Violation of any one of these policies is grounds for deletion. Multiple failures such as this make it an open-and-shut case. If you want to continue to debate this, you will have to explain to me how it does not fail every single one of these policies first. Because fail them it surely does. --DaveG12345 18:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The only two users contesting the delete have been busy here today, yet one always takes a break when the other one's editing, and both comment in the same non-standard way. FWIW I suspect sockpuppetry at play. HumbleGod 23:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems like a valid topic for a list to me, not unlike a similar list we have for the use of fuck in movies. Inclusion criteria can obviously be tweaked. Having said that, I would respectfully suggest that the nom review WP:OWN, which he clearly does not understand [9]. Setting parameters for a list = editing an article. It is the recommmended course of action in the Wikipedia:List guideline. There is thus no reason to attack the author of this article and some of the editors here should probably review WP:AGF as well. The speedy deleters above also have no grounds for their "votes". "Totally pointless" is opinion; It is not a CSD. --JJay 03:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion moved to talk page.
  • No evidence?? See Seven dirty words. Use of the word fuck in song titles has commercial and legal ramifications. Regarding the rest of your comment, are you suggesting that the title can't be changed? And since when is "juvenile", whatever that means, grounds for deletion? Is the corresponding cinema list, which has survived AfD three times, not "juvenile"? --JJay 16:05, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because if the list is expanded, it could turn out to be a very good informational list, kind of like List of films ordered by uses of the word "fuck". - Bagel7 16:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment When George Carlin or the Family Media Guide creates a list of songs containing "fuck", there may be grounds for writing an article citing them, per Seven dirty words and List of films ordered by uses of the word "fuck". The "commercial and legal ramifications" of "fuck" are unremarkable on their own - the "ramifications" talked about are fairly minor in reality, they are crucially not restricted to use of this one word, and besides, JJay alleges that it's the use of "fuck" "in titles" that has significance - if that's so, why on earth is this article being mealy-mouthed about "prominent positions"? Maybe thirty years ago this would have been an exciting and edgy topic, but today, I personally find it rather tame and crufty - "juvenile" even, FWIW. Aside from my POV, I note no one has yet explained how this article successfully passes the WP policies that I cited above (WP:NOTA7, WP:V, WP:NOR). It would definitely help the article's case if this were done.--DaveG12345 16:39, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • George Carlin and the Family Media Guide may not be in the song list business, but the RIAA is and has been for some time with their parental advisory label (and fuck is a part of that). You may not believe that the "commercial and legal" ramifications of the word fuck are "remarkable", and you might have been right, except that the word "fuck" can lead to FCC and FTC investigations (ask Bono) and get your album banned at Wal-Mart. That is far from minor considering that Wal-Mart is the biggest retailer in the United States. You have claimed above that fuck is an "unremarkable" word. That is seemingly belied by our long fuck article and associated category: Category:Fuck. If you want to argue that this fails Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information that is your business, but this article does not come close to any of the specific clauses (travel guide, memorial, genealogy, aphorisms, etc.). Basing your reasoning on the line: That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia is also not a particularly compelling argument: (i) it is a generic argument that can be applied indiscriminately to any article up for deletion; (ii) the three AfD discussions involving the cinema list have already proven the viability of the subject. I won't address your comment on "edgy and exciting" or "tame and crufty" since I don't believe that those sort of subjective judgements have any bearing on inclusion of reference material. Lastly, I do not see any conflict with WP:V or WP:NOR. The song titles are listed on the albums. The albums are available through commercial sites and are reviewed. Are you really suggesting that editors can not confirm that America, Fuck Yeah is really called America Fuck Yeah? If that is the case, perhaps you would like to add a fact tag to the title of the America, Fuck Yeah article. --JJay 17:33, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "Titles" - you keep mentioning "titles". And yet this article is not concerning itself with "titles" is it? How about a new article name - List of Albums Banned by Walmart? Assuming you can cite either Walmart or a reliable commentator that the albums were indeed banned, then that might be a viable topic. Or List of Albums with a Parental Advisory Sticker on the Front? As long as evidence is brought forth, even that might work. But please don't confuse albums with mere songs. This article is about songs, and does not mention or seek to address RIAA guidelines, Walmart practices, or anything else of substance whatsoever. You seem to suggest my criticisms are wholly "subjective", yet you do not acknowledge that your own arguments here are completely subjective also, and fail to engage with the WP policies cited. Don't ask me "are you suggesting...?"-type questions (you already said you dismiss subjective views, so why would you care what I'm "suggesting"?). Instead, cite the policies and explain exactly how this article complies. You seem to misunderstand (and pretty much ignore, in fact) WP:NOR in relation to this article. Please explain how this article complies with its requirements: i.e., that this article constitutes a tertiary source and not original research. Where are the reliable source citations, as explicitly required by WP:V whether you recognise them as a formal requirement or not? A lot of this discussion consists of setting up straw-men. Address the policies and this article, not rhetorical questions and other WP articles. It will help a lot. --DaveG12345 17:54, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Starting with my very first post much higher on this page, I indicated that the article could evolve and the title could change. That requires editing, which takes time. Certainly longer than the 26 minute window given to the author before it was tagged for speedy deletion. Therefore, considering the almost immediate deletion tagging and repeated removal of edits by the AfD nominator, I hardly think that it is fair to complain about what the article "seeks to address". Despite your refusal to answer my question, I will point out again that the article does not violate any of the specific clauses of WP:NOT. You apparently agree with me since you have not, despite repeated requests, indicated a specific clause. I commented above on WP:V and WP:NOR. I do not see how either is contravened by listing songs that have the word fuck in their titles. Other aspects of the list should be sourced, just like with any other article. --JJay 23:41, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your comments. To summarise your view, if this article had a different title and different contents, you believe it may pass WP:V and WP:NOR. I dare say you are 100% correct. It would be a totally different article. I therefore don't see why deletion of this one is opposed, since you seem to agree that its title and contents intrinsically fail those policies. You dismissed my citation of WP:NOTA7 as "subjective" above. This being the case, I really have no desire to discuss that point any further - your own dismissal of it is "subjective" to my mind, so round and round that goes without any conclusion in sight. Thanks again for your time.--DaveG12345 23:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suggest you reread my comments. The only time I used the word "subjective" in our discussion was in the following line: I won't address your comment on "edgy and exciting" or "tame and crufty" since I don't believe that those sort of subjective judgements have any bearing on inclusion of reference material. I will be happy to withdraw that comment if "edgy and exciting" or "tame and crufty" are actually in the WP:NOT policy. In fact, I "dismissed" your citation of WP:NOT by stating that it was not a "particularly compelling argument". It will remain uncompelling until you cite a specific clause in the WP:NOT criteria. Those criteria are there for a reason, essentially because the policy is specific rather than elastic. Other than that, I will say that your summary of my "views" was an excellent demonstration of your "subjectivity". --JJay 00:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, yes, whereas your outright dismissal of my argument as "not a particularly compelling" one represents a rigorous application of objective truths and logic, I suppose? Ho hum. If I have applied "subjectivity" above re WP:V and WP:NOR, please feel free to explain this article's obvious failure of those core policies in terms that do not ultimately advise a change in both its title and content - I should be interested to hear that. Until the WP:V/WP:NOR failure can be explained in such terms by somebody, I think this discussion is over for me.--DaveG12345 16:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You don't seem to handle disagreement very well, do you? "Not particularly compelling" is very different from an outright dismissal...and once again, I never said you applied "subjectivity" regarding WP:V or WP:NOR. I would appreciate it if you stopped trying to put words in my mouth. I have already commented on WP:V and WP:NOR multiple times above, such as when I wrote: I do not see how either is contravened by listing songs that have the word fuck in their titles. Other aspects of the list should be sourced, just like with any other article. Otherwise, I fail to see why you object to a change of title and/or content regarding this article. It is a frequent outcome on AFD that editing changes are suggested for nominated articles (merge or redirect are other possible outcomes). I have defended this article because I think the concept is valid and feasible within existing policy and guidelines. That you don't is fine with me. --JJay 19:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That you do is equally fine with me. --DaveG12345 23:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One suggestion: maybe instead of arguing whether the article is valid we could just change the guidelines to make it work? No one said the main criteria (appears in chorus, song title etc.) couldn't be changed. --68.227.185.195 18:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The problem here isn't just changing the criteria to make them work. As I see it, this article violates Wikipedia:List guideline ("Lists should always include unambiguous statements of membership criteria based on definitions made by reputable sources") and WP:OR (without a reputable source, everything on that page is original research). Unless an outside study can be found along the lines of "songs with prominent usage of 'fuck'" (and a quick search didn't find anything along those lines), the criteria (and this article in full) can't be modified in any way that satisfies WP policy. At best, we could delete the article and start over as "List of songs ordered by usage of 'fuck'"--IF an outside study by a reputable source has been done on that (which again, I'm not finding yet). Otherwise, this article will always inherently violate WP policy. HumbleGod 18:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another point: "prominent" is not one of the criteria for adding to the list, it is merely in the title for lack of a better word and because if the title consisted of the actually criteria it would be long and awkward. --Lord mortekai 18:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You just contradicted yourself. You say the problem isn't changing criteria, then say that the criteria are ambiguous. If you feel they are ambiguous, change them. --Lord mortekai 18:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no original research; you can easilly verify whether or not any song contains fuck in the chorus, in the title or repeated in the song. --Lord mortekai 18:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think, with respect, this misses one of the points of WP:NOR. Whether or not what Lord mortekai says is true, we cannot "easily verify" whether songs not on the list have the word "fuck" more prominently positioned than the ones arbitrarily selected by the editors of this article for inclusion. Without a reliable source or sources whom we can trust to select the songs based on prominence beforehand, we are left with inherent WP:NOR failure (as HumbleGod notes above) through the unsourced song selections made by editors, and we are left with the (obvious) WP:V failure too, because no one can cite a single source for any of these editor choices. Rather than say "you can tell it should be on the list from the title", etc., I would like to know how we can tell there aren't other songs better suited for the list than these chosen ones. The only way we could be sure of that, would be by following WP:NOR, and making this article into a tertiary source, which currently it is not. Nothing - as HumbleGod says - is going to change this problem without some bona fide reliable sources for this list. Sorry. --DaveG12345 23:39, 10 July 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 of the debate was speedied per author's request. Kimchi.sg 07:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Geoge Vanier elementary school

Error in title "Geoge" should have read "George" Johndowning 02:13, 7 July 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 of the debate was -- Speedy delete recreated material, meets CSD G4 and A7 -- Samir धर्म 05:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Farooq Sheikh

Establishes no notability, speedy removed by IP, reads like an advertisement. Crossmr 04:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Must be careful on this one, this is NOT the same person as this or this, as the imdb one did stuff before this guy was born, and the other link is obviously a different person. This name may be quite common in indian, as there are a lot of different people with this name. here's another No, this is vanity, plain and simple. Does read like an advert too. Kevin_b_er 05:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Clearly vanity, as per Kevin. Cmcl14 05:13, 7 July 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 of the discussion was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cop on the edge

Nomination inspired by the corresponding AfD on One good cop. Vaguely characterized subject. No sources makes this unverified original research despite appreciable amount of work put into it. Opabinia regalis 05:02, 7 July 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 of the discussion was keep. Mailer Diablo 15:46, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Beaulieu

non-notable writer hoopydinkConas tá tú? 05:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - in light of the recent expansion and removal of POV fodder from the article, I'm changing my vote. Whilst I don't think that a freelance writer such as Mr. Beaulieu is particularly notable, the article seems to pass WP:BIO with the reformatting hoopydinkConas tá tú? 07:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a notable Canadian writer with several books published by non-vanity publishers that I have heard of. (He also operated his own book publishing company for a while, but closed it down.) I confirmed the titles and their ISBNs at the Library and Archives of Canada catalog at http://amicus.collectionscanada.ca/aaweb/aalogine.htm and I found independent coverage on a number of sites. In general, anyone published by Mercury or Coach House should be considered a serious author. I realize that there are a lot of nn authors out there, but some time with a library catalog and Google will help to sort the notable from the non-notable. For U.S. authors, visit the Library of Congress catalog at http://catalog.loc.gov and for British authors, visit http://catalogue.bl.uk I have sometimes been able to find out the year of birth of an academic by searching a library catalog because of the cataloguing convention of including the author's year of birth (and sometimes death) in a cataog entry. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 05:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm neutral on this vote at the moment, but I would point out that ISBNs and inclusion in these major national library archives may not be good indicators of notability:
    • ISBNs can be bought by anyone, who can then use the number to list a completely fake book on Amazon. This has been used for hoaxes on Wikipedia in the past (November 2005 example. Incidentally the hoax book in that afd is STILL listed on Amazon[11]. I emailed Amazon after the afd closed but apparently noone read my note or cared.). Wikipedia's guidelines on book notability should be updated to reflect this problem with ISBNs.
    • The British Library, and the Library and Archives Canada are legal deposit libraries. In the UK, every book published by British publishers must, by law, have a copy sent to the British Library for cataloging. The same applies to the Library and Archive of Canada see this link for Canadian publishers (and note that a very broad definition of "publisher" is used here - covering all individuals and associations as well as formal publishers). The Library of Congress, on the other hand, does not work as a legal deposit library and is more selective in what it adds to its collections. (though it does act as a copyright guarantor, requiring 2 copies of all copyrighted books to be sent to it - these undergo a selection process and may not be added to the collection, but I don't know if they are catalogued) Bwithh 06:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I recognize that it is difficult for people outside Canada to tell whether a Canadian publisher is legitimate or not. The publishers that belong to the Literary Press Group, an association of independent publishers in Canada, or to the http://www.pubcouncil.ca/ are legitimate, in my opinion. See http://www.lpg.ca/publishers.html for a list. See http://www.obpo.ca/awards.cfm for another page that lists books from both Coach House and Mercury Press. Quill & Quire at http://www.quillandquire.com/ is also a good source of information about the book publishing industry in Canada. I hope that these links will be helpful for editors evaluating future articles about Canadian publishers and writers. I have dealt here only with English-language publishers. French-language book publishers have their own organizations. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 07:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - but let editors expand to further establish notability --Kungfu Adam (talk) 15:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep as above. -- Alias Flood 16:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep has books with reputable publishers. The rest of the biog seems fairly marginal. Dlyons493 Talk 18:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A little-known writer, granted - but he has been published by three of the most respected small presses in Canada. Coach House has published Atwood and Ondaatje, amongst others.--Victoriagirl 03:35, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Kungfu Adam. --Aguerriero (talk) 03:41, 8 July 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 of the debate was Speedy keep.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 15:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Server emulator

The term "server emulator" is not consistent with the established definition of the word emulator. At best, its introduction into various articles on Wikipedia is a breach of Wikipedia:No original research. At worst it is vandalism. -- Kethinov

Thats simply not true Kethinov, just google on the word "server emulator" and look how many hits you get. But good to have other wikipedians opinions to this. Please note that Kethinov with this deletion entry also deleted the notice of server emulator in the emulator page, if this deletion request will turn false, I request to undo kethinov revert of my work on the emulator page. (Be noted, A revert without discussion on wikipedia beforehand). But of course I vote for KEEP. Jestix 20:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would vote to keep if the information was put into context and proper sources cited. "Server emulator" is a term used only within the MMORPG community, and is not accepted by the computer science community at large. The term is colloquially accepted gamers, but not technically accurate. -- Kethinov

Kethinov this place here and now is not for us to discuss, you filed your deletion request, I gave my opinion and voted, and now sit back and relax and let wikipedia community decide! Jestix 21:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Guys, remember to be WP:CIVIL. Alphachimp talk 06:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are numerous examples of projects which recreate a network server, either according to a spec (NFS, FTP, HTTP) or reverse engineered (Samba amongst others). None of these re-implementations are called emulators. Despite that, the definition in a computer-science setting clearly shows this is an incorrect usage of the word emulator. --Omnivector 22:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Kethinov, you forgot to register the deletion request in the AfD list, so nobody could see it. To be fair I added it for you at the 7. July list. BTW: when I meant "sit back and let wikipedia community decide" what made you hear "log in with your sockpuppets to repeat usual arguments?" ;-) -Jestix 05:16, 7 July 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 of the discussion was No consensus to delete, therefore default to keep. - Bobet 18:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Transit Direction

Another editor labelled this for speedy deletion as nn-band. I disagree, so I am taking it here. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 05:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can not see that it meets WP:MUSIC guidelines as by my comment above, what sectons of the guideline does it meet.--blue520 08:44, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Has been listed as a major influence or teacher of a composer, songwriter or lyricist that meets the above criteria, and the aforementioned tour. This article may need citations, but not deletion. PT (s-s-s-s) 23:17, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can't see a tour with 7 stops in 5 near by states (that is if Salt Lake City is seen as home) is what was realy intended by a national concert tour in WP:MUSIC.--blue520 08:24, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can any one find a notable and verifiable source (or sources) about the tour, as none are suppled by the article (excluding the forum link) and I could not find any when searching.--blue520 08:35, 8 July 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 of the discussion was keep. Mailer Diablo 15:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of UML tools

Nominated before with the result keep but rewrite. Article is still mostly a collection of external links. Moreover, the list will be very difficult to get comlete, which will also require the inclusion of all kinds of non-notable tools. -- Koffieyahoo 05:51, 7 July 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 of the discussion was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 21:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of composers by name: S

This page appears to be an attempt to create a list of solo piano pieces composed by persons whose name starts with S. However, a more extensive such list already exists at List of solo piano pieces by composer: S. Spacepotato 06:33, 7 July 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 of the discussion was Redirected already. Jaranda wat's sup 21:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brickmation

The page was full of extensive word filler until I cleaned it up [13]. I then thought perhaps it could merge with Brickfilm, which is used by the wider community of Lego fans. I then decided that the page should more than likely be deleted, or at least be made into a redirect to Brickfilm. There is nothing at Brickmation that isn't already in Brickfilm, and the use of single photos is not any more notable (The Brick Testament is listed in the main Lego navigational template, so "Brick Tableaux" doesn't really need mentioning elsewhere). The article itself is a lot of external links to either personal pages, or pages that the various authors feel important to their medium of animation. Ryulong 06:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: There is also a redirect page for this article at Legomation that should also be taken into consideration for this AfD. Ryulong 07:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, bless your heart!! I'm sure this can be worked out without losing anything valuable!! //// Pacific PanDeist * 09:36, 7 July 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 of the discussion was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Reimer

This former teenage blogger is not yet notable. There is no other way to put it. RFerreira 07:15, 7 July 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 of the discussion was Keep. Deathphoenix ʕ 16:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POLINCO

Not completely sure about this one, but here we go: Non-notable extreem right wing, Dutch web forum. The forum only has 513 members. However, this is the big "but", the forum did get some mention in the Dutch press as one of the on-line extreem right wing, Dutch web forums. -- Koffieyahoo 07:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: I get 23k Google hits for this (although admittedly the first two aren't relevant). The article on nl.wikipedia (Dutch) was put up for deletion in April, but it looks like either the process was never fully carried out, or the template was never removed. In any case, their article is longer than ours (but not by much) and has some semblance of real information. I don't really know Dutch, but I can figure a little bit out because of its (written) similarity to German. But probably not enough to accurately bring information from their article to ours. Someone who reads Dutch could do that to better this article. - Che Nuevara: Join the Revolution 10:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment clicing thought them I see that the hits come only from about 280 different websites, about 20% of which I guesstimate is in polish or some language that looks like portuguese to me (definitely not related to the polinco.net we're dicussing here) or it refers to polinco.com (another site) -- Koffieyahoo 13:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I wouldn't call the Dutch version completely NPOV, except for the Controversy section (Controverse). The first part goes in the direction of the article under discussion here, which form a Dutch point of view, isn't exactly NPOV either. -- Koffieyahoo 13:48, 7 July 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 of the discussion was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shadowness

PROD tag removed without comment. Advertising for a nonnotable online community with no indication of meeting the guidelines at WP:WEB. Delete. User:Angr 07:40, 7 July 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 of the discussion was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 21:03, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Top Decking

Hoax or WP:NFT. If not hoax then neologism. No sources cited, so appears simply to be scatological humour. Proded. Prod removed with no explanation by author Fiddle Faddle 07:46, 7 July 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 of the discussion was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Hart (actress)

A non-notable actress, with no IMDb credits since 2001, and all of whose roles have been in projects starring her much more famous sister Melissa Joan Hart. Substantially the same content in this article came up for deletion before under the name Elizabeth Hart; during the discussion, however, the content was moved to Elizabeth Hart (1) and later to this page, while Elizabeth Hart was turned into a disambiguation page. Thus, the result of the AfD was that the disambiguation page was deleted instead. I recommend a delete for this page as well. --Metropolitan90 07:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per Truthbringer, you can disregard the fact that she has no IMDb credits since 2001, because her pre-2001 credits are still not notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article. --Metropolitan90 14:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is marginal, but I wanted to address the observation about "no IMDb credits since 2001". Wikipedia is not just for people who are currently active in their field, but for those who have been notable in the past, whether they are now working in an entirely different field, or dead. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 08:19, 7 July 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 of the debate was delete per WP:SNOW. Hoaxity goodness, without the good.  RasputinAXP  c 05:49, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Callum Brodie

An article about a WWII archaeologist, working for the Nazis at gunpoint in Scotland. Google turns up nothing. Requests for references have been ignored, and recent name-calling on the page suggests that it is a hoax. The only two significant editors have similar names to the grandchildren of the subject. Mr Stephen 08:02, 7 July 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 of the discussion was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 21:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Voicemail to text

Non notable product and/or service (600 odd ghits) that seems to serve as a magnet for spam links. Purge for being non-notable spam/advertising. Megapixie 08:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I believe this article attempts to explore history of voicemail-specific speech-to-text service providers. If advertising is indeed kept to a minimum of only a chronological order of provider offering, this should continue to grow into an informative overview of this emerging application. Rygelski 09:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Do you, by any chance have any association with the company concerned ? Megapixie 08:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I use the service, does that not make me simply a valuable contributor? Any agenda I have would be educational, not commercial or promotional. Does Wikipedia not support articles on technological advancement if organizated in a fair and balanced method? Rygelski 08:41 UTC

Not if you're the guy whose contact details are at the bottom of this - http://www.prwebdirect.com/releases/2005/11/prweb304961.htm Megapixie 08:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you'll notice, I also added many other details to competitor's services for better organization and additional non-biased information (as well as revisions to unrelated articles in Wikipedia). If I was trying to post self-promoting material, wouldn't I better hide my identity and focus on my own few documents instead of contributing as fairly to articles that would contradict my own "self-promotion"? Am I under review or is the educational quality of the article? Rygelski 08:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please do not remove votes from the AfD discussion - that can be considered vandalism. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 09:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Opps. Pure accident. I got an edit conflict and resolved it badly. Sorry. Megapixie 23:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Whoops, didn't review the history. It's all right. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 04:49, 8 July 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 of the discussion was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Phonetic (service)

Non notable product and/or service (200 odd ghits) that seems to serve as a magnet for spam links. Purge for being non-notable spam/advertising. Megapixie 08:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This product is a trademarked name and does not serve as a spam/advertising document. It provides a history of the service which is available nowhere else on the Internet. It also clearly explains the detailed process of how this voicemail-to-text service functions, as well as fair and balanced links to additional resources for exploring this emerging technology. Rygelski 09:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Referenced from the Wiki Offical Rules, I believe this article meets the conditions for non-deletion as follows:

  1. Self-promotion. You are free to write about yourself or projects you have a strong personal involvement in. However, do remember that the standards for encyclopedic articles apply to such pages just like any other, including the requirement to maintain a neutral point of view.
  2. Advertising. Articles about companies and products are acceptable if they are written in an objective and unbiased style. Rygelski 09:03, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there are several issues with the article. If it was just advertising then it could be re-written. But ultimately the product is not notable. Megapixie 09:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There, I have removed anything that might be considered "advertising" or "spammy" to match similar articles such as GenieTexter, Mercury - SMS Sending Program, and Speedwords. The primary focus of this service (and article) is for Americans and Canadians with Disability (Deaf and Hard of Hearing), so perhaps it is not notable in your circles but many people who require this service would find it valuable to be listed here.Rygelski 23:27, 7 July 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 of the discussion was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DictoMail

Non notable product and/or service (500 odd ghits) that seems to serve as a magnet for spam links. Purge for being non-notable spam/advertising. Megapixie 08:19, 7 July 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 of the discussion was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kyoryuu Sentai ZyuRanger 2

The article was originally a copyvio from a well made fansite, describing basic plots that would have taken place if the stock footage from what is called "Zyu2" by Power Rangers/Super Sentai fans were actual episodes in the original Super Sentai series. The article was changed and brought to the attention of myself when it was linked in the article for ZyuRanger as well as the Super Sentai template. These were reverted, and the article was listed for merger at MMPR. When it was determined that a large trivia entry was more than enough information on Zyu2, it was decided that the information on the monsters be divided up into the Monster list articles. I did this this morning, and now this article is no longer necessary. It should be deleted because of copyvio and fancruft. Ryulong 08:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am now also listing Zyu2, an article that has copied the well written trivia entry at the MMPR article that was recently created and then linked to the same section. I'm not sure if it should be speedied or not, but it's essentially the same information, and it is related to this AfD (the second article also seems to contradict itself). Ryulong 19:31, 8 July 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 of the discussion was speedy delete. Mailer Diablo 15:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ku3er

Article about a made-up word, failing WP:NFT and WP:NEO. Mr Stephen 08:24, 7 July 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 of the discussion was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 21:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Torrance Hodgson

Two issues. Firstly, as it completely lacks sources I am unable to seperate this from a hoax; Google gives 100 some results and Google News gives zero. Secondly, I don't think he's notable anyways. He's been in trouble a few times, and got in the way of a tank. Whooopeee. His magazine and movement don't seem notable enough in their own rights to make him notable by extension. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 08:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, per nom --Usrnme h8er 08:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, original research. Don't think it's a hoax, but I don't believe it passes [[WP:BIO] - I find citations for Mr. Hodgson, but they're mostly out of his own publication, and only 35 distinct Ghits (down from 148 total). No reliable third-party stories or quotations that I saw. Tychocat 11:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Definitely not a hoax. Aotearoa Indymedia has articles on all mentioned points. The protesting is interesting but perhaps not notable in its own right. However, he is a central figure and founding member of the Save Happy Valley Campaign which is currently engaged in one of New Zealand's longest land occupations. Also, the bi-monthly magazine was renowned amongst the radical left in New Zealand, despite the small size of that milieu. Fred Bo Bunkle 13:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Currigee swamp rat

Hoax mythical creature. No Google hits other than the Wikipedia article. The external links are just tourism sites for South Stradbroke Island and contain no information about this article. Srikeit (Talk | Review me!) 08:58, 7 July 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 of the discussion was speedy delete. Mailer Diablo 15:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Scottish Festival Orchestra"

Page created with quotations - I corrected this title. I actually think this could be speed deleted under the "housekeeping" criteria, but thought this was a more conservative course of action, especially since the author has made no previous edits and may take a day or two to return DeLarge 08:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, cheers for that, I didn't know RfD existed. You learn something new every day. -- DeLarge 09:54, 7 July 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 of the discussion was delete. (ESkog)(Talk) 12:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Human Union

Bizarre social theory, strongly connected to OS 0 1 2, which was deleted and protected against recreation last year. Zetawoof(ζ) 09:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. NN political/philosophical movement. Apostrophe abuse, and inability to spell "principle", are _not_ good starts on the path to total world domination... Tevildo 11:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Tevildo's opinion directly above... and remember kids, there is only one e in argument!--Isotope23 13:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • ""Keep"" just clean it up. First off 'bizarre social theory' is a personal opinion, and if you think a personal opinion about it being bizarre is a new standard for wiki, then you might as well delete a few thousand more entries. Secondly, 'the human union movement' is outlined in an offical peer reviewed publication and academic argument. Thirdly, spelling errors are not grounds for deletion, and since this is a wiki, you can correct them. It's called a cleanup. Fourthly, OS 0 1 2's deletion is being challenged as we speak and a hearing is forthcoming. I imagine that the wiki standard would insure you address these points rationally and this hearing would not succumb to rhetoric, which apparently is all some of you supplied. User:Tumbleman
  • Delete unless Tumbleman comes up with said peer-reviewed publications. Note that self-publication by groups consisting solely of the idea's adherents doesn't qualify. Gazpacho 18:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Here is the link to his website [14]. The publishing company publishes the book soley to academic institutions, and is an academically accepted publisher[15]. I am not Lyndon, so I hope he can attend this hearing. That should provide you what your looking for until Lyndon can attend.User:Tumbleman
      • Not really, but perhaps it would be appropriate to reorient the article toward the book until the idea is more widespread. Dr. Lyndon should skim our No original research and Wikipedia is not a soapbox policies. Gazpacho 23:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not really what? Is that a 'keep' with a clean up?' Look, you cant have it both ways. An academic peer reviewed publication is an academic peer reviewed publication. I agree the article should be cleaned up. Lyndon is NOT the first person to use this particular phrase either, he only created the academic argument. The phrase is self defined and the ideal has been discussed historically is some shape or form for millennia Tumbleman
      • That will be a "move" if and when I strike my original comment. I don't see anything indicating that this book was screened for publication by other international relations experts, which is what "peer review" means. The book's existence is easily verified, but your assertion that its idea is widespread (when the book was published 5 months ago) is not. As for the idea being "discussed for millennia," that's a point of view unless supported very specifically (e.g. a quote from Plato that defines a term exactly the way Storey defines "human union"). And if there is such a quote, there are probably many more people who have used the earlier writer's term than Storey's. Gazpacho 02:36, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Peer review does not mean 'screened for publication by other international relations experts' it means 'peer reviewed' by academia, in this case political science academia, i.e. the book was published soley by a institution that publishes for universities, Lyndon has his Ph.D in Political Science and his argument was also his thesis. Secondly, now your changing your argument to something else. I said the phrase 'human union' is self defined, but the concept of a governing body of co-operating humans HAS been discussed for millenia, so the concept is not new, the phrase is. Shall I list the wiki pages that already list this concept using other signifiers? really, I think your being unfair here.Tumbleman
  • Delete per nom. When the idea that bit torrent technology is going to take over the world grabs me, I reach for the silly novels, not half-assed dialectic. (I want to confirm that, per above, I do not "want it both ways", and do not believe a theory that cites P2P networks has been "discussed for millennia".) --DaveG12345 02:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Excuse me, rhetoric is a poor way to have a discussion regarding this issue. If you can define or argue that this is a 'half-assed' dialectic, which I hardly think your qualified or able to do with me, I suggest you strike your comment, it bears as much wieght as a Fox pundit's commentary. Again, I did not say that a P2P network has been discussed for millenia, rather the concept of co-operative human beings has. Wikipedia itself is a perfect example of this process, and in case you havent noticed, Open Source P2P concepts ARE redefining the world. I dont think your informed enought to have this discussion. Try making a rational comment, and then will see if your qualified to discuss dialectic or any other concept that is on this page.Tumbleman
  • Comment If "rhetoric" is a poor way to discuss, then insulting my intelligence sure doesn't worm you into my good books (it's "hardly think you're qualified", BTW - see how annoying insulting people's intelligence can be yet?). Of course, you don't do it once, you do it multiple times. Please don't condescend to pompously lecture me on P2P and dialectics, you know nothing about me. Wikipedia is the "perfect example" of nothing, as this discussion appears to prove. You will also find that this discussion is completely based on "personal opinion". Learn to accept that other people exist and they have opinions. AfD is a good place to express opinions, otherwise nothing really gets discussed. While you're praising Wikipedia's perfection, you'll also find that my opinion holds just as much "weight" as yours in this discussion. Hope that doesn't shock you too much. Getting back on-topic, this article also insults my intelligence, and - ironically - it's also full of rhetoric. Fox pundits get fired if they spout pure hokum on air. I personally respect Fox for that. Ironically, if Fox had reported on this article's subject, you'd have been in a much stronger position re the topic's notability. Since they haven't, and since I see no evidence here that anyone else of note ever has, I will wait until somesuch evidence turns up before discussing this article any further. I hope I won't be waiting millennia. Why not read WP:AGF with me, while we both wait? --DaveG12345 04:54, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment My perception of you was based soley on your comments, and anyone can read this thread and note when your's began and when mine responded. Other than that, I do apologize for insulting your intelligence, that was uncalled for, but your comment about a 'half assed' dialectic surely does not put you in my good book either. I assumed a hearing about a topic would not rely on opinion but rather points addressed rationally in the wiki standard. ANyway, maybe I will join you, and I do agree the entry desperatly needs a clean-up, and I just did. Tumbleman
  • Comment No worries Tumbleman, thanks for responding civily, I will try to respond to you in kind from now on. --DaveG12345 05:40, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Wonderful, same here. See how co-operative human beings can be on a wiki? ;-) Tumebleman
  • Keep. Sure, whatever. By the way, Storey's dissertation says "Discipline of Government and International Relations." Gazpacho 04:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- yet another opinionated movement -- not original really, just idiosyncratically expressed. Amateur in presentation. Must Wikipedia have a page for all the movements of the world? KarenAnn 13:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Karen, if your vote for deletion is based on your comment, which I assume it is, can you further define what you mean by 'opinionated' movement? Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the standard of a peer reviewed academically accepted publication. It' not opinion, it is an academic argument, and there is quite a clear distinction. An opinion when voiced does not need to reveal the logical steps and arguments it took to arrive at the conclusion. An academic argument is quite distinct and therefore I suspect you are unfamiliar with this standard and have simply an opinion yourself. If I am mistaken, can you then break down your definition of opinion and show the rational steps you took to come to the conclusion that an academic argument is nothing but? If you cant do this, then I respectfully request that you strike your comment. Thank you User:Tumbleman
  • Comment Tumbleman, in my profession peer reviewed means documented evidence that standards of research in my field have been met by publication in a peer-reviewed professional journal. Some history (concise) of the author's thinking process leading to the current article and how his position fits into or adds to the field's academic history of the topic is expected (even if the position he is taking is new or original). All statements and evidence are referenced (and not just be a link to a vague Wikipedia page with no documentation) but to some verified neutral outside source. Using an unprofessionally-sponsored website as a publication site (a a poorly written one at that) would swiftly shunt you into the quackery bin in my academic area. KarenAnn 12:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Please excuse me if I am screwing up on the wiki format here. I am new at Wikipedia and don't have wiki skills. KarenAnn 12:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just noticed that what I was trying to say is expressed very well by the comment of Tevildo right below mine, such as references to WP:N and WP:V. I would add Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Citing sources KarenAnn 12:21, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. A couple of points. First, my apologies if you were offended by the flippant nature of my earlier comment, but such obvious errors in spelling and punctuation do _not_ inspire confidence in your readers, and can easily be corrected by a few minutes' extra diligence. As a show of good faith, I've removed a couple of minor errors from the text myself. Secondly, the issue here is _notability_, as described in WP:N, and _verifiability_, as described in WP:V. The article, as it stands, does not present any verifiable evidence of the movement's existence, let alone its notability; the link to its own website, not being independent of the movement, doesn't count towards this. If such evidence exists, you'll need to include it in the article - proof that the term has been used by academic or popular authors other than the movement's founder, proof of media coverage of the movement, or something of the sort. Tevildo 20:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. No worries on the flippant comments, I can handle them if you can respond back rationally with your actual point, which you have. First off, thanks for trying to make the page better. For sure things like spelling and grammar are always issues, but since this is a wiki, the whole point is we all share in editing. When we see a simple mistake, we don’t delete it, we correct it, right? Secondly, the intention and subject matter of this article meets those wiki requirements you mentioned, and I am monitoring this page until the page reflects that you the wiki standard. Notability and verifiability are very relevant in this article's intention to list the actual argument Lyndon puts forth. I understand that many wiki editors are not as familiar perhaps with an academic standard, so please note that having a political academic argument for the ideal that the phrase 'Human Union' holds is pretty noteworthy. Regardless of Karen's suggestion that this is nothing original, the point is that this is THE ONLY academic and political argument that addresses a very sensitive subject matter, human rights and the human right to bear full potential. It's not some hippy dippy dream like it appears some posters here suggest, it is an actual outline. Dialectical Materialism, for example, is the political and academic argument for socialism and communism, and we don’t say that is just another 'opinionated' movement. If the argument exists on this scale, then it is very relevant, more so considering the sorry state of affairs in the world. The argument is what one would bring to the UN, for example. So please don’t discount the relevancy of what this means, and please do a little more research into political science to verify yourself what I have just stated. Secondly, the argument has been accepted by academic and peer reviewed sources, so that takes care of the verifiability right there. This is not a philosophy entry, it is an entry of political science, and this is the only argument of it's kind in the world, thus making it extraordinarily relevant in this context. Does what I say here make sense?User:Tumbleman
        • Comment. also..the article is not about some 'movement', the article is about the peer reviewed academic argument, which is the foundation for such a movement and such a movement can not exist in the political science sense without the argument. Indeed, the movement is created once the argument exists. i.e. there was no communism before dialectical materialism.....User:Tumbleman
        • Comment Thank you for your reply - it does make your position more clear. Two further pages I'd refer you to are WP:SOAP and WP:OR. Wikipedia is neither a place to publish original research in any field, academic or otherwise, nor a platform to advance a particular political or social agenda. Dr Storey may be notable as a person (WP:BIO and WP:PROF refer), in which case this exposition of his views would be suitable for an article about him: his book may be notable, in which case it would be appropriate in a summary of the book in an article about it. However, as it stands, the article provides no _verifiable_ (and I emphasise that again) sources that show the "argument", if that's how you'd prefer to characterize it, is _notable_ outside Dr Storey's personal beliefs and writings, and, as the article's author, it's your duty to provide such sources if the article is to remain.. If the political views encapsulated in the article ever do achieve widespread notice, then it'll be acceptable - but Wikipedia is not the right vehicle for your attempts to assist it in doing so. Dialectical materialism is a good example; if we were writing in 1896, before that term came to the prominence it has now, it would be an equally-strong candidate for deletion. In 110 years' time, "The Human Union" might be regarded as the most important movement of this century; but, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we can't say that it has any claim for notability _now_. Tevildo 18:54, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • CommentTelevido, I actually agree with much of what you wrote. How about this, give me some time to do the proper re-write on the actual argument itself and consider changing your vote to a clean-up. I have a full work week ahead of me as well as playing mr.mom, so I just request some time to do this, as presenting the argument in wiki format is a task. Perhaps the article should also be moved to a proper entry as well. Thanks again for trying to make the article better. I disagree with you on your point about DM, Wiki also encourages us to look at relevancy. We dont just wait for history for something to become relevant, history is just one of the guidelines. Other than that, your critique is valid and I appreciate your time here. User:Tumbleman
  • Comment I am (I presume we all are) still waiting for those reliable verifiable sources to be cited on this one. No sign of them as yet. Without them, this is surely a WP:NOR/WP:V delete, no matter how eloquent or welcome the interlocutory badinage. --DaveG12345 21:44, 12 July 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 of the discussion was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shasha Khan

Non notable un-sucessful candidate. doktorb wordsdeeds 09:33, 7 July 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 of the discussion was delete. Proto::type 11:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HD 64180

This star is completely non-notable. SIMBAD returns no references to any scientific papers about this star [16] - it is basically just a number in the catalogues. Chaos syndrome 09:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep. This star does seem to be completely unstudied, but in the absence of any definite benefit from deleting it, I will concur with Megapixie. Spacepotato 09:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Megapixie noted (in an edit summary) that this star was "Not notable other than being a star in a constellation - BUT- WP is not paper. No reason why we couldn't have an article for every star." However, one must note that this star isn't one of the stars which composes the constellation, but simply appears in the same portion of the sky. (This star, in fact, is significantly too dim to view with the naked eye.) Moreover, there are simply too many stars catalogued to create Wikipedia articles for each one. Rambot's mass-creation of US geography stubs would pale by comparison! Zetawoof(ζ) 10:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep until there are articles on other minor stars in this constellation, then merge into List of stars in Puppis constellation or somesuch. - Che Nuevara: Join the Revolution 10:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. If we list every tenth-magnitude star in the sky, the "Random article" link will become useless, if nothing else. Tevildo 10:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Not really—we have 1,239,953 articles at the moment, and there are only 340,000 (or so) stars of magnitude 10.0 or above. At the moment, though, we're dealing with one article, rather than 340,000. Spacepotato 11:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. We don't need an article for every 9th magnitude star but it could be useful to have articles about a few of them so people can see how little information is known about most dim stars. I don't know why the HD 64180 article was created and I wouldn't go around creating more articles on other 9th magnitude stars just for fun, but now that it's here I'd rather keep it than delete it. By the way, I did find an article from 1952 that ADS thinks included HD 64180, but I couldn't actually find the star in the article. --Fournax 11:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Surely the lack of knowledge about random dim stars could be communicated more effectively on a more general page (maybe expanding stellar astronomy or something), rather than creating stubby articles to illustrate a point. Chaos syndrome 11:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've added a link to the SIMBAD data for HD 64180. That page contains links to three references: the Tycho Reference Catalogue, the SAO Catalog, and the Michigan Spectral Survey. --Fournax 10:06, 9 July 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 of the discussion was Merge to Dude Ranch. Deathphoenix ʕ 16:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Degenerate (song)

doesn't appear to be notable and is very poorly written article Heidijane 10:31, 7 July 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 of the discussion was Merge to Chaos! Comics. Deathphoenix ʕ 17:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doomsday (band)

Found this article through a vandals contributions page. Couldn't find a single thing on google about them, only this article. I don't know if this is an album or a band, the band is supposedly called Chaos! Communications, which I couldn't find ANYTHING on at all. So likely not notable and fails WP:V. Andeh 10:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete There is no reliable source to support any of this info. Either extremely non-notable or hoax. GassyGuy 10:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC) No vote I have no idea how to judge this anymore. GassyGuy 22:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. Chaos! Communications (better known as Chaos! Comics) is genuine, as are the characters referred to in the article. I've not been able to find anything about this particular album, though. Tevildo 11:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. The band are genuine - they appeared at DragonCon '97 [17]. That appears to be the only enduring mark of their existence, apart from a couple of mentions on comic-fan message boards. Does their association with Lady Death bring them within WP:BAND? Probably not, but leaving the "Neutral" in place for now. Tevildo 11:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Another comment. If anyone has a copy of the CD in good condition, it's probably worth a few bob these days, in the right market. :) Tevildo 11:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if you can find a reliable source if it's notability/existence then I'll happily withdraw my vote to delete.--Andeh 11:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Chaos! Comics or Lady Death. A mildly interesting bit of comic-book history, but one which isn't really notable in its own right. The DragonCon guest list is all I can find about it, I'm afraid. Tevildo 14:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Chaos! Comics per Tevildo. This band meets none of the WP:MUSIC auto-keep criteria, but it seems verifiable. The slightly unusual way the band was created and sold justifies keeping the information somewhere. The publisher seems a better place for this than the character page. Smerdis of Tlön 15:44, 7 July 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. – Will (message me!) 08:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bernice Golberg

Non notable candidate fails WP:BIO doktorb wordsdeeds 11:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep May have some notability as an academic--Her 1998 paper in the Journal of Advanced Nursing has 13 citations in the ISI web of science database (which is a fair, though not huge, number). Expansion to include information about academics would be appropriate. --TeaDrinker 03:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, 13 citations as an academic is not particularly noteworthy, per WP:PRPF WilyD 17:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Deathphoenix ʕ 17:05, 13 July 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 of the discussion was No consensus. I do note that the article already has the "totallydisputed" tag. Deathphoenix ʕ 17:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tactics of Kurdistan Workers Party

Surprised this one has lasted so long... Delete for several reasons: 1. The majority of the text is not in English, 2. The text which is in English is either copied from the Kurdistan Workers Party page, or can easily be merged in, 3. The timelines are original research, 4. article is a POV fork of Kurdistan Workers Party where the timelines were rejected countless times for inclusion. - FrancisTyers · 11:27, 7 July 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 of the discussion was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Verts of the NBA

The talk page comment explains it best. Summary: The article doesn't cite its sources, there is no standard measure of vertical leap and each player's is variable, it is a weird mesh of NBA players and players from other sports, it is totally incomplete and never will be. The article doesn't even agree with Wikipedia itself; compare the data of Michael Jordan and the data here. Punctured Bicycle 11:28, 7 July 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 of the discussion was Keep, consensus in this AfD appears to be sufficient enough not to require a relisting (plus this AfD is already long enough). Deathphoenix ʕ 17:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Change to Delete, in light of additional information provided in the deletion review. --Deathphoenix ʕ 16:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What additional information? Wjhonson 17:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing Admin Please relist rather than closing. In my view this is unverifiable - it's based on material in the possession of one editor and which may (or may not) exist in two Libraries. I'm not questioning the editor's good faith, but this is way beyond normal Wikipedia standards for verifiability. Dlyons493 Talk 23:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No one said verifiability had to be simple. As I've stated many times, there are people you just can't easily verify unless you go to the source. People of local notability are almost always like this. And people of historical local notable are even worse. Wjhonson 23:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kitty May Ellis

I'm sorry for the trouble the author took in creating this page, but the only claim to fame for Kitty is that she was a diarist, and the only place these diaries (well, two of them) are available is Wikisource. So there is no fame, no notability, and hance no place in Wikipedia. Fram 11:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is incorrect. It appears you've made your judgement solely on the basis of your own personal knowledge and google abilities. However many people of note do not show up in google simply because no biography has yet published online anything relevant. The mere fact that you cannot find the person online is not a sufficient reason to delete. Wjhonson 03:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Her diaries are a primary source for the earliest days of Spokane for one thing. That alone makes her notable. Then, she is one of, if not the, only sources to mention the brief existence of the post office of Ellis, Washington which otherwise might have been completely forgotten. She is a witness to an encounter with Chief Joseph, the unionization of the building trade in Spokane, the formative years of the town of Clearview. She is a primary source for certain events in Seattle, Prospect, Hillsboro, Portland... The list is already long and that's only reading two of her four hundred journals. Wjhonson 05:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Where are the journals published? Dlyons493 Talk 11:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but as long as no more work is done on her diaries (publication, use in historical studies (which gets published in turn), ...), she fails WP:V, WP:BIO, and WP:NOR. Fram 19:06, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then you get the prize for the most impatient person on wikipedia :) As you can plainly see I'm transcribing the journals day-by-day for the last week or so. So maybe you could hold off a bit ? The journals have been published in local newspapers and history books. Sorry those aren't on google, but she is a quite a notable person locally. That should be sufficient. Wjhonson 20:17, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Which books? Gazpacho 20:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
History of Snohomish County, J Daniels, 1962. Privately printed.
Clearview, founders and pioneers, Frances Smith, 1982. John Brown & Co. Everett.
Snohomish Tribune, various dates from 1956 to 1972.
  • Keep, I accept the author's claim of notability. Gazpacho 20:56, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article is less than two weeks old and is being constructively edited, with the appropriate sources being transcribed as we speak. Noms, please be more patient, especially for topics more than fifty years old. It can take time to do the research. Captainktainer * Talk 01:18, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Verifiability is an issue - Google isn't the be-all and end-all, but the above are difficult to verify! Books entitled History of Snohomish County exist but none I can find by Daniels. I can find no reference to Clearview, founders and pioneers. Snohomish Tribune exists but the online version [18] is just a Classifieds. So I don't feel any of the above meet normal wiki verifiability standards. Dlyons493 Talk 03:45, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment They're difficult to verify, but not impossible. The Snohomish Tribune, for example, will be available on microfilm/microfiche; someone in Snohomish County could go to the library and verify the information. The "History of Snohomish County" book, being that it was privately printed, I would agree is suspect, but I'm going to assume that the book exists for now, especially given that the article is barely over a week old. The solution to having doubts that are reasonable but not beyond a shadow of a doubt related to a source is to ask for verification. This is a more appropriate way to handle this article, not to run to AfD within seven or eight days. Captainktainer * Talk 04:26, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't understand the comment. What exactly are you trying to verify? The statements of fact are cited to each journal page where the statement is made. Or are you saying that you're only trying to verify whether or not the journals (or portions thereof) have been previously published ? An autobiography is sufficient proof for the facts of the person that they themselves wrote obviously, of their own life. Wjhonson 05:06, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is verifying that the books in question exist. They aren't found referenced anywhere on Google, and I couldn't find them in the Library of Congress or in the online catalogs of the local libraries, and they aren't particularly well-known, so there's some doubt as to whether the books you mentioned exist. Personally, I doubt that you would make up books, but I think the point being made is that without an ability to check the references- any libraries where they can be checked out, etc.- it's hard to confirm the information. But, quite honestly, this isn't a discussion that we should be having on AfD about an article that is being actively edited and productively contributed to, and that asserts the subject's notability. Captainktainer * Talk 05:36, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    My question is, what is the point of asking about the books? To verify what exactly? The statement was "about verifiability". I can tell you the complete contents of the article are not in the books published. Many of the events are in the journals which are cited and can be read online to see for yourself what they say. Is the person suggesting that journals published in wikisource are not sources ? Wjhonson 05:41, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that's the point. From my reading of the poster's comments, the question is whether the journals are accurate, and he's not convinced that the sources quoted are sufficient to establish the reality of the journals. I could be wrong, but that seems to be the idea. Captainktainer * Talk 05:45, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then this has gone from ridiculous to downright looney. A person's journals are sufficient to establish what they said. Every biography on here is subject to scrutiny to its *facts* and that is independent of what is or is not said. If there is only one source for the biography then the person is going to have to do research to determine its validity. But the simple *belief* that it *may* not be valid, is insufficient to discard the statments that are made. There are thousands of articles in wikipedia that have no sources *what*soever, perhaps those would be a better candidate for this kind of Reductio ad absurdum (I got so high falutin that I lost my ability to spell ;). Wjhonson 05:55, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Oh as to your comment about not being able to find the History of Snohomish book I referred to, the copy I have has no ISBN number and doesn't even have a copyright statment for that matter. Its a printed work, but is bound soft-cover, not really what you'd called a high-quality work, but I'm sure they sold a grand-total of perhaps 500 copies. It's not like Snohomish is a huge metropolis :0 Wjhonson 06:00, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And the Clearview work isn't even a 'book' per se, its more like a phamplet, probably put together by a local history society or genealogical society (although not so marked). Also no ISBN number and stapled not bound. That's the kind of history books you get in little, dinky towns. Wjhonson 06:02, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't personally doubt that these exist, but basic scolarship requires that an independent check confirm their existence. I'd go to my local library to look them up, but that's obviously not possible. So where can physical copies of these works be found which will allow hypothetical Wikipedia representatives visit and confirm, first their existence, and, secondly, the notability of their contents? And I feel strongly this is a discussion we not only should be having, but would be negligent not to have! Dlyons493 Talk
There is a library in the city of Snohomish. It's a small town of perhaps 3,000 so it may not be open very often. I've never been to it. There is a larger library in Everett which *may* have copies of these. I have not personally checked either one to be sure. Wjhonson 06:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I don't mean that the author of the article has made up the diaries (although it would be hard to show either way): but why is having made diaries important? The diaries are unpublished, unverified (i.e. is what she writes correct? Important), unstudied, and unreferenced. There is no reason at all that this person merits an encyclopedic article at this moment in time. She has had no importance at all, has made no impact on anything, has made no revelations that have been the basis for serious scientific studies, has no literary merit, ... That an article is truthful, thorough, wikified, ... does not mean that it belongs here. As the article states, her only claim to fame is that she has written diaries (lots of them). So? How does that meet WP:BIO?

You give as arguments: Her diaries are a primary source for the earliest days of Spokane for one thing. That alone makes her notable. Then, she is one of, if not the, only sources to mention the brief existence of the post office of Ellis, Washington which otherwise might have been completely forgotten. She is a witness to an encounter with Chief Joseph, the unionization of the building trade in Spokane, the formative years of the town of Clearview. She is a primary source for certain events in Seattle, Prospect, Hillsboro, Portland... The list is already long and that's only reading two of her four hundred journals. Why is a short lived post office important? How is she a reliable witness? Until her diaries are the source of historical works of some importance, she is just an anecdote. Fram 13:47, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're saying, if someone writes a work, say the Gospel of Judas. That work is not itself important *until* it is referenced by someone else? And you're saying if wikisource accepts a work that that itself does not make the person who wrote it an author who deserves encyclopaedic representation? I find those two positions untenable. I don't think very many people are going to be flocking to that banner. Wjhonson 16:25, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Wikisource accepts" has about the same value as "Wikipedia accepts". The texts have not been challenged on WIkipedia, but that does not mean that they fit the inclusion criteria very well: "Most texts should be published in a medium that includes peer review, such as a newspaper or published book; a Usenet posting or blog entry does not qualify.". These diaries don't belong in that category, do they? Fram 07:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let me quote Wikipedia:Notability "A topic has notability if it is known outside a narrow interest group or constituency, or should be because of its particular importance or impact. It is an extension of the notion of prominence for biographical articles. It differs, however, from fame and importance; while all articles on "famous" and "important" subjects are notable, not all notable subjects are famous or important." Wjhonson 16:30, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can I just quote the first text line of WP:V (a policy, not a guideline): "One of the keys to writing good encyclopedia articles is to understand that they must refer only to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by reputable publishers.". This article fails this (wrt the "claim of fame", that the peson existed is verifiable but not important), and is thus against policy. Then the only option is to delete the article. I repeat, the notable part of the article is the unverifible part of the article as defined by Wikipedia policy. Fram 07:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Verifiable does not mean by a peer-reviewed source. It only means that there is a source. Wikisource is a valid source for establishing verifiability. And I have already posted other sources which you admitted were veriable, albeit perhaps not *simple*. But verifiability does not stand on what is simple, only on what is possible. If you wish to go to Snohomish and visit the library you could probably verify that this person existed. The article itself also has links, to places other than the journals, which do verify certain events in the person's life. A biography of just *public records* would be fairly dry, every biography has statements writen from first-hand knowledge of actors associated with the person. Those statements outside of their primary, published venue, are not *verifiable* in the strict sense that you wish to employ here. The notes of the author are elements to verify the details of the biography and those notes, are not usually published themselves. Only the result of the research is published.

Again, the limitations in writing Autobiographies do not apply to Biographies, even if those biographies are writen from statements made by the subject themselves. The elements of this life are not gradiose, bizarre or suspect. They are merely notable. So the majority of your case dissolves from a lack of conflict. Wjhonson 01:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, it sounds like Wjhonson (talk · contribs) has a lot invested in this article, and therefore the lines of WP:OR are being blurred. Is it appropriate for someone transcribing diaries (that are not currently published) to start an wikipedia article on the same topic? Wikipedia cannot be a place to publish primary sources, and we cannot be the first place to write on a topic. We also get into WP:RS issues. In all honesty, this sounds like genealogy work being published for the first time here. There is a fine line between notable history and genealogy, but WP:NOT: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, including genealogy entries. This article to me sounds like something more appropriate for User:Sam Francis/Genealogy wiki or a similar project, NOT wikipedia. But like I said there is a fine line.--Andrew c 21:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am not creating original statments of facts from my own personal experience or efforts. I am transcribing a diary in which those statements appear. That is not original research. You could just as well say that transcribing a newspaper is original research which is isn't. Just like transcribing public records, regardless of the amount of time you expend, its not original research, its a mechanical representation of facts in an alternative media. There is no artistic effort involved. Your next objection, wikipedia is not being used to publish primary sources. The primary source is where it should be, on wikisource. It has been accepted there, which is where primary sources go. Your next objection, this is not the first time that Kitty May Ellis has been writen about as I've stated above. She is obscure that is true, she is not googleable that is true. The same was true for my article on Frantz Hunt Coe, however he is notable as well. Your next objection, this is not genealogy, it is biography. She is notable not for her family, but for herself. Hopefully that addresses all your concerns. Wjhonson 22:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's problematic using something only published at wikisource as a source per WP:RS and WP:V. If this person was reported on in newspapers and such, then your job is to summarize those sources. Instead, it looks like you are cherry picking information at your whim from the unpublished, unreliable source that you are transcribing (which is why it goes into the realm of WP:OR). Transcribing isn't OR, but basing a wikipedia entry off that work MAY be OR. You should probably not use the diary as a source, or at least keep its use down to a bare minimum (right now it seems like it is the bulk of the article, also, you may want to use the format found int WP:CITE and cite.php in regard to intext citations.) Franz Hunt Coe appears to be deleted, so if this is the case, there is precedent on wikipedia to NOT include these sort of articles. I urge you to read your article. It is not encyclopedic. It reads as a family history, not an encyclopedia article. Take for instance the 2nd paragraph in early life. Do you seriously consider that good writings? In 1870 they are in Lincoln, Nebraska. In 1876 Andrew applied for and received a Civil War Pension. By Sep 1879 they were living at Tarkio, Missouri. They left Takio about Mar 1883 and went by "team and wagon" arriving in Colville, Stevens Co, Washington on July 3rd 1883[4]. Soon they had moved to Spokane Falls, Washington or the vicinity,. Can you point to a features or good article on wikipedia that has a similar format? This article needs some major editing, if it is kept.--Andrew c 00:31, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's an awful lot of assumptions for one paragraph. Let me just tackle your main one first. You are assuming that the biography is gleaned simply from the journals. That is false. The citations to the journals are to show where she states the things that were *already known* from other sources. Of course the underlying original source in all cases, is... herself. So the entire premise falls to pieces. As in almost every biography, the most primitive, underlying source for most statements is the person. Other documents can be used to back up what they say about certain things that were recorded elsewhere, but not in all cases. "President Clinton says he likes potatoes." I mean who the heck cares if it's true or not. He said it, it goes into his biography. It's his quote. Whether it's true isn't going to change a thing. "President Clinton says he was born in September". May be true. You can verify it by looking at his birth certificate. But his birth certificate isn't going to say he likes potatoes. And if you ask his mother, that's just another source, equally failable.
The major problem in this particular biography is that people are moaning that it's HARD to verify because it's not online. But it is verifiable, it's just not easy to do so. I mispelled Frantz Hunt Coe so it wasn't deleted, which destroys another pin in your argument. History will thank me for digging up obscure but once famous people. And finally be bold, if you think my writing sucks, rewrite the paragraph to make it flow more smoothly, without loss of information of course. And my ref style is my choice. There are several styles in existence here, not everyone uses the same type, I didn't wish to clutter the article with 42 footnotes. This isn't paper and I don't really see the point. Wjhonson 14:31, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Frantz Hunt Coe was (speedy) deleted, and is since recreated. The article still does not assert why he is a "prominent physician", but I'll let it be for now. My main reason for putting this up for deletion is not that the existance and facts of the life of Ellis are hard to verify, but that her claim to fame is hard to verify (not that she has written a diary, but that any info in it is important for historians). For now, we have only your word that her writings have historical importance, and none of her writings have been checked by historians. As far as we know, they may be delusions, misremembered facts, ... or a mixture of all of these. For now, niether her life nor her diaries have any importance, no studies based on them or studies using them as a source have been published, the diaries themselves have not been published by a real publisher, ... Let me again post the first line of WP:V: the policy: "One of the keys to writing good encyclopedia articles is to understand that they must refer only to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by reputable publishers. The goal of Wikipedia is to become a complete and reliable encyclopedia. Editors should cite reliable sources so that their edits may be verified by readers and other editors.". This article does not meet this policy, and hence should be deleted. Wikisource is not a reputable publisher. Fram 14:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure in your view, schools get named for people of no particular renown. The fact that Frantz had a school named after him, that fact alone, is enough to make him notable. Not even counting the other things he was famous for in his life. As for the journals, as I have mentioned several times now. They have been published. And no you don't have just my word that they have historical importance, you have the contents of the journals themselves. Go read them. The vast majority of her writing is quotes from the newspapers, so I think you'd be awfully hard pressed to say those haven't been previously published or aren't reliable sources. At any rate this is going nowhere. There are enough votes to keep the articles. There is no overwhelming consensus. Wjhonson 14:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You can't have it both ways: if the vast majority of her writing is quotes from newspapers, then her diary is not a possible primary source for historians, and isn't notable. If it is not a collection of quotes, then it has to be verified by historians, to see if her writings are truthful and reliable. Until then, she fails WP:V. Fram 15:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That statement only proves that you haven't even read any of the journals at all. So you're not arguing about this case. You're arguing some hypothetical which doesn't exist. A source doesn't have to be primary to be useful. And sources don't have to be "verified by historians" good grief. It's as if you have no idea how biographies are even constructed. Do you really think that newspapers articles you read every day are "verified by historians" ? Yes you want to set this incredibly high bar for anything you don't like. Why waste everyone's time? Wjhonson 15:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, no. Either she is inherently notable (i.e. not because of the diaries), and the diaries provide a biography. But she isn't. Or she is notable because her diaries are historically interesting and provide a valuable source. But now you have said that they don't do that either. So what exactly is the reason Wikipedia should have an article about her? Fram 21:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
She is notable because of her life experiences. And if you're conceding that diaries are historically interesting, than that along makes the author interesting as well. And I did not say the diaries don't provide a valuable source. They do, in fact, provide a valuable source, to many events. Primary in some cases, secondary in some cases. You're going in circles. Wjhonson 21:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reset indent. Three things to keep in mind. Diaries CAN have historical significance, but not every single diary is historically significant. Next, Afd is not a vote. The most votes do not always win. If the arguments are compelling enough to to closing editor, they may take whatever action they feel is most appropriate, considering wikipedia policy and general consensus (not simply tallying votes). Secondly, you keep scolding us about how "biographies are constructed", and we keep scolding you about how encyclopedias are written. Seriously, I think you are using the wrong project to publish your "biography". Listing the places someone of questionable notability lived does not belong in an encyclopedia. You should make the article consice, focusing in on the aspects that make the individual notable, not relaying boring, unecnyclopedic, trivial, biographical information. If you honestly want me to edit the article, I will, but I'd probably delete most of the trivial content. Is that acceptable to you?--Andrew c 21:40, 12 July 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 of the discussion was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Xmlitude

Not notable. --Amit 11:48, 7 July 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 of the discussion was delete. Policy and precedent are being cited by the delete voters, while all the keep voters have is "I think this is useful" and "Here is a fansite which duplicates this information"... (ESkog)(Talk) 12:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of vehicles in the Halo universe

Wikipedia is not a game strategy guide - this is one of the facts stated in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. The article is also entirely unreferenced and unsourced, and contains a heap of original research, such as the Halo games (so far) only two Monitors have been seen. However, there are most likely seven Monitors, each corresponding to a certain installation.

If you need further convincing, apply Calton's Theory on Gamecruft:

Spilt the world into two groups: Those who own Halo: already have the game manual which contains all this information. Actual usefulness of article for this group: none. Those who do not own Halo: have no possible use for, need of, or interest in, the information in the article. Actual usefulness of article for this group: none.

Precedent for decisions of this kind can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Infantry units of the USA (C&CG), or, perhaps more pertinently, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Weapons in the Resident Evil Outbreak Series. I am aware that Halo has its own project, and therefore the article will no doubt attract some block voting from a special interest group. I hope the closing admin is able to take into account both the strength and applicability of arguments, rather than just counting numbers. To summarise, the article fails WP:NOR, WP:V, and, most importantly, WP:NOT. Delete. Proto///type 11:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Gameguidelistcruft. Wikipedia is not a replacement video game manual. -- GWO
  • Delete per nom. Also, the article fails WP:V, so the content can actually be deleted without an AFD. (Yeah, it would cause an edit war no doubt, so this is a better option). ---J.S (t|c) 16:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Article seems to have at least one reliable source in the context of a video game. I do not believe it satisfies any solid criteria for deletion any more. That's enough for a week-keep out of me. Not a strong keep because the article needs more sourceing and some work removeing OR... but thats something that don't need to be hashed out here. I'd keep for now and renominate in a month if problems stay. ---J.S (t|c) 00:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I like Calton's argument. And for the record, I like the work done by the Halo wikiproject, but I have played... let's say around 300 hours of "Halo" and "Halo 2" combined (give or take). I'm a huge fan, and I see no reason this article really needs to exist (both per precident and per rational thought). -- Kicking222 17:03, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Using the reasoning provided, all lists anything like it, in the Halo Wikiproject or not, are "useless" and thus should be removed (lists of weapons, characters, episodes, etc.) I admit it needs sourcing, etc. But I see no reason for its total deletion. David Fuchs 17:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you provide a (good) reason to keep it? Proto///type 12:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This AfD nomination seems to be based on a misunderstanding of the WP:NOT. This article is not a manual, guide or a "how-to", thus WP:NOT does not apply. A manual contains instructions for how to do or use a certain thing, and this article don't. I think it's important that we all understand what a manual is, and what it's not, in order to avoid future AfDs without justification or support from the Wikipedia policies and guidelines. The second reason for me voting to keep this article is that this AfD nom. seems to be based on someones personal opinion that Wikipedia shouldn't contain info about games. This means that this AfD nom. in a way violates WP:NOT (censorship) and WP:NPOV, and as long as the Wikipedia policies and guidelines doesn't state that Wikipedia is supposed to be kept free from game-related information, I will vote against AfDs like this one just out of principle. However, this article do need more sources and references, but that can be worked on, and doesn't justify a deletion. /Magore 17:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You may not like it, but failure of WP:V really is a justification for deletion. Those who want to keep something are the ones who are required to provide reliable sources. ---J.S (t|c) 23:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lacking proper sources and thus not being verified isn't the same thing as not being verifiable. WP:V only applies in AfDs if something is inherently unverifiable. Ace of Sevens 01:42, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If the article can be verified, then by all means, please provide this verification. Or will you just claim it's all verifiable, and then not provide us with verification? Proto///type 12:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as part of WikiProject Halo, and as stated above. Also, deleting this would kill several of the links based off Halo, Red vs Blue and its supporting pages. Just look at how many things link to this page using "What Links Here". If you kill this article for acting as a replacement, then think of all the information we'll have to delete to stay within the precedence a decision like that would set. --Targetter 21:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You raise an interesting point. Since my primary consern is that lack of sourceing I'd be totaly willing to change my "vote" to keep as soon as someone provided some sourceing. 23:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I will happily fix all the broken links if this article is deleted. One of the things an admin is asked to do when closing an AFD dicsussion with a 'delete' verdict is to fix the redlinks. The article being linked to in a walled garden of Halocruft is not a reason to keep it. Proto///type 12:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As a part of wikipedia? This discussion is to decided if it SHOULD be part of wikipedia, not if it already is. (You can only AFD things that are already parts of wikipedia afterall). ---J.S (t|c) 23:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Nifboy 23:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because its cruftiness to quality ratio is actually fairly low. If you want to kill the cruft-Hydra this ain't the way. Outriggr 23:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - no reason to keep provided. Proto///type 14:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm not a video game fan, but the article seems very relevant to the Halo project, similar to FF7 locations. Agreed that cleanup and citing is needed. -Markusbradley 00:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - no reason to keep provided. Proto///type 14:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per above. This is a collection of data about the game, but that ddoesn't make it a game guide. If it were a list of vehicle strategies, that would be different. This is just a section of the Halo articles that got toolong for the game pages. Ace of Sevens 01:42, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - no reason to keep provided. Proto///type 14:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - I would rather say that this AfD no longer has any justification. This is not a manual, so the WP:NOT does no longer apply. The information is verifiable (although some editors confuse verifiability with verified, it's not the same, vefifiable means that it can be verified, not that it is), meaning that it doesn't violate WP:V either. And since it's not original research, WP:NOR doesn't apply. This leaves us with some administrators and editors personal opinion that Wikipedia shouldn't contain any game info, and that's not an acceptable argument for deletion, since it violates WP:NOT - Wikipedia is not censored. Personally, I absolutely detest cruft, and would like to rid Wiki of it. But this isn't gamecruft, since gamecruft (as well as other forms of cruft found here and there on Wikipedia) is based on conclusions and assumptions made by some individuals (ie fantasies and their own little "contributions" and "improvements" to for the example overall storyline of a movie, or a fictional universe), and are non-factual/non-canonical information. According to my experience, people tend to condemn everything they personally don't like or are interested in as "cruft", although it is often based on facts and reliable sources. And when you're fighting cruft, you don't use AfD templates, you clean up the crufty articles instead. /M.O (u) (t) 16:14, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, that is WP:NOT a game guide and WP:NOR and WP:V are not optional. The existence of a whole lot of other unencyclopedic gamecruft is no reason to keep this article. Angus McLellan (Talk) 08:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per above, it's not game guide info and has no strategies.--Zxcvbnm 16:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - While there is a huuuuge amount of cruft in this article, if it is edited down, I feel it can become a relatively respectable article. Wickethewok 17:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are far too many things linking to the page and the information can be sourced. Just because an article sits there with a template saying that this article does source it's statements for a long period of time, that doesn't mean it should get an AfD vote. These things need to be fixed. That's what this whole thing is about. A collaboration between the people of Earth. And collaborations take time. We'll get to these things, that's what we set up the Halo WikiProject for. It just takes time. Get rid of the AfD vote, and slowly but surely we'll get to these things. -007bond 22:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, if it has been tagged for sources for a long time, and they aren't provided, an AFD vote is exactly what it should get. Proto///type 14:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have added sources to about two thirds of the vehicles in the article -007bond 23:58, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Though some sections--Warthog in particular--are too detailed for their own good, the page is needed as a vehicle index. Halo's vehicles are too entrenched in culture to simply delete them, in my opinion. Also, keep in mind that having one comprehensive page for Halo vehicles is much better than having a dozen seperate pages, each for a vehicle. --Ourai 01:50, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, not game-guide content, article does need more sources. In case an article lacks sources, tag it for cleanup .. don't drag it through AfD. jaco♫plane 02:15, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - it's been tagged for sources for months. Proto///type 14:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, no advantage in deleting what can be salvaged. RandyWang (raves/rants) 08:54, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - no reason to keep provided. Proto///type 14:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd realy prefer it if you would quit with that. Just because you feel logic is wrong, dosn't mean it isn't there. ---J.S (t|c) 00:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This information can be found in any game FAQ, walkthrough, or guide book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HarroSIN (talk • contribs) 20:01, 9 July 2006
  • Keep but cleanup. If you believe in m:immediatism, sure, this article is in bad shape. But I think that this is an encyclopedic topic, and we should approach it from the viewpoint that it is an incomplete article, rather than one that is unsalvageable. When WP:WAF was being developed, many felt that it should not be made policy because that would potentially spark deletion of salvageable articles on fiction. Although I am nominally part of WikiProject Halo, I'm not a big content contributor; I go through a copyedit articles from time to time. I would say that the focus needs to shift to describing the vehicles as cultural artifacts. By this, I mean that the following questions should be answered (and sourced):
    • How did Bungie come up with the idea for creation? Did they take anything from their earlier games, or perhaps from other fiction?
    • For vehicles in both Halo and Halo 2, how did they change? Were the changes aesthetic or for reasons of game balance?
    • How did game critics and other reliable sources react to the vehicles, or any changes made between the games? Are there any reliable reviews that mention the vehicles' handling and shift to third-person perspective?
    • How have the vehicles been used in notable machinima pieces? For example, the Warthog was the subject of both Warthog Jump, a video that exploits the Halo physics engine, and an entire episode of Red vs Blue (where the characters wonder why it's called the Warthog in the first place).
In short, I really do think that this topic can be treated encyclopedically, and, in researching along the lines that I mentioned above, editors may find that they have enough material to justify splitting some of the more notable vehicles into their own articles. — TKD::Talk 18:22, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this article contains genuinely useful information and is salvageable, per JJay (below)--Cornflake pirate 14:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - no reason to keep provided. And, how?Proto///type 14:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe that TKD made some very compelling points as to the usefulness of some of the information. If Wikipedia is meant to be a truly comprehensive dictionary, then deletion should be a last resort--we can always try to salvage the article first by removing that information which is more suited for a strategy guide than an encyclopaedia. Ourai 15:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia is not a dictionary. See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Proto///type 15:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. I do, however, believe it is possible to reject dictionary-like discourse in favor of encyclopaedic analysis. After all, isn't that what Wikipedia's all about? Ourai 16:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: I'm going to play devil's advocate for articles like this. You just mentioned analysis, but on such topics as these, how can the analysis not be "original"? These articles cannot possibly meet Wikipedia's formal article criteria, for what is the "source" of the material in this article other than the game itself? To the extent that an article like this is allowed, it needs to be judged on its balance and reasonability vis-a-vis the small world it describes. That description is always going to be "original research", in the most trivial possible sense of that term. I have to wonder about anyone who thinks that observing and synthesizing certain facts about a video game violates Wikipedia standards. The standard should be: this is too silly for an encyclopedia that wants to be taken seriously, or it isn't. I fail to see how any of the listed WP policies--original research, strategy guides, dicdef--meaningfully apply to this article. I say either develop a policy that says a video game can have only one page to describe it, without going into excessive detail, or let it rest, unless the article in question is just crap. Which this isn't. That's my opinion... Outriggr 00:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: "article contains genuinely useful information" is a reason to keep. You may think it's a bad reason, but it's a reason. "Keep because my toe is yellow" would be a bad reason... but still a reason. ---J.S (t|c) 00:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    My apologies for the "bad reason" given, see JJay below. --Cornflake pirate 12:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't play video games or know anything about Halo. That's why I found this article on its vehicles quite informative. There is no reason that we shouldn't be documenting important aspects of these games, which have become a form of literature for an entire generation. Could be useful for people like me who might need the info in the future, perhaps as part of a research project, or in order to discuss halo with the grandchildren. Doesn't seem to violate seriously any policies, but does have some extensive footnotes at the bottom of the page. --JJay 19:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:V and/or WP:NOR? ---J.S (t|c) 00:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Both satisfied by references (see bottom of article). Furthermore, since this article is about a text, the text itself is a reference. For example, The Lord of the Rings's article doesn't need a reference to say that the main character is Frodo Baggins, since that text itself is a primary source. In the same way, this article doesn't need a reference to say that the vehicles are Warthog, Tank, etc. There is probably a policy page on this somewhere but I have no idea where to find it. --Cornflake pirate 12:51, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm seems like I'm wrong according to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Popular_culture_and_fiction (although I could be reading this incorrectly). :S --Cornflake pirate 13:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Full of advice. Wholly unsourced except for the games in question. Lots of in-universe writing. There is nothing encyclopedic one can say about 99% of these vehicles. This is one of the worst game-guide articles I've seen in a long time. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:58, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom (Game manual/gamecruft) and Man in Black. JJay's comment: He doesn't play video games and and has never heard of Halo but says "Could be useful for people like me who might need the info in the future, perhaps as part of a research project, or in order to discuss halo with the grandchildren." I was just imagining what the research project could be ("The Warthog jeep in this Halo controllable screen picture thingy appears to be totally indestructible even when fighting the alien tanks with technologies far advanced beyond mankind's knowledge (their Achilles' Heel? destructability!). JJay, the DoD is assigning your team $10bn over 5 years to discover how to replicate this incredible technology in real life".), when the next image of JJay's grandkids' facial expressions when JJay starts talking in detail about Halo vehicles out of nowhere made me laugh so hard I spat out my dinner all over my office desk. Thanks Jjay! Bwithh 00:07, 13 July 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 of the discussion was delete. Resistance is futile! - Mailer Diablo 16:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFreeWorld

Fails WP:WEB. The tone is completely inappropriate: that could be fixed, but no point. Delete The JPStalk to me 12:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--- How could it be spam? This is non-commercial and new users have to be invited. Even if 10,000 people visit the site, none of them can get in, so I fail to see how a posting on wikipedia can be of any advertising benefit to the site. If you wanna delete the entry then fine. But the entry is more about the concept rather than an actual URL address. A concept which is rare to find - as Wikipedia is currently proving....--Barnabyferrero 13:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly not spam.

I am loathe to compare, but what is the difference between including asw, friendster etc and not AFW?

Is the tone anything but more apt in the progressive stride for a VERIFIABLE source of entertainment?

There are no published articles.... I fail to see why that is required? Had we wanted to publish such blatent attempts at self publication we would have done so. However, that is not the point of AFW. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.229.242.90 (talk • contribs) .

It is a site that has brought together people with wide vision and great tolerance. And has outlived the 6 month life span of newly opened forums.

A venue which has over one and a half thousand members and has been opened for nearly two years. It is active, revoloutionary and a testament to the free license that we all are gifted with.


With no disrespect intended, AFW is no less a station of notice than Michael Johnson (above). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.229.242.90 (talk • contribs) .

I have heard numerous mention of this site on asmallworld and from what I understand it is an offshoot of a number of memebers of this site. From what I understand it is mainly an experiment in absolute free speech without moderation and using relative anonymity. I hear they have well over 1000 members and that they are well beyond being a blog. From what I have read they have held a number of gatherings and parties in London, Paris, Italy and even Dubai. I think the entry of this site is as legitimate as the one for asmallworld or friendster. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbmcnamara (talk • contribs) 7 July 2006


§This site is a truly innovative idea and part of internet culture. It is not a blog, this site as the founder described in the entry is a place where people discuss political, cultural and mundane things. This online community is well renowned and has a growing membership. anna --Furball1975 15:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No sock-puppets so far. Please check the address. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.229.242.90 (talk • contribs) 7 July 2006

Please check my e mail address. This is ridiculous. You can not accuse without proof.--Furball1975 16:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

---It's ok. Wikipedia can see from which IP address each comment comes from. I sign everything I write with the same name. No WP:SOCKSs here! Michael Johnson, according to your profile it says you are against internet censorship....--Barnabyferrero 16:15, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I think so yes! Glad you noticed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.229.242.90 (talk • contribs) 17:52, 7 July 2006)

Could you please observe the request about signing comments left on your talk page. The JPStalk to me 16:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ...and block the sock puppets - virtually all of the defendents have only edited this discussion... michaelCurtis talk+ contributions 17:02, 7 July 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 of the discussion was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ACADEMIC STANDARDS AND PROGRAMS

It's original text of some kind of constitution. -- Francs2000 12:34, 7 July 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 of the discussion was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shadow Of A Doubt

NN band, fails WP:BAND, prod removed by anon without explanation. Delete --Huon 12:54, 7 July 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 of the discussion was Delete by Mailer diablo. Tevildo 11:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Molly Torrence

NN actor, minor role in one major film and two other roles, involvement in band Glo seems to be unsourced, just four Google hits for "Molly Torrence"+Glo. Does not meet WP:BIO. Delete --Huon 19:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion, so that a decision may usefully be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
bainer (talk) 13:02, 7 July 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 of the discussion was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Small ping pong man

Subject of a throwaway reference in one short scene of a comedy show - easily fails notability for minor characters. Googling for "small ping pong man" returns only Wikipedia mirrors. The scene is already referenced in the page for Alan Statham, so no need to merge; delete. --McGeddon 13:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article can be deleted, as it is already mentioned elsewhere in Wikipedia, and it can easily be taken of the main Green Wing Template. ISD 14:24, 7 July 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 of the discussion was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Causal determinism

This article is a spawn of another article pending deletion. Please see this discussion for more information. Again, "Causal Determinism" is not an actual philosophical proposition. I've encouraged that if the author has anything to contribute on the subject, that s/he focus on the main entry for Determinism, rather than creating seperate stubs based on nothing more than person opinion. Grendel 04:43, 7 July 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 of the discussion was Keep for now, article appears to be going through a fair bit of rewriting. No prejudice against re-AfDing this article in the near future if the concerns of this AfD have not been met. Deathphoenix ʕ 17:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chemical state

The opening line uses the phrse "...is synonymous with..." - it is a repeat article, using an unpopular term to apparently describe a fundamental of chemistry - ox. states. It is repeat info, and should be deleted - Jak (talk) 22:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Herostratus 00:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rewrite. This article is an attempt to define and explain the term chemical state (which is not synonymous with oxidation state—it's a more general term.) However, it's unclear and overly discursive. Spacepotato 01:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As an amateur contributor, I'm ready to modify the article as needed. I just added 5 references yesterday as requested; ref 4 is one which should satisfy the validity of the term. The other references serve as dated material to establish when the term came into common use by surface scientists, chemical analysts and materials scientists. The term chemical state was used in a 1979 reference: ref #5, but that reference was published privately and does not have an ISBN number. The term was came into existence in the late 60's, but I've not checked my older books just yet. When you guys and gals have a moment, please review my user page User:bvcrist, which I've just recently added so you can know a bit about my knowledge and experience. I admit I did not follow protocol for this page, but give me a bit of time as I'm still learning Wiki protocol, and take a look at my contributrions to the page called X-ray Photoelectron Spectroscopy. User:bvcrist23:31 9 July 2006
  • Been busy improving page Have added organization, references, significance, list of methods using term, ISBN numbers, refined some sentences, fixed some typos, related links Bvcrist 19:04, 12 July 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 of the discussion was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eduardo Lopes

A page by this name has been deleted three times as CSD A7. This version of the article at least asserts a significance so speedy is inappropriate. However, whereas it can survive a speedy, there doesn't seem to be enough information to create a usable article or even confirm everything in this one. The creator of this article is User:Ejtl, so there is at least a decent chance that this is an autobiographical article. (EJTL could be Eduardo Lopes's initials.) BigDT 05:47, 5 July 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 of the discussion was Not delete, whether this article is redirected or recreated as a disambig page is up to the editors to decide: no need for the closing admin to decide this in an AfD. Deathphoenix ʕ 17:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non-determinism

This article is a spawn of another article pending deletion. Please see this discussion for more information. The article itself is irrelevant, being that "Non-Determinism" is not an actual philosophical proposition. Grendel 04:40, 7 July 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 of the discussion was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roper Board

I love this band, and I even got their cd today, but having an article about their messageboard is a no-no. —EdGl 04:28, 7 July 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 of the discussion was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Game seven (NBA playoffs)

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

The result of the debate was Speedy G1 by Naconkantari. Tevildo 00:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Darek Domeracki

Nonsense, remix of differents articles, including Władysław Sikorski --Alonso49 13:10, 7 July 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 of the debate was SPEEDY KEEP -- Francs2000 21:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

XUpdate

"Linked to from the XQuery and XPath pages which deal with XML and the content appears to be random whimsy" Tony.seebregts 13:18, 7 July 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 of the discussion was Delete. - Bobet 14:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Truth and courage

non-notable collegiate club - prod tag removed Tom Harrison Talk 13:43, 7 July 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 of the debate was Deleted - Hoax articles are potentially damaging to our credibility and need to be removed as soon as possible. --Cyde↔Weys 17:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guillaume Buckley

Completely a hoax. Australia didn't win the Confederations Cup in 2005 FIFA_Confederations_Cup. He's not on the Australia World Cup roster [20]. There's more that I could research but I'll just point to the fact that the article's creator is named User:Buckwit. Metros232 13:48, 7 July 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 of the discussion was Delete, and also delete Neamh Bannatyne - Bobet 14:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled Compostion 1

Completely non notable: combination of director and title gives no Google hits, no other claims to notability have been made Fram 13:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update: using the correct title (article is misspelled) Composition, I get 4 Google hits. Still non notable in the extreme. Fram 14:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also up for AfD is the director, Neamh Bannatyne. Fram 14:03, 7 July 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 of the debate was speedy delete per author request --Pilotguy (roger that) 18:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christoph Gruber

Christoph Gruber is really Michael Gruber (Nordic Combined). There is also no information listed on Christoph Gruber on the website I accessed this information. Chris 13:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sustagen

Advertising. Deprodded by creator. --ais523 14:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment It certainly seems to be a nutitional drink of little notability and importance; apparently this stuff is not available in North America so hopefully some of our AU/NZ contributors will weigh in.--Isotope23 14:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Emc² (CONTACT ME) 17:03, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - Does not appear to be advertising (no marketing-speak) any more than any other soft drink article would be. Notability, however, is the reason for the "weak" part of the keep vote. Google searching seems to indicate a new/emerging product. Agree with Isoptope23 re: AU/NZ contributor feedback. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chet nc (talk • contribs)
  • Keep Does not seem to be an ad at present, although a few reviews appear online make me think it is more than yesterday's rollout. --TeaDrinker 04:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Deathphoenix ʕ 17:18, 13 July 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. – Will (message me!) 08:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish Rite Research Society

the page is little more than a dicdef, and there's really nothing else that can be said about it. MSJapan 14:13, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The problem with a merge is that this particular Research Society is one associated with the A&ASR Southern Jurisdiction in the US, and is not a universally present group (the AASR Northern Jurisdiction, for example, does not have one), so it's a bit difficult to add in. MSJapan 21:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Deathphoenix ʕ 17:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I am not in a position to say whether it is notable enough to merge into Scottish Rite but the editors of that article can decide if they want to incorporate it. BlueValour 17:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable organization. There is not "A significant amount of media coverage that is not trivial in nature and that deals specifically with the organization as the primary subject" per WP:ORG (which is a proposed guideline, but has essentially the same notability requirements as official guidelines such as WP:BIO and WP:CORP). --Satori Son 21:08, 19 July 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, the award on itself doesn't seem to be notable, and the society awarding it had its article deleted earlier. The biographical information could be merged to Albert Mackey, but I can't verify it and there are no sources in this article concerning it. - Bobet 21:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Albert G. Mackey Award

This is an nn award with only a five-year history, no list of recipients, and the part of the article that is actually about the award and not the person it was named after is only a stub, sourced to a few lines in one publication. MSJapan 14:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Deathphoenix ʕ 17:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Will (message me!) 08:48, 20 July 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 closed and relisted again. – Will (message me!) 15:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dora Venter

NN Porn actress, does not meet the requirements listed in WP:PORN Wildthing61476 14:19, 7 July 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 of the discussion was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 21:18, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of similar mythological figures

Wikipedia is not a miscellaneous collection of information. This article is; and the information is unsourced original research at that.

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 21:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clarity Systems

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 21:20, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SwapitShop

Blatant advertisement for the site in question. The site does get quite a few Google hits, so it may actually be deserving of an article. However, I'm completely unfamiliar with the subject and hunting down Google hits that aren't teenagers in net forums going "ne1 no how 2 hack in2 swapitshop plz plz plz" seems very difficult, so I can't do it myself, and I'm not at all convinced that it meets WP:WEB, anyway. Hence this nomination. Obviously, if I'm entirely wrong about SwapitShop's notability, I'll be happy to withdraw it -- supposing that someone rewrites it so it's no longer an ad, that is. -- Captain Disdain 14:43, 7 July 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 of the debate was speedy close and redirect to Zaheer Khan (if there is anything worthwhile in the history, it may be merged by whoever is interested). up+land 15:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zaheer Kahn

Non-notable person, fails WP:BIO. Gay Cdn 14:43, 7 July 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 of the discussion was Delete. The evidence is overwhelming that this term is not commonly understood in mathematics. --Tony Sidaway 23:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regular number

The article's claim is just false; "regular number" is not a standard name for a number with a terminating decimal expansion. --Trovatore 14:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - It _does_ appear to be a standard name for such a number. [25] refers. Tevildo 15:40, 7 July 2006 (UTC)+[reply]
  • Keep per Tevildo. --Emc² (CONTACT ME) 15:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I've never heard the term before, but Tevildo's link cites sources quite well enough. PresN 16:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The link is to Weisstein's encyclopedia. We've had this problem before. Eric propagates silly neologisms and people at WP blindly copy him. Let's nip this one in the bud. --Trovatore 16:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and forward to decimal expansion. I agree that the terminology is uncommon. Even if it were common, this article could never be more than just a definition; it makes more sense to merge it into a full article. Consider the case of even numbers. CMummert 17:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect. Term appears legitimate after a quick google search. I would support merging this to decimal expansion and making the page in question redirect. -- Chet nc contribstalk 17:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not a standard term, many google hits are for other meanings. Doesn't seem to be used much outside MathWorld and possibly the one reference given there. JPD (talk) 17:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak deleteKeep: at the moment, this is a dicdef and deletable. I recall a slightly different use of "regular number" for base 60. If this checks out I may vote to keep. Septentrionalis 17:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Found it: [26]; also discussed in Conway and Guy, under this term IIRC.
  • No vote. I think it would be appropriate to keep this if relevant material from decimal expansion were moved here and linked. Otherwise, it should be merged into it. It should not be deleted, as this is obviously a legitimate search term (it's on Mathworld). Deco 17:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment why does its presence on Mathworld make it a "legitimate search term"? While Mathworld has its uses, the fact that it has all these articles giving silly definitions for concepts that mathematicians don't find useful or well-motivated is absolutely a bad thing. We should not be compounding Weisstein's offense by repeating him on these. (By the way, Weisstein is not even a mathematician; he's an astronomer.) --Trovatore 18:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Inconsistent with regular prime and normal number. Definition is just a base 10 analog of dyadic rational so could perhaps be better called 10-adic rational. DRLB 18:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete not a useful definition, and I don't believe it is in widespread use apart from Mathworld readers. At the most, mention the concept somewhere else, but certainly not worth its own article. Madmath789 18:32, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. In more than forty years of doing mathematics I've never encountered this terminology. Mathworld is a useful source, but is also known for not being reliable. --LambiamTalk 19:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -lethe talk + 19:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If the article is rewritten to generalize to other bases, I'll vote keep. I'm not voting today. PrimeFan 20:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Trovatore. Dmharvey 22:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect Anton Mravcek 22:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment When I first saw this, I was a bit confused: I was thinking of regular prime. Maybe other people will make the same mistake I did, and an explantory note would be nice. Then again, maybe I'm out to Lunch 23:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Trovatore. --KSmrqT 23:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • K33p. This is CLEARLY a standard math term. No researcher uses it, e.g. no relevant hits on MathSciNet, but IT'S IN MATHWORLD. It shouldn't even matter what sources MathWorld cites, or if they cite anything!!! We're talking about MATHWORLD here. And for those of you trying to smear MATHWORLD, let me point out that it is NOT a "self-published resource". The ONLINE version may be run by Wolfram who employs Eric Weisstein, editor in chief, and Weisstein himself writes many of the entries, but CRC PRESS, a fully independent entity and publisher, publishes the book form. Take that, Trovatore! Finally, we have [27]:

    MathWorld continues to grow and evolve with the assistance of thousands of contributors. Careful oversight of all aspects of its content and interface by creator Eric Weisstein, and more recently with able assistance from MathWorld associate Ed Pegg, Jr., provides an exacting level of quality, accuracy, and consistency. As a result, MathWorld is considered not only the clearest and most readable online resource for mathematics, but also one of the most reliable.

    What's your beef, Trovatore? Envy, perhaps? --C S (Talk) 12:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response Chan-Ho, does someone have your password? I have trouble believing you'd write the above, with an edit summary in leet of all things. Everyone, please note that the source for the claim that MathWorld is considered reliable is—wait for it—MathWorld. --Trovatore 16:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      Indeed, this immoderate post is strikingly inconsistent with the history of posts by Chan-Ho. --KSmrqT 04:39, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • On reflection, it's probably satire. Asking me if I'd object to an online math service written by a 9th-century astronomer should have been a clue. I just didn't get the joke the first time around. --Trovatore 04:59, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is certainly not a common usage in mathematics, as a bit of Googling for "regular number" shows. I've also not heard this term used in many years of mathematical experience; what this article describes is most commonly called a "finite decimal" or "finite decimal expansion"; the MathWorld article also acknowledges this use as valid. Merge into decimal representation and delete the redirect from "regular number" unless other supporting references for this usage can be provided from independent sources. (Mirrors of Wikipedia and sources that cite MathWorld as their sole support don't count for this purpose.) -- The Anome 12:38, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect. Giftlite 15:40, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The term isn't in common use outside MathWorld, and this may not even be the most common use of the term outside MathWorld. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:18, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Following Septentrionalis' findings above, I came across this document on Mesopotamian maths (it's a PDF), that goes into more detail about "regular numbers" in its 2nd section (page 1). Importantly, the article generalises the definition of "regular numbers" beyond base 10 (whereas Mathworld talks only about decimals). If this WP article is to be kept, it would appear to me that the right thing to do would be to generalise the WP definition the same way for any base, or redirect to the appropriate existing article that does this job, if there is one (i.e., decimal expansion apparently wouldn't fit the bill here). --DaveG12345 03:04, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep after generalizing to other bases $b$ as suggested by PrimeFan and DaveG12345. CompositeFan 22:39, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into decimal representation. No point generalising to other bases, as every rational number is "regular" in any base which is a multiple of the prime factors of its denominator, and no irrational number is "regular" in any base, so the generalisation simply duplicates the distinction between rationals and irrationals. Gandalf61 11:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. We have to avoid generalizations, even if they are easy, unless they are well documented (because original research WP:NOR is not allowed). The paper on Mesopotamian math doesn't even have a reference to who uses the phrase regular number; it seems in that paper that the author is just using the phrase as a bit of local notation to help the exposition. You might think the author is trying to claim that regular number is a well known term, except that it isn't. I think nobody has exhibited a use of regular number as a defined term in a published monograph other than Mathworld. CMummert 13:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Here's how it looks to me:
    • The link in the article's history to WP:MEA suggests the article was, in fact, created specifically because a corresponding article existed on MathWorld. The MathWorld article, in turn, cites two entries from the Online Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences, and two books.
      • One OEIS entry (A117920) lists Weisstein as the author.
      • The other (A003592) actually uses the term "terminating decimal". Both OEIS entries refer back to MathWorld.
      • The book Gamma: Exploring Euler's constant is apparently cited to justify the term "finite decimal", and not "regular number", although it is ambiguous. But in fact, Amazon's "Search Inside This Book" feature does not find "regular number" in this book, while it does find "finite decimal" and "(non-)terminating decimal".
      • The book Penguin Dictionary of Curious and Interesting Numbers is not cited in the context of the term, but of the interesting integer sequences. (Interesting? Well, if they say so.) Again, "Search Inside This Book" finds "finite decimal" and "(non-)terminating decimal" but not "regular number".
    • The links above to "regular number" above on this AfD seem to be something related, but quite different. In both places, a regular number is an integer of the form 2a3b5c. It does not apply to arbitrary rational (or real) numbers at all, it has to do with ancient mathematical practice. They do not however appear to be local notation, as suggested above, because in fact they both cite:
      • Papers by A. Sachs from the Journal of Cuneiform Studies : "Babylonian mathematical texts I: reciprocals of regular sexagesimal numbers" (1947) and "Babylonian mathematical texts II: approximations of reciprocals of irregular numbers in an Old Babylonian text" (1952). And if this is not the source, then I surmise it is something else in this discipline. I surmise that the mention above of Conway also ultimately refers to these Babylonian techniques, which, I repeat, is a totally different context from the "regular number" of the article as it stands. 192.75.48.150 15:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The last extensive comment by 192.75.48.150 has convinced me that the current article is describing a neologism created by Eric Weisstein. At best, we could try and rewrite the article to reflect the perhaps well-known use of "regular number" in the study of Babylonian mathematics. But I think given that this usage seems to be fairly restricted to Sachs and some people quoting him, there is doubt as to how widespread it is. I have a suspicion that "regular number" may be used just as (in)frequently in other contexts. Additionally, nobody here is really knowledgable about that subject, so I'm leery of biasing this discussion on future rewrites. I think the best thing is just to delete and if someone writing about Babylonian mathematics needs an article on "regular number", then it can be created and written appropriately. --C S (Talk) 16:14, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Generalize to other bases. PrimeFan 21:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. No citation has been offered (not even Mathworld) for the generalization to other bases. Generalization seems like original research WP:NOR to me. I would appreciate it is somebody who is in favor of generalization could explain how such an article would meet the original research criteria and the verifiability WP:V criteria, which says The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. CMummert 21:51, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Repeating point made above ... my own objection to including generalisation of "regular" to other bases is that it is both trivial and uninteresting. Every non-integer rational number is "regular" in an infinite number of bases - it is simple to determine which ones - and not "regular" in an infinite number of other bases. No irrational number is "regular" in any base. Only integers are "regular" in all bases. None of this is rocket science ! Gandalf61 07:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm no math-head, but is it possible (I ask genuine math-heads) that the PDF I mentioned before could be in any way be cited? TBH, I got the feeling on finding it that this 'regular number' stuff was obscure to the point of 'specialised/obsolete'. Maybe Mathworld only mention it out of some archaic tribute or other? And I am not really (again, as a non-math-head) convinced at the end of the day that this is a particularly standard term for a current and non-ancient notion of what it describes. Mathworld alone, in this case, is not enough IMO. And generalisation definitely needs proper sources. --DaveG12345 22:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, thank you for checking. Indeed, I concur the citations in Mathworld leave much to be desired (the principle editor Eric Weisstein, I am not conviced always reads the citations in mathworld; I take them to be suggested further reading rather than references). Additionally, I never heard the term "regular number" while I was getting my BS in math. Having said that, mathworld is not given to the creation of neologisms in my experience. I am not convinced the article is comprehensive in its descriptions of useages, but further checking on MathSciNet indicates thirty articles which use the term "regular number." There are several references to TA Springer's "Theory of regular numbers." I have not had time to look up and digest these references (and they may use a different definition). However there seems to me to be evidence the term is used. --TeaDrinker 22:55, 12 July 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 of the discussion was Move discussion to MfD. Deathphoenix ʕ 17:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Wikipedia strategy, was at Wikipedia strategy

Original research. TomTheHand 14:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep --matador300 05:15, 9 July 2006 (UTC) Of course I'm the author, but surely there is a place for such tactics as used by wikipedia users, as they have been documented on the f-14 talk pages. There are no "odd" opinions, only the documented fact by engineering manager Bob Kress that the F-14 was designed for maneuverability, and Flight Magazine 1969 that calls the F-14 an air superiority fighter. Unfortunately it appears that the majority of WP users sympathize with Mmx1 in being able to be persons with zero credentials dismiss all reliable sources and construct factually incorrect positions that can be placed in WP while cited sources can be removed, and innocent collateral articles can also be removed with full approval of WP editors. This is a rather shocking learning experience for me, and I will certainly transfer this information elsewhere if the WP community won't stand for it. I would encourage other people who are similarly appalled by what goes into WP to please support me, I don't see any of them here which is disheartening to say the least. --matador300 05:15, 9 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • It's not intended to be an attack page, however it is difficult to identify these practices without identifying 1 or 2 specific people --matador300 05:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Transwiki to meta, where the information is more appropriate. --ais523 14:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment seems to be quite specific to Wikipedia. I think it'd be better userfied or moved to Wikipedia: namespace, rather than going to meta. (Liberatore, 2006). 15:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to WP namespace If there is sentiment to delete it there, that should be a separate discussion. Septentrionalis 15:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I kinda agree with the guys above. This seems more like (a fairly sensible) essay than anything else; could be useful under the Wikipedia: namespace. It's clearly not an encyclopedia article, though. Userfy or Move to Wikipedia: namespace and categorize as an essay. -- Captain Disdain 15:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC) I wasn't aware that this was an attack page (thanks for the heads-up!). As such, delete the goddamn thing and give the creator a wedgie for violating WP:POINT and generally being a jerk about the whole thing. -- Captain Disdain 15:44, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -although there are a lot of good points, it looks like just letting off steam to me, and duplicates stuff already on the user's talk page (plus he/she was expecting it to get deleted and it would be a shame to disappoint) Yomangani 16:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Seems to be only created to continue personal attacks at User:Mmx1, the creator has some strange view about some plane's history (like F-14 Tomcat and others). He does not listen to valid arguments and sources but prefers personal attacks and insults. --Denniss 17:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Denniss seems to make sensible contributions, so does Denniss believe that Bob Kress told Modern Marvels that the F-14 was designed for good turn performance? Flight Magazine 1969 titles a photo "VFX air superiority fighter: F-14", does that mean that the F-14 was the first "air superiority fighter", not the F-15 as claimed by Mmx1? If you agree with Mmx1 that both premesis are false, then I am indeed and we are all in a good bit of trouble. I'd like to know on my talk page what you think is a "strange view" of the F-14, and Mmx's claim that the F-14 never had a dogfighting requirement and must be removed from the air superiority fighter page. --matador300 05:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Wikipedia: namespace per Captain Disdain and Septentrionalis. Delete mainspace redirect. -- nae'blis (talk) 19:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move and delete, as above - Bravada, talk - 21:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki per ais523. --Bigtop (tk|cb|em|ea) 23:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete as obvious attack page and warn user - this is the author's reaction to the result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of famous failures in science and engineering and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of famous successes in science and engineering, which were nominated by User:Mmx1, plus previous personal gripes with same user. --DaveG12345 03:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment DaveG12345 appears to be a professional article deleter based on his contributions or lack of them , he is part of the problem I am documenting --matador300 05:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • An AfD. Attack pages are grounds for speedy deletion, which is why I referenced the policy. No point in keeping it if it may violate policy. Sorry to make you defensive, though.--Chaser T 18:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment So the article has been moved to the Wikipedia namespace. What are the criteria for inclusion there? Can you just put anything there? TomTheHand 18:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Tom, essays are generally allowable in Wikipedia space (as far as I understand it) provided that they are marked as such (with {{essay}}) and aren't attack pages. That's generally decided at Miscellany for deletion, I believe. -- nae'blis (talk) 19:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd say Wikipediaspace is not the proper place for this "essay", it somehow "institutonalizes" it, and its still somebodys angry statement over a personal feud and injured ego. I'd rather see it within userspace, without redirects from the namespace. This whole thing just caused far too much ado than it is really worth. Bravada, talk - 20:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I'd like to move it to Wikipedia:Gaming the system (currently a redirect) and make it into something worthwhile. It'd be easier not to start it over, but if it's deleted, no big deal to me. The original author seems to be moderating his stance over the last few days. -- nae'blis (talk) 05:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's improving. I'd suggest a big fat message over the last section warning that some of those are just bad moves that will help you make enemies fast.--Chaser T 06:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close and relist on MfD, as this is now Wikipedia-space rather than an article. --ais523 10:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 21:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zbark

Is an advertisement and a non-notable corp. Gay Cdn 14:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like a legitimate article. The term is used in Wikipedia under Flat Fee and has been edited and it is valid.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – Will (message me!) 09:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zeugma (literary journal)

It is with sadness (Canadian content and all), I nominate this as a non-notable publication. A limited edition, with only 2 issues completed. It may fall within WP:ADS. Gay Cdn 14:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Deathphoenix ʕ 17:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Gay Cdn and Captain Disdain. -- Kjkolb 00:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but, to be clear, I was the one who started the article, so you might want to discount my vote. On the other hand, I am not directly connected with Zeugma (other than social acquaintance with authors - impossible to avoid in a city like St. John's) Here's why I felt that it had merit, and created it:
    • The journal exists within an arts community (Newfoundland's, that is) that is generally strong, but it is the only literary journal currently active. As such, it bears a importance that goes beyond simple circulation numbers.
    • Zeugma has successfully reached it's second edition, and received more funding (such as the N&L Arts Council grant mentioned above) and greater circulation. I would not have supported the presence of this article after only one printing.
    • Zeugma is functioning as a professional publication in ways that are not maintained by many "non-notable" publications. The founders (and primary driving forces behind the publication), mentioned in the article, are not publishing their own work, for example, meaning this is not simple self-promotion.
    • Zeugma's has been covered in local media (none of which maintain online archives I can point you to - sorry!) by programs and publications that have no connections to the publishers.
    • Basically, Zeugma probably is non-notable outside Newfoundland (at least, so far), but maintains more than enough regional significance to justify it's existence. I'm sure the next poster is going to say "I'm from Newfoundland, and I've never heard of it!", but I'm not trying to say that *everyone* here is touched by Zeugma, only that it is relevant enough within the arts community here to justify inclusion.
    • Finally, as a response to the hand-sewn comment, that was clearly intentional - This wasn't a "run it through mom's sewing machine" type job. I know you have allowed for that, but you make parallel claims that the type of binding can hurt circulation (true - it's time-consuming, I assume) and notability. I disagree with the second - as long as a type of binding looks professional, or at least intentional (both of which this one did, at least to the uneducated eye such as mine), I would suggest it has no effect on notability. AshleyMorton 16:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just realized that the article has been edited a couple of times to make it more "addy", and I'm going to go back and filter a bit, hopefully creating an article that will pass POV tests. However, within an encyclopedia/community which is willing to maintain an entire category for "encyclopedic" |lists of porn stars, I hope that an article on a small but growing literary journal can be maintained. AshleyMorton 16:25, 16 July 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 of the discussion was delete. (ESkog)(Talk) 13:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SgForums

Non-notable forum, with Alexa rank of 50,853. Fails WP:WEB, prod contested. Delete. Kimchi.sg 15:00, 7 July 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 of the discussion was delete. (ESkog)(Talk) 13:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Boon Docks TER

User L901 has removed the speedy deletion tag a number of times. Article is utter and complete nonsense. Requesting deletion of page, protection from recreation and further action on user Wildthing61476 15:05, 7 July 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 of the discussion was delete. (ESkog)(Talk) 13:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fridays The Day

-The Only Non-Brainless Person Around Here (Non-UTC) 25:39 2/07/2006

Keep - it roxzorz my gee golly boxzors! You're all just jealous you couldn't think of this stuff.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.31.150.139 (talk • contribs)

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

The result of the debate was Speedy userfy by Tom harrison. -- Steel 23:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Hentenaar

Yet another nonsense page that the author continues to remove the nonsense tag for. What is in the water today? Wildthing61476 15:15, 7 July 2006 (UTC) this isnt nonsense![reply]

i believe it. people believe the lochness monster, why not this? yea just let it be. somebody is trying to tell us this is out here and if you take it off no one will know about it

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete per CSD A7. Naconkantari 16:40, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shanghai Xiangzhi Paper Industry Cooperation Co.

Non-notable company; Linkspam; Advertising Avi 15:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as a non-notable group. I'm 99% sure the speedy tag was removed by the author, so I'm going to retag it. --Kuzaar-T-C- 15:21, 7 July 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 of the discussion was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 21:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Defence Talk - Defense News - Military Pictures - Defence Forum

spam/copyvio rogerd 15:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

here is a link to the article before I replaced the content with the {{copyvio}} tag --rogerd 20:38, 7 July 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 of the debate was delete Leroy Heller, Franklin Pierce Heller and Anne Eyre Heller for lack of notability and verifiable, reliable sources. Even though it was withdrawn I am also deleting Jehu Eyre as hoax and unverifiable. None of the "references" support the article's text, they merely point out that he existed. The article may be recreated with reliable sources. Joelito (talk) 22:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

George Eyre

This is a series of artilces related to Leader of the Eyre/Heller Dynasty in the United States (also see associated AfD). Basically, this seems to be a chunk of geneology research. Hard poking at the references yield nothing. I noted that there's a castle eyre, but then again, there's a castle Breitenstein sitting in Europe too, but there's no article on that. The thought of a hoax comes to mind, but its probably more likely, as I said, geneology research. I really can't find anything special, nor can I find substantiated evidence beyond the wikipedia articles of any sort of dynasty. Its just a family line. However, if someone can actually clinch the existance of a serious power-management dynastic old-money family that existed under these names, I will happy withdraw this nomination. In point:

A group of non-notable people (WP:BIO) and original research. Kevin_b_er 08:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added to this AFD is the following articles, of the same reasoning as the first:

Jehu Eyre Leroy Heller Franklin Pierce Heller Anne Eyre Heller

Withdrew the nomination on Jehu Eyre due to what occured in this AfD discussion. Kevin_b_er 23:40, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yikes. Wow, I wrote all of these articles, and didn't realize they were up for deletion. I suppose that's my fault for not sourcing them better. Okay, here we go:

Hold on, let me look for more.

History21 16:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC)History21[reply]

Okay, this:

Title: Business papers, 1795-1847 (bulk 1800-1805). Description: 720 items. Notes: Manuel Eyre, a Philadelphia merchant of Quaker ancestry, was born in 1777. His father, Manuel Eyre, Sr., [take note, as this man was the subject of one of my articles] (1736-1805) was a shipwright in Kensington and a colonel in the Contintental Army. He obtained his training in the counting house of Henry Pratt and Abraham Kintzing and in 1803 joined with Charles Massey, Jr., (b. 1778) to form the mercantile firm of Eyre & Massey, a partnership that lasted until Eyre's death in 1845. The firm of Eyre & Massey owned over 20 vessels, ranging in size from ships to sloops, and traded around the world, mounting voyages to Europe, the Caribbean, South America, China, India and the Pacific Islands. Manuel Eyre also served on the Philadelphia City Council and was a founding director of the Schuylkill Navigation Company (1816) and the Second Bank of the United States (1816). After 1820 he gradually retired from active trading and devoted much of his time to agriculture. He owned two farms outside the city and three in Delaware. He was the founder of Delaware City, Del., at the mouth of the Chesapeake & Delaware Canal, buying the entire site in 1828, erecting public buildings and dividing it into lots.

comes from here: [40]

This:

Mr. Rumsey says in page 2, "That in the month of September, 1781 he exhibited the model of a Boat to his Excellency General Washington at Bath in Berkeley County, calculated for stemming the current of rapid rivers only constructed on principles very different from (his) present one ; satisfied of the experiment of her making way against a rapid stream by the force of the stream the General was pleased to give me a most ample certificate of her efficacy." Here it is to be observed, that no mention was made to General Washington of steam at the time of such exhibition ; the principles on which the Boat was propelled, were entirely unconnected with, and distinct from steam; being simply a model propelled by water wheels, cranks, and setting poles ; a mode which was many years ago tried on the river Schuylkill by a farmer near Reading, but without success. From an exhibition of this plan it was that Mr. Rumsey procured the certificate from General Washington, and on that certificate were Mr. Rumsey's laws founded. In his petitions to the several legislatures, he prayed for no exclusive right, for the use of Steam Boats; neither did be make mention of Steam, to their committees; or even suggest an idea of the kind; as proof of which, I offer the following petition to the Assembly of Pennsylvania the certificate from General Washington, accompanying it, and the certificate of Manuel Eyre, Esquire, who was one of the committee of Assembly, who reported in Mr. Rumsey's- favor.

comes from here: [41]

This:

"Memorials of Colonel Jehu Eyre." Edited by Peter D. Keyser. Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, 3 (1879), pp. 296-307, 412-425

comes from here: [42]

This:

The same day the Navy Board recommended to Council that as there were reasons to believe that some vessels of the English fleet would attempt to approach the city, a certain number of persons should be assigned to flood Hog Island, and that ninety or one hundred men should garrison the fort at Darby Creek. Council requested the Navy Board to see to the flooding of the Island, and ordered a company of artillery and a company of "Musqueters," under the command of Col. Jehu Eyre, to the works at Darby Creek.

comes from here: [43]

This:

Since its founding, the cemetery has had a self-perpetuating board of trustees to look over its affairs. The board has included such notables as the Emmanuel and Jehu Eyre, shipbuilders to the Continental Navy. The board of trustees has kept the cemetery independent over all these years and has also withstood an attempt by a local church to usurp it.

comes from here: [44]

This: When the Revolution broke out in 1775, Hewson organized a company of volunteers from his own Kensington workmen and served as their Captain. He was joined in this patriotic response by the shipwright Jehu Eyre, who captained his own ship carpenters, workmen, and apprentices in the "Kensington Artillery." The Eyre shipyards at the foot of Columbia Avenue hastily constructed thirteen gondolas and galleys for use in the defense of the city.

comes from here: [45]

This: Manuel Eyre built the first gun-boat for the Government. It was launched at Philadelphia, July 26, 1775, and was called the “Bull Dog.” He organized his workmen into a company of minute men and commanded them at Trenton and Princeton. When he was selected by the Council of Safety as a member of the Navy Board, his company was merged into that of his brother Jehu.

comes from here: [46]

Other sources:

If their wealth is in dispute, this: [49] should clear that up.

I'll find more and post them soon, I promise!!

History21 17:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)History21[reply]

  • Keep all While they are not on the frontline of notable historical figures in US History, the line IS notable for a few things, not the least of which was basically keeping the early US government financially afloat during the war. TruthCrusader 19:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh Crusader for Truth! (uh... given your hardline keepist stance, don't you find your chosen nom de guerre a bit of an ironic drag on your general thrust?), where do you get the idea that the early US government (I think you mean the Continental Congress, but lets not nitpick) was kept afloat by the Eyres? The $6,032 claim is completely unsourced and the claim on the Jehu Eyre page that this amount is worth $1.8bn today is grossly inflated and misleading (its more like $85,000 - see my comment on the Jehu Eyre talk page). You do realize that Wikipedia attracts all kind of unreliable and sometimes deliberately hoax material every day? Bwithh 00:58, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your uncivil comments, as usual, have been recorded and reported. Calton, you do nothing but make snide remarks in your comments and edit remarks. You really should re-think your attitude on Wikipedia as we have no time for uncivil remarks (well in theory anyway) TruthCrusader 14:26, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Buy a dictionary: this might correct your constant misuse of such terms as "uncivil", "vandalism", "notable", and "reported" -- you DO know that "reported" means to actually TELL someone else, not "sputter and mutter to oneself"? --Calton | Talk 00:16, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As I mentioned on the author's userpage, I'd like to see these properly sourced, using the above information if it's applicable, and then I'd be fine with them being kept. Until then, no vote. Tony Fox (speak) 20:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Jehu Eyre, delete the others, who even by the sources cited were very minor historical figures. Perhaps they could get a sentence in the Jehu article. --MCB 21:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Jehu Eyre, nuke the rest. Original research and hopelessly puffed up ("...Franklin is considered one of the ablest leaders the Eyre family has ever had. He came to power in the late 1870's..." He came to power?) --Calton | Talk 04:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The family remained wealthy and powerful long after the Revolution, retaining its political sway until 1929 and its monetary strength until 1934. The Revolution was important in establishing the Eyre family, but it was not the defining event of the dynasty. The Heller family was itself enormously wealthy (which is the main reason that Anne Eyre Heller and Franklin Pierce Heller are significant in their own right). George Eyre was the first member of the family to live in what was then the American Colonies, which makes him noteworthy as the family's American founder. And, of course, Leroy Heller saw the downfall of Eyre/Heller might, which makes him highly important.

I will soon be posting sources about the Hellers. I ask that you give me time, and please also look at the Articles for Deletion for Leader of the Eyre/Heller Dynasty in the United States.

Okay, here is the first thing on the Hellers: [50]. I am going to get more, I just need some time!

History21 01:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)History21[reply]

Resources on the Hellers:

More are coming. The Hellers aren't as easy to find as the Eyres.

History21 01:58, 25 June 2006 (UTC)History21[reply]

Comment It would be more beneficial to put citations of resources into the articles themselves and then posting a simple comment in the AfD that you've updated the articles with refs/cites/etc., instead of listing the references and other commentary in the AfD. That way, you've increased the quality of th articles (strengthening their case for being kept) without messing up the AfD discussion and making it hard to follow. Paddles TC 02:00, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eyre Empire was one of the first articles I ever debated on Wikipedia. I supported it enthusiastically then, and, while I have since had reservations about some of the material contained therein, I still stand by the essence of the piece, which stated that a family of greatly powerful patricians existed in this country that played a pivotal role in the Revolution, the Civil War, and later financial developments in American history. I hope that everyone will please actually read the sources that I provided. The reaction of some members leads me to believe that that has not been happening.

Eyre Empire first sparked a deep interest in this family for me, and led me to do extensive research and then write the articles now up for deletion themselves. I worked quite hard, scoured the Internet, went to various libraries, and even spoke with several descendants of the family.

As an American patriot (some would so jingoistic, though I disagree with them), I think that the Eyre and Hellers ought to be hailed as individual heroes, and that, as a group, they should be recognized for the tremendous influence that they have had in forming and then helping to lead the greatest nation in the history of the world.

The United States is the single most wondrous power that the world has or ever will see, a beacon of freedom that has stood as a symbol of hope in the hearts of millions of immigrants for centuries, has been almost solely responsible for the salvation of democracy (through heroic struggles in World Wars I and II and in the Cold War), has defined the very idea of modern liberal government and human rights, and remains the world's brightest light in the dark.

America has given millions not only the reality of freedom, but has granted the people of Earth the very conception of liberty. The idea itself was a mere fantasy to the thinkers of the Enlightenment, trapped as they were in their Absolutist kingdoms. The American Revolution and the subsequent establishment of our Constitutional system showed legions of oppressed, impoverished wretches everywhere that freedom was not a myth but something that could be achieved.

The French Revolution of 1789 was directly inspired by its American predecessor, as have countless other liberal revolts throughout history. And without the selfless sacrifices made by Jehu Eyre and his kin, none of that would have been possible. The influenc of this family on world history is incalculable.

His descendants went on to continue contributing to the American Republic, finally reaching their ignominious end in 1929 under the disastrous leadership of Leroy Heller (a historical figure who, the more I learn about, the less I like). For two hundred years, from their arrival in 1727 to their ultimate collapse in 1929 (and/or 1934), they were one of America's greatest and riches families. They founded cities (Delaware City, Hellertown), established banks (Second Bank of the United States, which a Heller still sits on today), fought in wars (the Spanish-American War, the Civil War), and maintained a position as an economic powerhouse (Eyre/Heller shipping yards and trading companies in Philadelphia). All of thi points to a highly significant family deserving of the articles I have written about them.

History21 03:48, 25 June 2006 (UTC)History21[reply]

  • History21: to reiterate my comments in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leader of the Eyre/Heller Dynasty in the United States, I urge you to please read Wikipedia guidelines on reliable sources. Amateur genealogy from unreviewed personal web pages like those cited above from Angelfire, Rootsweb, Tripod, and Geocities are not reliable sources, and if you have to resort to them to "prove" the existence and notability of this "dynasty" of Eyres and Hellers and Vanderwhoositses, you have basically admitted lack of verifiability for Wikipedia purposes. Again: Wikipedia is not a place to research and present your original research or personal theories on American history by digging through obscure personal web sites and interviewing people. When you have convinced the community of mainstream historians of the existence of this "dynasty", and we can verify the identities and facts about the lives of its members from reliable sources, that is the point when it should be included in Wikpedia. --MCB 05:47, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • H21, I have a response regarding the nature of some of your arguments above, but it's too long and not neccessarily appropriate for inclusion within the AfD discussion, so I've posted it in your talk page. Paddles TC 09:29, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment For one of America's powerful and wealthy families, as History21 claims, why isn't there more information about them out there? Why does History21 have to fall back on vague amateur websites that have no evidence of this family's wealth and power? Bwithh 23:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment History21, you claim that a Heller sits today on the board of the Second Bank of the United States. This bank ceased to exist in 1836. Bwithh 23:56, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment History21, you claim that the Eyre/Heller founded the Second Bank of the United States. That is not true. The Bank was founded by the United States Congress [56]. The very detailed history in this book has three mentions of a "Eyre" - all in footnotes and without saying who the Eyre is (possibly a member of the bank board at some point[57]. No mentions of Heller. Bwithh 00:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment History21, you claim that the Eyres founded the small city of Delaware City, Delaware. While Manuel Eyre Snr's son, Manuel Eyre Jr., is sometimes called the founder of Delaware City, Delaware as in this description of a bunch of books he owned that are for sale (note that it is the interest of the seller to claim that he was the founder - and this was the most authoritative source I could find for this argument btw), other very authoritative sources such as Delaware City's own official website claim only the Newbold family as the city's founders. This history book source states that Manuel Eyre Jr. was just someone who bought land from the Newbolds after the Newbolds had already founded the city. And yes, Hellers did found Hellertown. But incidentally, Hellertown population today = about 5,600 in 2000. Delaware City population = about 1500 in 2000. Hardly the works of a great dynasty Bwithh 00:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • For crying out loud... Keep all. I know Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, but sometimes I think people are a little (okay, a LOT) too trigger happy on AFD. The author needs to put all his/her sources into the articles in a "references" section, but other than that, there is nothing wrong with these articles. They provide informative insights into early American history and should be kept, if cleaned up a bit. ONUnicorn 20:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BIO and article statement "George is not a historically famous or even terribly significant figure..." That pretty much sums it up.--Isotope23 17:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jehu Eyre I have put the {{hoax}} tag on the Jehu Eyre article, as just a couple of minutes' research on the net have turned up inconsistencies which make me question the entire thing. Every single thing which is not sourced should be removed from the article, which would leave us with about one sentence. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There does seem to have been an American Revolutionary artillery commander called Jehu Eyre - see this google book search. I don't know if he's sufficiently notable for Wikipedia. In any case, I agree that his article seems to have numerous dubious details, possibly introduced by a malicious hoaxer - for instance the $1.8bn claim is totally wrong (see my note on the article talk page) and the article has a childish view of the American Revolution. The external reference sources given currently are very unsatisfactory. Bwithh 23:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all as per arguments above except Jehu Eyre which should be purged of unsourced or improperly sourced items. Even if the other articles are not hoaxes, Wikipedia is not a family genealogy site, and these articles do not assert their encyclopedic notability anyway. The keep voters concerned about "trigger happy" afds should realize that this kind of unverified, unencyclopedic articles are a serious threat to Wikipedia's reputation Bwithh 23:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Followup After doing some research, I've come to the conclusion while not all the information is hoax material - Jehu Eyre and Manuel Eyre Snr did exist (though I don't think Manuel is sufficiently notable for an encyclopedia at all), but there seems to be no evidence that the other people did. It does seem increasingly clear that History21 is for reasons of his/her own, is making very inflated and misleading grandiose claims about the Eyres/Hellers. Bwithh 00:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further Question for History21 History21, can you tell us where the idea that Jehu Eyre was a member of George Washington's cabinet comes from, as is currently suggested by the George Eyre article? Especially as the Cabinet of George Washington only contained 4 members (with no "kitchen cabinet" minor members), all of whom are well documented, and was first formed in 1789 - 8 years after Jehu is supposed to have died?[58] [59] Also please see my comments about the Second Bank of the United States and the general lack of info about the powerful and wealthy Eyres/Hellers etc. above if you haven't seen them Bwithh 01:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that very few of the "references" listed above meet the standard of reliable sources for Wikipedia purposes. They are a collection of amateur genealogy sites, personal web pages, opinion, theory, possible hoaxes, and non-scholarly "research". Adding them to the articles does not provide verifiability for the material in the articles, as required by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. --MCB 23:21, 7 July 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 of the discussion was delete. Proto::type 11:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiknowledge

A wiki with 900 articles, no Alexa ranking and its (redlinked in article space) creator as the last editor. No evidence of meeting WP:WEB or any other criteria for inclusion. WP:NOT a web directory. Just zis Guy you know? 15:30, 7 July 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 of the discussion was delete. Proto::type 11:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Free mobile content

The author describes a new, significant and ongoing trend in the mobile content space. Article has been modified since complaint and includes now also other market player. --Bmwdriver76 08:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Article needs expanding, and needs to have a bit of crystal ball-ism deleted, but doesnt' seem to violate anything. PresN 15:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems to violate our Wikipedia:No original research policy and our policy that Wikipedia is not an advertising billboard. This is in part because the article is little more than the sort of puff blurb that one sees in corporate brochures, full of buzzwords but devoid of information. There's pretty much zero content in the article that tells one about the concept of free mobile content, and I'm highly suspicious that the intent of this article is actually to have the phrase "free mobile content" linked to the web sites listed in the external links section, rather than to have an encyclopaedia article on some subject. The article tells the reader that there is a "new revolution in place" and a "new trend" that is "contributing at the democratization the mobile content value chain". Until this trend/revolution is actually documented in some secondary source, there can be no encyclopaedia article on the subject of free mobile content. The article, of course, cites no sources. I can find borderline sources on the subject of free mobile content (none of which support the notion that there's a "new revolution" or a "new trend") such as "The Problem With Free Mobile Content". MocoNews. and Richard Martin (2006-06-27). "Mobile Content, No Lifeline". Unstrung., but they can just as easily be discussed in mobile content, which seems the better place to address anything that can be said about mobile content, free or otherwise. Ironically for an article that purports to discuss content, there's no actual content in this article. There's nothing worth keeping here. Redirect to mobile content or just delete, according to taste. Uncle G 18:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Uncle G. Looks suspiciously to me like an article created only as an excuse for the weblinks. Fan-1967 16:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The concept may be notable, but there's nothing there worth keeping. (Uncle G said it in a more wordry manner, but this seems adequate.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:25, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Article is too stubby and will benefit from citations. If not deleted, then at least get rid of any spammy hyperlinks. 68.50.203.109 07:15, 9 July 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 of the discussion was Delete, if anyone wants to create a redirect after the article is deleted, go right ahead. Deathphoenix ʕ 17:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pakish

Uncommon protologism [60]. Note that many of the Google hits refers to people having "Pakish" as their family name. (Liberatore, 2006). 15:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/redirect. If the term can be cited as notable, may as well redirect it to Pakistan. -Seidenstud 20:02, 7 July 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 of the debate was Speedy delete ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wyatt Chesney

Possible hoax, or non-notable, vanity. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:51, 7 July 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 of the discussion was delete. (ESkog)(Talk) 13:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Charles "Chuck" Wille

Yet another in a long list of candidates listing their info on Wiki. If he were to win, then he would become notable, as it is, non-notable until then. Wildthing61476 15:52, 7 July 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 of the discussion was delete. - brenneman {L} 01:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Crossroads

Does not appear to meet WP:CORP (Liberatore, 2006). 15:54, 7 July 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 of the discussion was delete. (ESkog)(Talk) 13:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fun with akatsuki

Article for web cartoon, fails WP:WEB with only 437 Google hits. -The Splendiferous Gegiford 16:01, 7 July 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 of the discussion was delete. (ESkog)(Talk) 13:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The iBox Project

Violates WP:NOR, unverifiable, Google points to another "iBox project". Delete --Huon 16:21, 7 July 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 of the nomination was Delete ~Kylu (u|t) 05:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Teracom Training Institute

It is proposed that this article be deleted, because of the following concern:

reason: The article is nothing more than company specific advertising content. Furthermore, it also links directly back to the vendors website in violation of the rules.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Johndowning (talk • contribs)

Delete per nom. Might be careful with your nomination protocol, though. :) There are several such templates on the page already. -- dcclark (talk) 19:00, 7 July 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 of the discussion was delete. Proto::type 11:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rost

Was nominated for uncontroversial deletion since it is clearly a hoax, and if not it's still crystal balling, but prod was removed anonymously without comment, so listing for AfD. ~ Matticus78 16:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Additional: The same anonymous editor who removed the prod went on to add the same nonsense to Rost (crater). ~ Matticus78 16:44, 7 July 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 of the discussion was delete. Punkmorten 23:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MonsterCommerce

Spam. Cheese Sandwich 16:33, 7 July 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 of the discussion was delete. Punkmorten 23:03, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Enix (hosting)

Spam. Cheese Sandwich 16:35, 7 July 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 of the discussion was delete. Punkmorten 23:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

N-able Technologies

Spam. Cheese Sandwich 16:37, 7 July 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 of the discussion was delete. Punkmorten 23:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Temis

Spam. Cheese Sandwich 16:40, 7 July 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 of the discussion was delete. Punkmorten 23:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi-Stor Technologies

Spam. Cheese Sandwich 16:43, 7 July 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 of the discussion was delete. Punkmorten 22:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bootnr

Vanity page for a non-notable wesbite/forum. cholmes75 (chit chat) 16:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At the bottom:

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Punkmorten 22:56, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lost Book of Moses

Another article from the Lost Books series. For a comprehensive account of the problem see User:Em-jay-es's comment in a related AfD. The "Lost Book of Moses" that this article is about is an account of the victory over the Amalekites mentioned in Ex 17:14.

The problems here are threefold:

  • The article asserts that the document (account, poem, inscription) related to the victory over the Amalekites is indeed a "book"
  • The article asserts that that document is called "Book of Moses" and a few other names and does not mention who calls it that
  • The article also asserts that several references in the Bible refer to that document (again without references)

Delete as original research. Dr Zak 16:46, 7 July 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 of the discussion was delete. Punkmorten 22:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Identify software

Finishing this one for User:KarenAnn. No opinion for now. ~ trialsanderrors 17:02, 7 July 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 of the discussion was delete. Proto::type 11:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trevor K Grant

This author gets no Google hits, and his book titles get no Google hits either, which probably means they don't exist. The 'fansite' is under construction and has no contents. Probably hoax. DJ Clayworth 16:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NB when deletion time comes there are two redirects that I created that should go as well DJ Clayworth
Actually the blogs were both created after this deletion process was started, so really they don't prove he even exists. DJ Clayworth 15:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As if the reasons already given weren't enough for deleting, I'd also agree with NawlinWiki; the author of that page has removed any question of good faith by vandalizing user pages and changing votes. HumbleGod 23:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well 'funny'ness isn't it itself a deletion citeria is it, what matters is whether this is true not whether or not it's amusing (as opposed to pathetic), it occurs to me that the books are probably comedies, and the original poster structured the wikipedia entry in the same light. I can affirm Trevor K Grant is indeed a real person, he was in the year above me at Quarry Bank Comprehensive school, and was friends with Clive Barker. On the basis of acquaintance and because Trevor is notoriously IT-weak I have given him some of my flickr space to host the art from his books. While this is poor, it doesn't strike me as worse than many a self-published writers. I haven't actually seen any of the books themselves though. Simon Bucher-Jones

Strong keep Although I've only joined today, I've been a Wiki fan for many years, and have joined to come along and Support Trevor. I am a *real* author too. Look me up, on Amazon go on, you know you want to :-) Trevor is an old friend, and a bit (I'm sure he won't mind me saying) Up Himself, but his books are real, I've read them - and although a little florrid in style they are in existence. Trevor has many fans. I know, I've been scared by many of the perspiring plump be-moled women who buy his books (for something more than thrills and chills I'll wager)! So Trev is real. Trev is cool. And trev is noteworthy. Please, please let him stay. Many thanks.--Paul Ebbs 12:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, that doesn't count, because I looked at that website on the same day that this notice was published and it had no content, just an 'under construction' notice. So the entire website was put together since this deletion notice was started. Full marks for effort guys, but please go and do something constructive. DJ Clayworth 15:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's 10 unique Google hits, which are either the Wikipedia page in question or a few comments on blogs and message boards. That pretty well establishes lack of notability. NawlinWiki 13:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • without wanting to get prissy, (and my oh my, looking at some of the posts above, wiki community is certainly is *way* prissed-up LOL) I just did a random Jump and came up with this guy [64]Markus KuhnI googled him...[65]and he gets 14 unique hits (2 of which point to Wiki), which makes him 4 hits more notable than Trevor...what exactly is the cut off point, if Google is your criteria? Don't want to start a flame war, but if Dr Markus is allowed, why isn't Trevor K Grant? Just asking like.--Paul Ebbs 14:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • and don't get me started on Indiana State Road 7That gets 15 unique hits on Google - 8 of them point to Wiki and 7 point to Answers.com....please explain how a road that doesn't seem to exist *anywhere* except on the web, can stay, but Trevor who buys me drinks, laughs at my third nipple and who shares my love of early Yes, can't? All seems a little unfair to me...but then what do I know? :-)--Paul Ebbs 14:56, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply on User talk:Paul Ebbs. DJ Clayworth 19:50, 12 July 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 of the discussion was delete. (ESkog)(Talk) 13:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bcs habitat for humanity restore

Appears to be a copy of a Habitat for Humanity store manual. Not appropriate for an encyclopedia. DJ Clayworth 17:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

This is not a copy of a HFH Store Manual. It is a detailed description of how to run a Habitat for Humanity ReStore. It also serves to provide information on the inner workings of HFH Restores operating in the United States. I am currently updating it with more information.

User:BCSHabitat

  • Delete - No. This is an encyclopedia, not your personal website. This isn't somewhere for you to post suggestions for how to run an HFH Restore. Start your own wiki if you want one, but not here. Oh, and don't delete other users comments for your own, 'k? PresN 17:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Also, wtf? "The following is a draft of the BCS HFH ReStore manual prepared by..." Yeah, it is a manual, you said so yourself. PresN 17:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok you guys are right, I will take out the parts that are not relevant to wikipedia. I shouldn't have the author in their either. If you look past that opening part you will find good information. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bcshabitat (talk • contribs) 17:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

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

The result of the discussion was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 17:35, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excel Coaches

A bus company. No evidence of anything notable, fails WP:CORP by a mile. The suggestion by the person who removed a prod was possibly could be merged into List of bus routes in Kent, but I think that this information is already present, so I suggest deletion. Inner Earth 09:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Avi 17:18, 7 July 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 of the discussion was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 17:35, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Poynter's Coaches

A bus company. No evidence of anything notable, fails WP:CORP by a mile. The suggestion by the person who removed a prod was possibly could be merged into List of bus routes in Kent, but I think that this information is already present, so I suggest deletion. Inner Earth 09:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Avi 17:21, 7 July 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 of the discussion was delete. Punkmorten 22:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ugly Water

Nonnotable self-published book (Lulu is a self-publishing house); only 10 unique Ghits; KMOX and Post-Dispatch "references" are merely links to general articles NawlinWiki 17:40, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At the bottom:

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

The result of the discussion was delete. (ESkog)(Talk) 13:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Video Disk Recorder

This article is and advertisement and has copyright issues. Gay Cdn 18:05, 7 July 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 of the debate was move and history merge. Per the explanation of User:Michaelas10 given below it is apparent that the placement of this article in the main namespace instead of the project namespace was a mistake. I've therefore merged the article into Wikipedia:Wikipedia Youth Foundation. Please discuss the merits of this project on Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Youth Foundation and take any proposed deletion nomination ensuing from such discussion, if that happens, to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion. Uncle G 18:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Youth Foundation

Non-existant group (SD tag removed) - two Google hits - both Wikipedia (tell me we don't have a double standard here) Rklawton 18:09, 7 July 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 of the discussion was delete. Punkmorten 22:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

VisionWorks Solutions

This article is an advertisment Gay Cdn 18:12, 7 July 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 of the discussion was delete. (ESkog)(Talk) 13:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pjotro

  • Delete - Pjoto is a gimmick to create advertising buzz, according to this website [69]

In order to create some buzz before the release of the Nokia N91 music phone we created a somewhat odd character by the name of Pjotro. He loves music so much that he became music. A viral clip of his brake through performance on tv led to a site where you could explore his background and test his greatest innovation: The Musical Suit. A totally viral campaign with no media back up.

Looks to me like Pjotro and his musical suit are pure advertising gimmick. KarenAnn 18:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Except for the fact that Pjoto isn't a real person so hasn't actually done anything apart from sell phones. Minor internet phenomenons aren't really worthy of articles given that there's about 20 of them a day. --Daduzi talk 23:43, 7 July 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 of the discussion was Keep. Deathphoenix ʕ 17:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cheggit

There's no indication that this website meets any of the criteria of WP:WEB. In particular, there are no links (as are required) showing that it is "the subject of multiple non-trivial published works", and none are readily apparent from Google. Wikipedia is not a directory of websites. This appears to be just an advertisement for an nn-website.

qq more gimps. how is this effecting you having this page on the website? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.200.164.131 (talk • contribs)

  • Keep as a breakoff from the largest porntracker there is, and quite interesting story about why it is breaking away from empornium. even more interesting than the piratebay case if you ask me ;) this article got prospects of being very interesting — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ookah (talk • contribs)
user's first and only edit Zzzzz 00:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment A potential breakoff, it is just a pageholder now. HighInBC 21:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Even thought it could look like a blatant ad for the new website from the Empornium creators, who lost Empornium to a corporate takeover, it should be kept because it IS the new website from the ex-Empornium founders and so the continuity of this story Johnnyg0 7 July 2006 (UTC) (the previous comment was posted by 66.36.141.82. HumbleGod 23:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]
anon user's second edit (both AFD votes) Zzzzz 00:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
user has less than 20 edits Zzzzz 01:02, 13 July 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_July_7&oldid=62594782"