Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 August 29

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by RevRagnarok (talk | contribs) at 16:40, 29 August 2006 (List of Art Magazines). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
< August 28 August 30 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was no consensus (Liberatore, 2006). 17:34, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Theft Auto series storyline

some original research, content better suited for a fansite, not appropriate for an encyclopedia. WP:NOT--Philo 07:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and complete rewrite, per LinaMishima. The article has potential and could serve as the "plot and storyline" segment for all GTA games; it just isn't written in a manner that would be considered encyclopedic (list-only passages, in particular), and disregards pre-GTA III games and also GTA Advance. Also consider fairly good examples such as StarCraft storyline and Half-Life series storyline. The Half-Life series storyline article in particular was actually spawned from FAC comments on Half-Life 2 that its plot section is far too long for the parent article; thus, to me, a merge to respectable articles is not advisory and a specialized article is a better way to go to avoid needless rewriting in an event any of the GTA articles undergo an FAC nomination. ╫ ２５ ◀RingADing▶ 10:54, 30 August 2006 (UTC) ╫[reply]
  • Keep. The article was really brought to life days ago and considered for deletion already? Give it some time and things will improve to your 'encyclopedic' needs. NSRegentPark 10:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as WP:NOT specifically mentions that Wikipedia is not a collection of plot summaries. This information should be merged into the respective articles, if anything, but since that information already appears to exist there I don't believe it needs an article unto itself. There's not really much scope for improvement here, since the storyline is best handled in the articles of the specific games. RandyWang (chat/patch) 12:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was about to agree with you until I read the article. It's not a plot summary at all, but a time line of the game. You shouldn't judge articles based on titles, but content. --Pinkkeith 16:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because it's a valuable article for every GTA fan out there and it explains everything. But it's also interesting for no-GTA-players because they can learn how great GTA is with all the facts and stuff. ProSieben 15:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but rewrite :) Dlohcierekim 17:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per RandyWang. We are not here to help GTA fans, rather, to help the uninitiated understand a particular topic. This article does not achieve that. I find these summaries hard to follow, and yet I've played two of the four games to completion! I honestly think this is far better covered by the paragraph-style summaries on each page. They tell who Ken Rosenberg is, and why Claude was betrayed, without introducing unproven details like Maria being Salvatore's wife. By all means move it to Grand Theft Auto Wiki, but it doesn't belong here. GarrettTalk 21:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You obviously don't know what your talking about because your so called unproven fact has actually been proven. You may be interested to know that both Salvatore and Maria say that there married in Liberty City Stories. All real GTA fans know this. So next time do a little research before you call something unproven. And this is a great article which we should definetly KEEP--Greene01 user has already voted above, removing personal attacks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Greene01 (talk • contribs)
    • I'm talking about proven as in references (either quoting dialogue or even just saying "as revealed in"), rather than it being true or not; it doesn't matter whether it's true, it needs proof and context to back it up. Your response only further reinforces my point: 99% of the 2001 section is drawn solely from GTAIII, but where the wife detail comes from isn't explained, similar to how Claude is called Claude without noting when this name was confirmed. If people who have played one or none of the games are to understand they need to know where the name Claude came from all of a sudden, and why Maria is married when not a word was said about it in GTAIII. Please refer to WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information #7: "Plot summaries - ... articles should not act solely as a summary of the plot of a work of fiction, but should offer comprehensive, summarised plots in conjunction with sourced analysis ... within the article, or as part of a series of articles" It doesn't matter how wonderful or popular an article is, if it breaks these rules it goes bye-byes. And, for the record, readily stating someone can't be a "real" GTA fan simply because you misunderstood what they said is a quick route to offending them. GarrettTalk 07:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • As ProSieben said below. Its unrealistic to have a link to every detail in order to prove them. This could be done but it would take a lengthy amount of time and the article would look ridiculous. I don't see other articles's with a link for every bit of info said. I don't want to get in an argument but what you said is unrealistic. I can assure you that everything in that article is proven fact. Take my word or not. It doesn't bother me. Im just telling you what i know to be true. Im sorry if i came across too offensive but thats just how i feel.--Greene01
        • Comment - I don't really have a dog in this fight, not being much of a GTA fan (I tend to get bored very early into the games), but it seems to me that your criticisms are a good argument for rewriting and editing this article, not deleting it. I'm gonna stick with my keep recommendation. VoiceOfReason 07:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep, but rewriteNoelleWiley 18:58, 31 August 2006 Note: user's only edits are to AFD's, registered 2 days ago. [1]

Comment Do you want to prove every detail that appears on that page? I think that's a bad idea and what I read was true. Or do you want to prove the fact that the St. Jefferson Credit Union completed it's work between 1998 and 2001? ProSieben 13:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment hey. im confused. could someone please tell me if this breaks the rule Garret said or not??? if it does why are you ppl all voting to keep it?? & if it doesnt why did he say that?? this article rocks but if it breaks that rule it cant stay. gta wiki is a good place for this if it cant.219.88.86.183 21:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • alright, the title was changed very early for no particular reason, since then it has been changed back, and has gone over a bit of an overhaul. The reason the timeline was brought to life in the first place, was to sort out all the different references to the different games, within the games. All the GTA games in the GTA III era reference another game, and often it gets confusing. The timeline sorts out, what happened where and when. It's not so much a plot summery as it is a timeline sorting out the very confusing sequence of events.-Ganfon
    • I am responsible for changing the title. The initial justification for the renaming was that even with the older GTA games' far more simplistic storylines or the lack thereof, it is worth explaining this in brief and associating it with the expanded storyline of the series' later releases, but not by continuality. The next step is simply sectioning the games by canon and game titles, which would have avoided the confusion resulting from intertwined storylines. The present arrangement, however, with a single linear sequence of ___location and time, is sure to cause overlapping of all the canons and blur the distinction between the later GTA games and the earlier GTA games, while the GTA III-canon-only exclusivity doesn't invite expansion or proper writing.

      I understand your interest of providing a timeline of events in the canon, but the current format of the article is just restrictive and narrow in scope, hence my initial recommendation to have the entire article rewritten with a proper encyclopedia format (but with some designs elements based on the current revision). ╫ ２５ ◀RingADing▶ 09:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC) ╫[reply]

  • Merge This article should be in the main GTA III page. Even if it doesn't get deleted, the article needs a serious rewrite. It should be in paragraph form instead of bullets. --Benjaminx 18:52, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Randy Wang ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 03:28, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Michael 07:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like to applogize to all for my bad, and heat of the moment comment I made earlier on this page. To be quite honest i made it in a fit of anger and actually forgot about it, had I remembered I would have taken it off right away. this is truly embarressing for me and WILL NOT happen ever again. Thank you. that being said I still think that the edits that have been made to the page have made it fit it's title and should remain as it's own article. In response to the thought of including the early GTA games, the timeline is of the recent games that are labled under the GTA III Era timeframe. The earlier games do not play in at all to the events described in the timeline, hence why they are not included. Thank you.Ganfon 14:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. RandyWang's justification is valid. Given that the article was created from scratch and is not a result of an article split (otherwise categorizing it as a part of a series of articles) means that it cannot be exempted from the no-plot-summaries criterion in WP:NOT. In addition, the plot summaries in all GTA titles are already sufficient and yet short enough that it doesn't requires any sort of article split.

    On the other hand, it has been noticed that substantial amounts of plot summaries were provided in most of the series' character listings; making them hard to track, find and piece together in those pages. It would have been a good idea to move much of these information into a dedicated article, providing easy readability of detailed plot summaries. I have also picked up a long addition in Grand Theft Auto (series) [2] that contains the storyline in the entire series in the form of prose (although it needs work). Merging any of the abovementioned bodies of text into this article would technically categorize it as part of a GTA article series. ╫ ２５ ◀RingADing▶ 09:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC) ╫[reply]

  • Keep, but cleanup to more encyclopedic style. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 14:01, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw Vote, the article is a complete mess at this point. And I do agree with the points made above, the summaries on the main pages are sufficient enough. I also think there are better storyline pages on GameFAQs -- if you could, collaborate with the author somehow.NSRegentPark 22:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is not a complete mess. it got alot better (be nice if the title didnt keep getting changed for some reason) the title of 'timeline' suits it the best. Plain and simple. The article's edits have helped it alot, this page may be a mess, but the article itself is not.Ganfon 00:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. I fail to see how referring to the primary source is original research. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 02:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and condenseas necessary. Combination 23:06, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and do a big tidy. It's basically a summary of everything that's happened in all three games, but bits are interesting. Something like a graphical repersentation would be good, but certainly not in the same level of detail. +Fin- 16:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Like Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr). Hołek ҉ 11:37, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, condense as necessary. Enclopedic summary of events across a series of games. Kappa 04:44, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sango123 01:53, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Great US TV on UK DVD Retreat

No sources, basically no wf'cation, no cats, extremely POV title with abbreviations, just an odd article. Added to numerous "DVD" sections of the so-called "affected" show's articles. Staxringold talkcontribs 02:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sango123 01:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Slightly damned

More from my webcomic nn watchlist is Slightly damned, found here. There are 150 links for "Slightly damned" although none of these are from anything approaching a reliable source, and quite a few of them are irrelevent to the subject. This is not notable, I doubt the entire art site http://www.raizap.com/ would pass WP:WEB let alone one of its webcomics. - Hahnchen 00:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've already concurred on the delete nom, but I am curious where you found the rating on Buzzcomic.net. I visited the site and it appears to be a directory site, not a ratings service. Tychocat 06:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Buzzcomix.net definitely has rankings; they're on the front page. (This webcomic is currently 69th.) It and TopWebComics.com are (AFAICT) the main webcomics directories/ranking sites; both rank webcomics based (mainly) on number of user votes. (This has its flaws - webcomics which don't go in for that sort of thing are noticably missing - but enough webcomics take part that the rankings are still useful, as long as you understand and take into account how they work.) - makomk 16:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sango123 01:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My Nemesis

Another webcomic article which just chronicles what it's about without actually telling us why anyone should care. You can see the comic here although there are numerous links within the article itself. The website manages an Alexa rank of 2 million and the name of the website "black wave rising" generates 11 Google hits. You can see how notable and popular this website is just by reading the latest news post where it encourages everyone to vote every day on various topsites so it can make it into the top 100. - Hahnchen 00:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sango123 01:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Project Jyuunishi

Non notable webcomic, found here on the comic genesis free web host. Probably written by the webcomic author User:Kichi-Kuro and one of her associates a User:Noriko Kuro. No assertion of notability in the article, 8 members in their forum and manages 17 Google hits for "Project Jyuunishi". - Hahnchen 00:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) 09:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Horseshoe

Prod removed without comment. Simply not notable. Delete. BlueValour 00:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is a very informative page, as well as a very accurate page. As a horseshoe alumni, I am proud that someone has dedicated a wikipedia page to camp horseshoe. I am confident that in the future, many visitors will find this page informative and excellent.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Arubin19 (talk • contribs) 19:48, 28 August 2006.
Note that this and an edit to the aforementioned article are Arubin19's only edits. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 01:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - A google search gets some hopeful hits, and as there's no notability criteria for camps, I guess there's no concrete reason to delete this. Could use a lot of cleanup though. --Daniel Olsen 01:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • While there may not be a camp-specific notability guideline, the general notion of notability is clearly that reliable sources have decided the camp is note-worthy in some way and covered it. There is no doubt this camp exists; the question is, why should it appear in an encyclopedia? Gwernol 01:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete one of thousands of summer camps in the US alone. In no way notable. Gwernol 01:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep yeah coverage by reliable sources is the way to go here. Camp has 70+ years of history and is apparently well known and has a lot of alums, the work they do there has been the subject of a multiple published studies [3]. & [4], which is honestly more than you'd expect from the average summer camp. I can't run a news search from where I am right now, but if it gets 6 results on Google Scholar, I'm pretty sure there's some general news articles on it with meaningful information. No real reason to delete if there's a bunch of reliable information on it... the need for cleanup isn't a reason to delete, and as has been said, there's not a guideline for camp notability that I'm aware of. --W.marsh 01:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please note: Both of those studies refer to a different Camp Horseshow, one in West Virginia that was also the subject of most of my Nexis hits. You, and TruthbringerToronto, below, may want to change your votes. Uucp 10:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I've crossed out my vote for now. --W.marsh 13:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless better evidence of notability is provided. Nexis has 42 hits for "Camp Horseshoe" but only one is this camp horseshoe, and that hit is just a summer camp guide from 2005. Uucp 02:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Weak Keep The most important question one must ask here is whether the information on the article is verified. WP:V is a policy while there is no official policy on notability. The article in question is covered by reliable sources (which is a guideline) which in my humble opinion, is a stronger guideline than WP:N (which is not even a guideline to begin with). However, this statement must also be taken into strong consideration here. --Siva1979Talk to me 02:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I fail to see we need to reinvent the wheel of policy or guidelines every time it's inconvenient. There is WP:CORP in this case, specifically the guidelines for notability of companies. Change them if you must, but in the meantime it's the same level playing-field for all. Tychocat 06:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Some summer camps are very important institutions in their community. Allon FambrizziAllon Fambrizzi
I'm not sure of the connection between summer camps and day care centers. You could make the same argument against high schools. Allon FambrizziAllon Fambrizzi
  • That isn't true at all. Most summer camps are run by religious/charitable organizations. Allon FambrizziAllon Fambrizzi
  • I would remind everyone that we currently have tons of articles on summer camps despite all of these arguments; see Hampshire College Summer Studies in Mathematics among others. Why not delete that article as well? Allon FambrizziAllon Fambrizzi
  • A camp is an important institution just as is a school or company. Just because a camp or a company is a business does not mean that it does not contain valid and notable information. Clearly many other camps and companies are listed and do contain valuable information. Jkeesh 31 August 2006
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Bobet 15:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peace sign position

Protologism, google hits on this link back to this article or aren't about this at all. So, fails Wikipedia:Verifiability, among other things Xyzzyplugh 00:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sango123 01:55, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aural vampire

Contested speedy; seems like a nonnotable band to me but author made arguments for notability on the article's talk page, so I'm moving it here. NawlinWiki 00:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - From WP:BAND: "Failing to satisfy the notability guidelines is not a criterion for speedy deletion." Claims of notability have been made, so let's give this a fair chance before deleting. -kotra 05:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. `'mikka (t) 01:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Albula River

From the article "it has never been linked with any modern river." In other words, it is unverified as having existed, and assuming fictionality for now, it is not noteable beyond this one reference. Blood red sandman 01:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Thanks for keeping it! Solar Apex (talk) 05:09, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sango123 01:55, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mcdonie

del Wikipedia is not genealogy. A thoroughly nonnotable surname, on the first glance. `'mikka (t) 01:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete all. Sango123 01:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Predaptive

Also listing the following articles:

Advertisements for non-notable companies and the building that houses them, all fail WP:CORP. Structured Training hints at coining the term "structured training", but no evidence of this. --AbsolutDan (talk) 01:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, that's even worse than I thought. Persistently read the title as "preadaptive". Opabinia regalis 05:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom, they all fail WP:CORP. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 07:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. The articles here all smell of pork per WP:SPAM. No evidence they pass WP:CORP. They appear to be one operation who has registered shells under many different aliases, and have listed themselves with almost every business and training directory under the sun. No Alexa rank for structuredtraining.com (and none also for sister companies learningworld.com and proskill.co.uk); those for salespathways and predaptive rank in the 5.4 millionth. The Salespathway site has 6 links to; Predaptive has 4; learningworld has 2; structuredtraining has 6. There is a circular pattern here, as they all link to each other. Prospero Barn is a building, and not a notable one at that, common point of all the above.Ohconfucius 02:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom - advertising. Nigel (Talk) 12:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gomaa

Unless somebody can prove this article's worth and salvage it, it would not seem to be an important topic and should be deleted. Also, the person seems to have created it for themself and it does not seem to be worth fixing and maintaining such an unimportant article. queso man 01:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment French "Arabs Against Discrimination" article is but a public petition to world public opinion. Ohconfucius
  • I'm aware of what the article is, the point I was trying to make is that it appears from the boycott site that Farhat/Farahat is internationally published as an editorial cartoonist. If this is true, and we still need confirmation on this, then it'd be an indicator for notability. Tychocat 04:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Verifiability requirements aren't waived just because someone is from a non-english speaking country. --W.marsh 17:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. At first I couldn't even tell from the article that it was about a person. --דניאל ~ Danielrocks123 talk contribs Count 18:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not really notable. Also, if the article is kept, it needs a complete rewrite, and with lack of source, how can that be done. --ArmadilloFromHell 19:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. Seems notable on the surface. Agreed that there may be systematic bias. As he has apparently been published in 120 American newspapers, including Herald Tribune International, English Times, El Luvracion and the Canadian Garette, we should be able to verify easily. Gsearch for Gomaa cartoonist produces the most relevant hits, which he shares with Pakistani cartoonist Ali Gomaa. A NYTimes search gave one hit here for Goma Farahat, but I cannot view the whole article. Searching the NYT photos and graphics library under "Gomaa" reveals 81 cartoons by the artist, Daryl Cagle is familiar with his work, and has a page on his website dedicated to his work, which at least proves the subject is known outside of Egypt. The appearances of his work in newspapers, and his awards remains to be proven. Seems that there is no need to move the article as he draws under the name of "Gomaa". Additional comment: There may be errors in publication names: Canadian Garette noGhits, Canadian Gazette is a govt publication which is unlikely to carry cartoons; no ghits for "Luvracion". The article has been tidied up and links added. Ohconfucius 04:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems notable enough. Must avoid systemic bias. :) Dlohcierekim 18:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Notable enough.--Kitrus 12:08, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable enough. bbx 04:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as an internationally syndicated cartoonist, this person meets WP:BIO from what I can tell. RFerreira 18:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for failing WP:V, and WP:NOR. While I am flattered people conceded my research, I thought I had made it clear that verification and documentation was still required. I delayed my nom in hopes someone more versed in these things could produce verification. Oh well. The fact Gomaa "seems" notable enough ignores these points very severely. The Cagle website, while very suggestive, does not definitely establish he is actually published internationally, rather than just being pushed around editors' desks. No one has shown he's been published in either the L.A. or N.Y. Times, despite the hints and implications. This is supposed to be a scholarly work, not gossip, and if the documentation isn't there, I can't support a keep nom. 15:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Durlan

This seems pure vanity and no sources are given. D1Puck1T 01:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Considering who wrote the article I agree. Tarret 01:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep eh obscure but seems to be from a fictional race from DC Comics books. The source provided in the article confirms this with issues listed, and a Google search shows coverage from a bunch of sites such to make this unlikely to be simply made up by the people who wrote the article. See no reason to delete here. --W.marsh 02:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Durlan, the fictional race is one thing, but a user has been changing the article to be about the real world municipality of Durlan, part of Nish (a town in Serbia). Since it's real world it makes sense to give it priority over the fictional race, but at the same time the Durlan municipality article was pure vanity.D1Puck1T 03:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Suggest separate articles/disambiguation to separate Durlan, the fictional race as depicted in D.C. comments, from Durlan, the town in Serbia. Otherwise there'll be an endless edit war. This doesn't seem to be vandalism, just different users who have potentially legitimate claims to the same article title and perhaps don't know their options or how to resolve their dispute. --Shirahadasha 08:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy disambiguation, you don't get to say that very often, do you? - Mgm|(talk) 12:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not a town. It's a suburb that is part of Pantelej, which doesn't even have more than a stub itself, yet. Uncle G 16:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ach, I thought it was a town. My whole reasoning was that as a town it probably had better claim to the "Durlan" page than some obscure fictional aliens, and the aliens should be disambiguated to "Durlan (comics)" or something, but at the same time the town article should be deleted until better info came around. It made perfect sense to me at the time. But if it's just a suburb, well, never mind then.D1Puck1T 19:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 :) Dlohcierekim 12:52, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sango123 01:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Last Call Games

This is a non-notable website that does not include any outside sources within the article and generates 8 unique google results. Erechtheus 01:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No Traffic rating at Alex. :) Dlohcierekim 19:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sango123 01:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Core B

This page, as well as its duplicate at Core-b, appears to be a neologism referring to a specific group of people. The current version doesn't refer to the people per se, but a look at previous edits will suggest that it's about a small group. Either way, I find zero Google hits for "Core Bevarsu," and am led to believe this is a non-notable neologism. Delete both. (I should note that a PROD tag was removed from Core B, precipitating this AfD.)Tony Fox (arf!) 02:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Mailer Diablo 22:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FlightView

Advertisement, fails WP:CORP, non-NPOV. Prod deleted by original author. Author appears to be from the company itself and using this article as an advertisement (also has warning on user page). Orphaned. Edits by user appear to be malicious, as well. --JStalk 01:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To clear up confusion -- FlightView is not a company, it is a product. The WP:CORP failure I mention is therefore on grounds of product notability (subject of multiple reference works outside of the company, genericization), not company notability.
FlightView is not a company. It is a suite of products from RLM Software (which does not have an article).
Therefore, I feel that it fails WP:CORP -- the only evidence against that has been presented by WP above (as one element toward WP:CORP 2.1). The fact that it has a number of results in Google and that its maker has been around a long time is not grounds for inclusion of this product (the company perhaps).
"HempWorld" has 12,000+ hits in Google, has been around a long time [6], but I doubt one of their products (i.e., "Hemp Suckers") would pass an AfD. Same base reasoning here (and no, it's not because they're hemp popsicles). RLM's been around a while, great, write an article on them, FlightView as a product isn't notable for inclusion in the encyclopedia due to WP:CORP. --JStalk 19:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --- Deville (Talk) 21:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unearthed Films

NN Not notable-organization (speedy was contested) abakharev 02:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bit silly to contest speedy, all told. I mean, it was so blatantly not a speedy that nobody could have been faulted for just removing the tag altogether. While I'm bashing your ears, could I get you to kinda not use AfD jargon like "NN", which makes no sense to the outsiders who occasionally cross bravely into our territory to plead their suit? fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 02:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record, it was not me who put the speedy tag on the article. It was me who put it to AfD instead of deleting while clearing the CSD backlog abakharev 04:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, it was me who put the speedy tag on the article, albeit an earlier version. I tagged it as nocontext; however, the article has since been improved somewhat. -- Merope 12:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Even then it could not have been called a speedy candidate. Please be more careful. Improperly tagging stuff has two main side-effects: firstly, for no good reason it pisses off the person who first wrote the article; secondly, we have some admins (silly sausages to a man!) who think it's their duty to delete anything so tagged, however ridiculous the deletion argument may be (this could be as a result of the concerted efforts of certain CVUers to follow up on admin talkpages and complain that they're not following orders). In both cases, Bad. 137.92.97.114 04:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Company does not appear to be particularly notable, but the film series it distributes in the US is (with it's own WP article). Company does have a IMDB listing. Article appears not to be written by an employee, but a fan. Lots of room for improvement though. Seaphoto 01:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I haven't heard of the company, but some of the movies they're claimed to be distributing are somewhat infamous, so that may count towards a keep. Mark Grant 02:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ZsinjTalk 00:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

America = 50

Original research. See Talk:America = 50. Omphaloscope » talk 02:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 22:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Arthur (musician)

I'm a bit iffy on this one, but I really don't think this artist meets the requirements of WP:MUSIC at this point. The page states he's opened for several big-name artists, and has three albums. The first two albums, as near as I can tell, were released independently, and the third album is on Bardic Records - a company that has little to no 'net coverage (I found one reference to its website - which is a ___domain placeholder). References to the artist himself are slim as well; the one interview in the article goes to a web-based magazine that refers to the artist playing a lot of high schools. WP:MUSIC suggests two major-label (or at least reasonably well-known label) albums, a national tour, awards, etc.; I see none of the above. PROD was removed, so I bring it here. Delete - with no concerns over a recreation if Mr. Arthur breaks more widely. Tony Fox (arf!) 02:10, 29 August 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, BaseballBaby 10:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per W.Marsh. I would like to see some source citation for the opening acts but the legit label and the album review puts it in good standing with WP:MUSIC. 205.157.110.11 10:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom for failing WP:MUSIC. He's just not there, yet. WP:MUSIC requires charted hits, national tours, two or more albums released by a major label, and multiple non-trivial third-party articles (not just one or two). The Google search which "suggests" that reliable sources exist, only shows me there's a lot of people named Ben Arthur. I do see a lot of listings at download sites, which I presume is him, that may inflate the Ghits, but that's why Google isn't the final arbiter of notability. I would be more impressed by the AllMusic review if they weren't by just any registered member. Tychocat 11:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - In regards to W.marsh above, The Orchard (music label), upon looking at their website, is not a label, but a digital distributor of music *for* indie labels and artists. They distribute some big-name artists, but I'll note that this fellow isn't on their list at present (unless he's included in the 'And 14,000 more' at the bottom of the list). (Looks like their article needs some work to reflect this.) Tony Fox (arf!) 20:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It looks like his first two albums were on his own label called "Chicken Butter". So that probably needs to be updated. The Bethling 00:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, with the results that folks have turned up - and believe me, I did work on this one for a while and didn't manage to turn those up - I'd be happy to Withdraw this nomination at this point (or just let it go to the keep that it's likely to get). I still have questions about the quality of the references (looks like there's a lot of indie bands being reviewed by Rolling Stone, for example), but it looks like he's squeaking over the line at this point. Admins? Tony Fox (arf!) 17:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Petros471 13:38, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy Heinrich

Not notable enough. abakharev 02:14, 29 August 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, BaseballBaby 10:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete by consensus and per article contents. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 12:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Porch Men's Society

NN enough. It was on speedy, but I think it should be discussed abakharev 02:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --- Deville (Talk) 21:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ueickap

Non-notable per WP:MUSIC -Nv8200p talk 02:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Doesn't meet two albums on a siginificant record label or a national tour of a medium/large country as outlined in WP:MUSIC. --Wafulz 19:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stay. It might not meet the two albums on a significant label, but the band is being played (a lot in my opinion) on the Radio Internationally, such as countries like Israel, Brazil, USA, Spain, France and the Dominican Republic. So, what about the users of these countries that just come in to wikipedia ad try to find something about this band? (Like me for instance, I'm from Dominican Republic, The Band is from Italy and i knew it existed because of the radio and I came instantly to wikipedia to look for it)--RacerX 00:32, 03 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Heimstern Läufer 20:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — CharlotteWebb 14:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First Avenue South Bridge

It's a bridge. So what? User:Zoe|(talk) 02:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I find it incredible that George Washington Memorial Bridge is not a disambiguation page! Garrie 23:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not every bridge is notable, but the documentation on this one seems sufficient enough based on the above comments. Erechtheus 03:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I incline toward a keep, albeit a rather weak keep. It is not particularly notable by itself. In the context of WikiProject Seattle it presumably was included for completeness. The other bridges cited by 24.19.45.139 as part of the same project are of varying degrees of notability. But Wiki is not paper and we can tolerate keeping some borderline material while we wait to see how WikiProject Seattle develops it. Williamborg (Bill) 03:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Felixboy 15:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as W. Marsh has demonstrated its importance. I'd like to let WikiProject Seattle continue to work on it. A consensus of Seattleites felt this article was necessary, and they're the experts on their city. SliceNYC 15:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the reasons above mathewguiver 17:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - bridges in major cities are notable and there are plenty of similar examples already on Wikipedia. No need to single this one out. 23skidoo 18:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - while not every bridge in a city should be listed, since there may be thousands, this is a bascule bridge, which is notable --ArmadilloFromHell 19:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's a bridge. So what? - what criterion does it not meet? This is a bridge too. Could do with an article name that shouts out "Bridge in Seattle" a bit better though.Garrie 23:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment we don't even have a proposed notability standard for structures (masts, bridges, buildings, tunnels, etc...). Without one, I have no rationale to support having an opinion. I do, however, believe that having an standard would be helpful. Modern construction in developed countries will almost always be verifiable due to the way the bidding process for contracts works, but that leads to being an indiscriminate collection of information, so we need something more than just having construction details verifiable. Probably the good old "documents about" with an exclusion for the construction process. GRBerry 13:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 22:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abandonia_Reloaded

This article, as I've stated again and again, seems to not be so much an encyclopedia article as it is a slight bit of a vanity article by the fans of this website. This website has gained a few awards from a site known as DaFastLane, but I haven't been able to locate any information about DaFastLane on Wikipedia (aside from the article proposed for deletion here) or Google (a few hits), and it isn't listed on Alexa. They won five awards in one year, but that does not yet qualify them for notability under WP:WEB, which no other eligibility requirements are met on either.

Until they win these DaFastLane awards again next year, or until they satisfy the requirements another way, I feel it's safe to say that the article deserves deletion. Sephylight 02:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - The actual Alexa rank seems to be 115,037 (as opposed to in the 14000s for Abandonia). I'm not sure it qualifies as "hugely popular", or notable. --Brianyoumans 04:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 11:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Not everything can be measured by an Alexa ranking, Abandonia Reloaded is a site dedicated to freeware games which is in itself a niche market, it is one of the biggest sites in his class providing FREE valuable content to it's visitors through the means of reviews and screenshots. I think this point alone justifies to have Abandonia Reloaded as it's own article. Also even though it might be written by fans (as I imagine is the case for most articles on wikipedia) of the site, the article is written from a neutral point of view. Braindead1 20:00, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - Still, there are standards for what is notable and what isn't, and the site in question hasn't qualified yet under those standards. Merge it with Abandonia
  • Keep - While the site isn't the most popular by Alexa rankings, it is important to note that the site has gone from being completely unknown to achieve an Alexa rank of 114,065 (as of writing) in just a little over a year. Which in itself is quite the feat, and even though the site was created by four people who originated from Abandonia, the two sites are completely different and cater to completely different groups of net-users. Which goes to show that AR has managed to make a name for itself. Another point is that there wasn't really a Freeware center, before AR was created. Generally you had six options before, if you wanted a freeware game, and they were all pretty limited. You could either go to the AGS community or AGI community and get adventure games, go to RPG Maker and get RPGs, go to the Game Maker community and locate games that are mostly puzzle oriented, go to HOTU and try to locate the freeware games in the sea of abandonware (which are mostly AGS, AGI and RPG Maker games), or you could type "freeware" in Google and hope that you would find something you liked after several hours of tiresome searching. AR is truly the first site to gather all freeware games on one site, regardless of age, engine and genre. And due to that diversity the site has active producers with experience from game making in AGS, AGI, Game Maker, as well as independent producers who created their own games from scratch. And while HOTU does have a mix of freeware too, that site isn't revolving around such games. AR is the only site that focuses solely on showcasing these games, and a lot of effort goes into showcasing each game as best as possible, including high-quality banners. Abandonia Reloaded also focuses on helping people create their own games, using whatever engine they themselves want to use (or create). As such, I think the site is worthy to have its own page on Wikipedia. Tom Henrik
  • Keep - It's difficult to measure anything's notability merely through awards or publications, or by statistics. In fact, WP:WEB clearly states that it is meant as a guideline, not as an absolute. The discussion linked to that guideline also shows that even amongst the more dedicated editors, there is no clear consensus on what constitutes notability. Abandonia: Reloaded is a site that is a part of a niche as it is dedicated to showcasing freeware productions, and it is also part of a growing movement to bring these productions to the general populace. The purpose of Abandonia Reloaded, and the purpose of this Wiki article on Abandonia Reloaded is not to advertise or promote traffic (AR is not a commercial endeavor), but rather to educate and inform; which, as I understand it, is the purpose of Wikipedia itself. Allow the editors to revise the article to prevent any tone issues, and expand it so that it may even better fulfill that purpose. Deletion is unnecessary, and considering the site's growth in the last year (from 440,000 to 114,000 in Alexa ranking since January, and from 115,000 to 114,000 in the last month alone), it would likely just be reinstated once this question of ranking is less of an issue, in any case. Taikara 21:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As per what Taikara said. Guidelines are guidelines, not specific rules. --Abi79 06:31, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Considering that Abandonia Reloaded has been online for a year and 3 months thus far and to grow that much during that time surely shows a demand for what is being offered. Considering that the site continues to grow and is getting increased views as time is progressing also adds to the fact that the entry should stay. The wiki entry as Taikara has stated is more to educate and inform than to advertise. The wiki will be expanded as time progresses, and the rule that is being expressed for deletion as has been said, is more a guideline than anything and with all the site has managed to accomplish in such a short time, definitely think it deserves it's own entry.DeathDude 19:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is perhaps notable that the above comment is DeathDude's first and only edit to Wikipedia, and that Taikara and Tom Henrik have edited this discussion, the article itself, and nowhere else.Brianyoumans 01:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is also perhaps notable that Wikipedia is an open project that claims an attitude of anti-elitism in editing. Therefore, it should not matter that I (or my fellow discussion contributors) have edited only one article, or offered my opinion in only one article of deletion debate. However, if it would somehow give my opinion more "power" (though by the definition of anti-elitism, it shouldn't), I can easily copy edit and/or expand other articles (and in fact, I already have). However, in my (apparently less valuable) opinion, it seems that if people care enough about the article to contribute to the discussion regarding its potential deletion, then those opinions should not be completely ignored due to lack of prolificness. Taikara 06:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've been spending some time reading over the guidelines and principles of Wikipedia, and as Taikara has mentioned, anti-elitism is not an idea that Wikipedia (or it's founder, Jimbo Wales) support. Jimbo has the only set principles for how to operate Wikipedia in his user page, and it says, amongst other things: "Newcomers are always to be welcomed. There must be no cabal, there must be no elites, there must be no hierarchy or structure which gets in the way of this openness to newcomers." By giving our oppinions lesser value, because we are new to the project is completely against the open-ness and ideology of Wikipedia. And just for reference, just like Taikara, I have been active in other articles in the past, but I wasn't registered then - so you'll have to use my IP if you want a list. But, yes, this is the only discussion I have attended, because I feel that, for once, I have something to contribute to the discussion at hand. Tom Henrik 12:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There're several reasons why this page's not meeting the requirements, even though they've been claimed to be true.

For one, those so-called five awards don't belong to Reloaded. They belong mostly to a person, not a site, that person being Kosta, for the work and effort he's put in Abandonia. It's quite pathetic that Reloaded calls his awards as theirs and use them to claim rights on a page on here. The only award that does go to the site, is only a nomination, not an actual award. It needs to be mentioned that for the DaFastLane Awards, anybody can nominate anybody, and the people from Reloaded've all nominated Reloaded for as many things as they could, of which this one got pulled through. Same goes with that "Most helpful scener" award. As Abandonware's spread out over multiple communities, the scener who can have most people vote for him, will win that one, even though I can name ten sceners that're far more helpful, and that's just from one community. The only person that actually's an established value in the scene, is Kosta, who did deserve the awards he got. Those still aren't awards for Reloaded, but for Kosta. In other words, all those so-called awards're self-induced by Reloaded itself, which I don't think will make them count at all.

Another is their so-called claim to be the first site dedicated to freeware games. I don't know where they got that, and everybody knows that's a lie. They even have affiliates on their main page, linking to other freeware sites that've been 'round far longer, so either they don't know their own site or they're lying badly 'bout that.

Yet another thing, which goes hand in hand with the previous part, but seems to've been used as a separate reason, is that they claim that before Reloaded, you had to search the AGS, AGI and Gamemaker communities, and aside from that, using Google. So far, they've pretty much only used the AGS community, so that's been untrue, plus, if they think that's the only way to find freeware games, it just shows the site won't live long enough to become notable, as those that run it show they don't understand what they're focusing on. There are far more ways to get to freeware than just those three, and that's the very basics that should be known to run such a site for a longer period of time.

As far as the notability goes, they have a bit of a point. I know some of my friends know that site, and I know a few freeware game developers that've been in touch with them, and they all think the site provides lowest-quality information (up to the point that some games' information's all in Engrish) and's generally an insult to both the developers as to the games themselves, so they do know the site, but prefer to stay as far away from it as possible. Also, those freeware game developers they did get in touch with, were mostly, if not all, brought in touch with that site by a member they kicked out a long time ago, and although they haven't been in touch with any of those freeware developers, they do seem to claim his work as theirs whenever they can.

Another thing you can notice if you dig around on their and Abandonia's forums, is that they have a high tendency to mob whenever something or somebody has an opinion that goes against them. It's already happening on here, and you can be sure they'll bring more of their croonies in to increase the number of people that back their view up, but always just say the same thing (like Deathdude). So be aware of that. You might see five-six voices here, but they're still just one and a couple of puppets. --195.144.90.5 13:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It may or may not be relevant, but the IP of the above poster matches the IP of the mentioned member who was "kicked out", and it seems like more of a personal rant than an attempt to address the issue at hand. To address some of the (fairly decent) points mentioned, however:
It's not relevant indeed, except for that it gives a proper view of the matter, not the heavily-coloured, holier-than-thou view that's given by the AR mob.
  • It is not stated in the article that any of Kosta's awards belong to AR.
It is stated that AR has won "several awards" and it has a link to "Abandonia Reloaded's awards", which clearly shows Kosta's awards there.
  • It was also not stated in the article that AR is the first site dedicated to freeware, however, I have added a bit to makes sure it is perfectly clear that is not the case.
Tom Henrik said this a bit higher: "AR is truly the first site to gather all freeware games on one site"
  • It is stated in the article that there is a large ratio of adventure games. However, from the references of the games in the content section of the article, there is obviously more than "just" AGS games on the site.
That's true. The ratio's been going from 1/2 AGS games to 1/3th slowly, but quite some people on the forums've been complaining that Abandonia Reloaded should've been called Abandonia AGS or Abandonia Adventures throughout its history, and they all've been kicked out for it. The ratio always've shown this to be a problem, but's always been ignored up til recently, so you can't possibly say it hasn't been focusing on AGS and not on any other engine.
The issue being discussed here is not quality, or methodology, or the history with the above poster, or his issues with the person who won that "most helpful scener" award or the site itself, as the article makes no mention of any of those. The issue at hand is notability, and the above poster admittedly states that he considers AR to have some notability. Taikara 17:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The issue being discussed here is whether or not the page meets Wikipedia requirements. Nor the awards, nor how "special" AR is, nor its notability (as those friends of mine weren't more than five, which can hardly apply as being "notable") That is also what I'm addressing here. If you call countering fake arguments and trying to win a discussion by dropping in as many people that parrot what you want them to say with actual facts a grudge, then yep, I'm talking out of a grudge here.--195.144.90.5 17:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We get it, you had issues with the AR community, and you're doing your best to get the article deleted. However, the bottom line here is that all of your complaints are fully fixable without resorting to the deletion of the article, as per WP:DEL. The notability issue is what is being addressed in this AfD discussion - and that is an actual fact. Taikara 18:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What's having had issues with the community got to do with this? I was talking about why the page doesn't comply with Wikipedia's standards. So far, the "being special", the awards and the notability've been claimed as reasons for that. I don't understand what you think I'm talking about, but that's what this entire discussion's been about. If breaking those Wikipedia policies can be fixed without deleting the page, then please, feel free to let us know how. --195.144.90.5 19:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I already have... it's called editing. But as a suggestion, you could probably start by actually reading the WP:DEL policy, where it clearly states that articles lacking NPOV and containing accuracy issues do not necessarily need to be deleted. However, I think that your objection to the article being kept is quite clear (and we'll just pretend you're refering to notability, and nothing else, as all the other complaints do not require deletion). No need to continue beating a dead horse, unless that's just how you get your kicks. Taikara 19:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see that I have to both apologize and clarify my earlier statement. (Hopefully without going too far of topic from the discussion at hand). When I said that "Another point is that there wasn't really a Freeware center, before AR was created." and "AR is truly the first site to gather all freeware games on one site, regardless of age, engine and genre." I did not mean that AR was the very first freeware site to have been created. Far from it. What I meant was that AR is the most notable of the lot. If you do a quick Alexa ranking with other sites, you'll find that no-one is ranked as high as AR. (Apart from HOTU, but that isn't a freeware only dedicated site. It just have a lot of freeware games thrown into the mix).

Traffic Rank for gamehippo.com: 63,957 and Traffic Rank for caiman.us: 31,873 seems to be higher. Besides, if you don't mean that AR is the first freeware site, then it's no use in actually saying it is, as it'll only mislead people that don't know about it.

For instance, www.BigBlueCup.com (The AGS official homepage) has an Alexa rating of 120 353, yet is has a Wikipedia page of its own.

On the other hand, AGS's been mentioned on various independant sites and's bound to have various independant publications, which's another way besides Alexa ranking to be worthy of a Wikipedia article.

There is no doubt that AGS deserves the page, but from a purely Alexa statistical point of view, AR should deserve it more. So, just having a good Alexa ranking should not be the only criteria for an Wikipedia article (as there would be no discussion whether AR deserved it or not, then), but in my mind in order to deserve an article, the site should offer something that no-one else does, and that makes it unique.

The policies're clear on what makes a site apply for being worthy of an article on here and what not. Besides, even if going aside from the policies is a way, then that reason still doesn't apply for AR, as there're other, more well-known sites that've been 'round far longer that offer the same thing.

In AR's case, this uniqueness is found in the effort placed into each single update,

This effort exists out of "Requirements: Processor recommended", "Bit cheap some enemies" along with other Engrish, leaving entire desktops in the screenshots, so you can even see what song the person that took that screenshot was listening to and a whole lot of empty fields in each information part then? Plus all the mess-ups in the updates themselves?

the interviews with the makers, the diversity of games hosted (in terms of engine and genres)

Again, check the ratio of adventure games (which're pretty much all AGS games) against the other games. I wouldn't exactly call diversity of engine and genre a strong point of AR.

and the banners made for the games. I know that there is an overload of adventure games on the site, and we are trying to fix that. However, as AR is a community driven project, we showcase what people review. As long as we get in more adventure games, than other games - we will continue to put out more adventures.

If you check those submissions, that community seems to exist out of Deathdude then. That's one person, who's part of the staff. One person and an occasional passer-by isn't exactly a community, and if that one person's part of the crew, he'd know that there're too many AGS games on there in comparisson with the other genres/engines. In other words, it doesn't exactly show to be a community-driven project, and the focus on one specific engine instead of an equal share of all genres and engines is the site's choice.--Kon-Tiki 18:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC) (aka [User:195.144.90.5|195.144.90.5])[reply]

If you take a look at the forum topic in which we ask the public for help ( http://www.reloaded.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=116 ), you will see that the number of Adventure games on that list is very small in comparrison to the other genres. (If the above link is against the rules of this discussion, then I apologize, and a mod should feel free to edit it away). So, in conclusion, I apologize for the above statements that might have been confusing, but I hope that I have managed to get across my views for why I believe that AR deserves an article of its own (and not just be merged with Abandonia).Tom Henrik 14:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Just to make a note of it, against WP:TPG, Kon-Tiki has been editing into other people's comments in this discussion, making the flow of discussion a bit more confusing than necessary. Please be aware that the indented, unsigned comments within a few comments above belong to Kon-Tiki (who is also 195.144.90.5) --Taikara | Talk 19:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Taken from [10] (fourth item): (...) If you are responding to another editor, put your comment directly below theirs, making sure it is indented (using multiple bullets).--Kon-Tiki 20:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Kon-Tiki, below the comment you are responding to, not within. You see, by editing your response into their comment, it becomes unclear who is actually responding, as the individual sections of your comments are not signed. It's kind of like kindergarten - write your name on your things, and keep your hands in your own personal space and off of other people's things. I would hope you could comprehend that basic common courtesy, but please pardon me for attempting to inform others who may be reading this discussion what has occured for their benefit. Taikara | Talk 01:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's comprehendible and clear enough this way, as the flow obviously shows two blocks, not one. If I'd've used various amounts of indention, it'd be weird, but it's crystal clear the way it is now and has nothing to do with lack common courtesy or any other insults you're throwing at me.If you're so set on proper formatting, you might want to tell Tom to put a bulleting in front of his comment, though, as that does disturb the flow, as nobody can tell where the previous comment stopped and his starts, except from reading through and seeing where the context claims a new comment. --Kon-Tiki 02:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sango123 01:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ppmsite

Contested prod. Non-notable site fails WP:WEB, Alexa rank is 1,440,263... the highest I've ever seen VoiceOfReason 02:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Salo in Space

Delete Since the previous "no consensus" AFD nomination the notability of this webcomics is still close to none. What is more, it looks like it is dead since February. I previously voted to merge/redirect, because of some cultural curiosity, but now my opinion swayed. Mukadderat 02:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a vote. In neither discussion have you given a reason. --W.marsh 22:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's still not really a reason, it's just a "me too" vote. Anyway every argument those two made has been countered strongly, with no response made to the challenges. Do you have evidence that the site it on is "an independent publisher" or that the comic otherwise meets WP:WEB? --W.marsh 23:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again, where's the evidence that comics.com.ua is well known? IN the previous AfD, it was mentioned that it got 400 hits per day. That's really not much... this AfD probably gets 400 hits per day. There's also no evidence that it's anything more than a free comics hosting service... which certainly wouldn't be a reason to keep if this were an english-language deal. --W.marsh 13:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I was aware of the existance of this "Salo in Space" article since the day it was created by Mzajac and Mikkalai, and I would probably agree that in part Mzajac and Mikkalai were having fun creating it, as the name "Salo in Space" sounds intriguing for those who are aware of Ukrainian culture and humor. Had the comics be named differently, they would probably not bring that much of attention. But comics' name is a part of the comics. There likely to be other comics, which deserve to me mentioned on wikipedia, and I agree that many need to be mention more than this one. But, it still does not explain the need for deletion of this one.
  • After spending some time, which I could probably use for a better purpose, I should say that the reference to WP:WEB by people who want to delete this page is incorrect. The policy defines web content as "any content which is distributed solely on the internet". The comic series "Salo in Space" does not fail into this category. There is an annual Kiev International Festival of Cartoons "9 World", which takes place in Kiev Planetarium in spring of each year. The "Salo in Space" comics have been nominated for presentation at the festival as cartoons of 2005. The festival was open to public. Entrance fee was 2UAH. I think it's not a coincidence that the last "Salo in Space" comics have been released in February, as it coincides with the beginning of 2006 festival. --KPbIC 18:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per above. Odessaukrain 21:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This comics is not mentioned anythere outside of their website and this Festival. Even more - this festival failed to open this year - this mean it's not notable. Get major newspaper or news agency mention it - then it will be fine. There are mere 300 links to comics.com.ua - this mean people don't like it. --TAG 19:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 22:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Cat

While notable, this article is unable to meet both WP:V and WP:BLP simultaneously, due to the only legitimate reference available being a violation of the subject's privacy. Nomination from the article's original author. kotra 02:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Can you proide a proof of this "violation of privacy claim"? Mukadderat 03:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. Dr. Cat exists. Nonverifiable real name may be deleted. If there is a real (legally confirmed) violation of privacy, then the person themselves may appeal (I don't know where, please advice), and the article may be deleted from the database for good (now the deleted article can still be seen by wikipedia sysops) and recreated without privacy violation. Mukadderat 03:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • See also Talk:Dr. Cat discussion. Mukadderat 03:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I think Dr. Cat/David Shapiro definitely meets notability requirements. I'm not sure why there is this big discussion over whether to include his real or original name - if there are verifiable sources as to his real name, and he has not requested that it be kept secret, what's the big deal? --Brianyoumans 03:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The issue is not notability, as I mentioned earlier. I agree, though, that the most logical thing would be to get Dr. Cat's direct opinion. However, I don't wish to call his attention to this article, because to be honest, it's an embarrassment (to both him and myself). Perhaps I should bite the bullet and ask him anyway, since my word doesn't seem to be sufficient (justifiably)... It's frustrating to have written and defended this article for so long and yet be unable to delete it when I feel there is no chance of it meeting Wikipedia policy. -kotra 04:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. First, less than a month since the last AfD is a bit early to AfD an article again, even when the last one ended with no consensus. Secondly, AfD is not cleanup: We're here discussing whether the topic is fit for discussion in Wikipedia, so it's all about the notability of the person, which I don't think is in question here. Facts that cannot be verified can be removed without deletion of the entire article, but the person's accomplishments are not in doubt. I have no idea whether birth names qualify as "invasion of privacy" etc.; that should be verified with the subject. If it's objectionable and wrong, then the information can be removed or even specific offending revisions may be deleted, but the article as a whole should remain. (I would find it hardly fitting that member of the game industry would stoop to same tricks as certain mr. Thompson, though... =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 08:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Notability is not the only reason to AfD an article. An article may be nominated for deletion if it cannot hope to meet guidelines. Specifically, I do not believe this article can meet both WP:V and WP:BIO at the same time. The problem is that the only verifiable (despite being slightly incorrect) source available for this article puts forth his birth name. You and I may personally find nothing private about birth names, but that is irrelevant. If the information is removed, then the article is no longer verifiable. This is not something that can simply be resolved through discussion or cleanup, which is why, after weeks of careful deliberation, I decided to put it up for AfD. I understand that it hasn't been long since the last AfD, but I didn't anticipate a problem, due to the issue being completely different from the previous one. -kotra 04:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - since the information is publicly available, there's no violation of privacy. WilyD 12:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- not because of privacy or verifiability, but simple notability. The founder of a small company of seven employees is simply not notable for having done so; the company itself seems barely notable. bikeable (talk) 14:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable person --Peephole 14:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, privacy concerns are irrelevant. This appears to be a bad faith nomination attempting to solve a content dispute. The bottom line is that if "Dr. Cat" has a real name and it can be verified, then this is fair game. That said, the subject doesn't meet WP:BIO criteria. If not for the questionable nomination, I would probably opine delete because this article should have never been created in the first place.--Isotope23 20:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Privacy concerns are relevant. See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Presumption in favor of privacy. As for bad faith, I specifically went this route instead of WP:PROD, as I had originally intended, because I was aware that route may have been considered bad faith. Despite the unusual nature of this AfD, I had hoped people would assume good faith. -kotra 04:42, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bottom line is that his real name is a matter of public record. I don't seen any reason to ignore a valid source that ties "Dr. Cat" to a given name. I've stricken the bad faith part above. Your reasons for going this route are your own and I don't really have any reason to assume this was bad faith. I still don't think a valid deletion reason was given in the nomination though.--Isotope23 14:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He exists, and it isn't just a small company. It's possibly the largest furry (although that could be disputed) community on the world wide web, with members that reach currently about 60,000, with around 2,000 to 4,000 members on at one time. Perhaps just make a redirection of his real name to the page, while listing somewhere that he publicly goes by the name Dr. Cat, and keeping the title as Dr. Cat. Disinclination 09:34, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (just barely). I still don't really understand the WP:BIO issue; it seems to me that the policy is designed to protect truly personal details of a person's life (e.g. relationships, children, sex etc). Certainly people may have different opinions about what is "private" information, but a person's name is minimum basic information for an encyclopedia article - even if (or especially if) the article is written about an alias. That being said, I also don't believe that this issue is really relevant to the AfD discussion. I think it's a weak keep based on notability.Qball6 02:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep' please mobygames is a reliable source so this meets verifiability really Yuckfoo 07:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per wwwwolf. It is late in the game to ask, but I would prefer to see Kotra specify what his or her concerns are, I am not seeing any conflicts (at all) under our biographical guidelines with the retention of this article. RFerreira 23:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My concern is that the only somewhat reliable source (MobyGames) that is able to be referenced for much of the notability of the subject displays his birth name, which the subject has gone to lengths to keep out of the public eye. So, by prominently making reference to such information, I feel that it goes against WP:LIVING, specifically "Wikipedia also contains biographies of people who, while notable enough for an entry, are nevertheless entitled to the respect for privacy afforded non-public figures. In such cases, editors should exercise restraint and include only information relevant to their notability." His birth name is not relevant to his notability in this case. Also, "In borderline cases, the rule of thumb should be 'do no harm'." I believe that this is a borderline case and an unusual one, which is probably why I haven't been able to get my point across very well. That and my lack of indisputable proof to back up my claims (although I think that it's apparent from his never mentioning his birth name, even in professional endeavors). I probably made a mistake in AfDing this, but thank you all for commenting and sharing your views. -kotra 07:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sango123 01:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blackwood CC

This is a non-notable non-professional cricket club with non-notable players (none have articles -- the seemingly valid links are all for other persons). There are no Google results for the name of the club and the city. Erechtheus 03:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --- Deville (Talk) 22:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

L231d

Tricky case. Supposedly a Soviet missile project that never reached the prototype stage; initially, that seems fairly plausible. I got halfway through cleaning it up before I checked for external sources, and found nothing, via either google or JSTOR, for L231d or L230, that related even remotely to russian missiles. Furthermore, the article's creator (or at least his IP) signed as "L231d" on a talk page comment, and on his talk page there's evidence that something he created was deleted as nonsense. So, all told, I'm thinking hoax, but I'm not quite confident enough to kill it quietly with a prod tag. Thoughts? --RobthTalk 03:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Whether or not it's a hoax, it's probably too obscure to be verifiable. Since Google doesn't register anything about it, it's a fair bet that there aren't any verifiable references that describe it, or even mention it. -kotra 05:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless it can be verified. Heimstern Läufer 20:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC) Delete per Heimstern Läufer and Robth. -Chelsea[reply]

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

The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) 10:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Californian Falcon

Taxonomy is nonsense, appears unrecognized by any recent authority. Dysmorodrepanis 22:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such thing as a Californian falcon as far as I know. Besides, one of the two (!) binomial names given for it is that of the Peregrine Falcon.pointless 12:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I noticed the Peregrine thing too - I would guess the author of the article copied the Peregrine's template. WilyD 13:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)][reply]
If somebody could check out Peters' "Checklist" - I think it is a synonym. The URL has posted many taxa which apparently are junior synonyms according to current knowledge. Names for color variants, clinal subpopulations, the works. Dysmorodrepanis 01:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sango123 01:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Panel Home Construction

Some sort of POV essay or copy-paste junk. It makes some sense here and there, but is entirely unencyclopedic. (|-- UlTiMuS 03:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Mailer Diablo 22:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Toucher and Rich Show

Not Notable; this is a local radio show, it's been on the air for about 2 months; as far as I can tell, the article makes no particular claim of notability. Wikipedia does have some articles on particular modern radio shows, but in general they seem to make claims to being particularly notable. I don't think we want an article on every show at every radio station. Brianyoumans 03:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Keep". Many local non-syndicated radio shows have Wikipedia entries including Kevin and Bean, Kidd Chris, and The Doghouse with JV and Elvis. Apparently their ratings in Boston do indeed show that they are "notable". The show is known for many national things such as the aforementioned feud with Kevin Smith, and Rich disrupting Martha Burk's protest at the Masters which was covered by every major network and spawned an ESPN Sportscenter catchphrase.

  • 'Comment: Kevin and Bean is a show that has been on the air for 15 years and has spawned several albums. The article on Kidd Chris is on him, not his show, and covers his whole career. The Doghouse article is on a show that was supposedly #1 in its market for over a decade. The Toucher and Rich Show is explicitly on the present BCN show, which has been on air for two months. I can see how Toucher himself might be notable, but I don't think this show is.Brianyoumans 05:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete CSD A7. My heart was telling me "don't delete" but my head said otherwise and it won. WUUUUU!!!!!!!! Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 12:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Wallace Handlin Espino

Non-notable person (fails WP:BIO). 1 Google hit. Erechtheus 03:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Sango123 02:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seventh Rhode Island Infantry

Totally contextless, doubtful that it's not a copy/paste from the named source, but I cannot confirm. (|-- UlTiMuS 03:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article was written by myself as a general summary of two books I have written on the regiment. I have researched it for five years, so I think I know its history. Hopkins is public ___domain. Also included are more journals and letters then one can count.

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

The result was delete. Sango123 01:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candeloble

[Check Google hits]; 0 of them. I can't tell if this is a neologism, a non-notable design of a product, or whatever else, but my gut tells me it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia, at least not yet. (|-- UlTiMuS 04:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy deleted per article author. Syrthiss 21:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MD quandary

Pretty obviously a joke page. Placed a prod on it and notified the author, but the prod was removed by an IP. Nscheffey(T/C) 04:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

St Paul's tram stop

Tram stops are, well, tram stops. Except when they happen to be a station they are generally indistinguishable from bus stops. Unless there is something notable about a particular tram stop I don't see the point or need for an article especially since all the information is already in the main article Midland Metro. Wikipedia is not a travel guide. This is a multinomination for deletion of all tram stop articles in Category:Midland Metro stops excepting, of course, the stations (Snow Hill, Jewellery Quarter and Hawthornes). Delete all. BlueValour 04:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or else we may soon see 7th avenue Bus Stop ReverendG 05:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why do people do this? Delete ~ trialsanderrors 05:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as this is a one-liner article with no content which is not already clear from the article on the tram line. However, I don't think tram stops are generally not-notable par se. They are more permanent fixtures than bus stops are, and I feel they lie between bus stops (usually deleted) and subway stations (almost always kept) in terms of notability and I feel that stations on light rail systems with separate tracks away from the streets have more in common with with subway stations than bus stops. My delete is without prejudice an article with some more description. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Actually it appears that the Midland Metro acts more like a light rail system, which normally has fixed stops, than a traditional tram. Most of the tram articles seem to have been created in October/November 2005, and have not been updated significantly since. I hope the articles can be expanded in some way, but after this time I'm not sure someone will step up to do it. That said, I'm neutral on this matter. Tinlinkin 07:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • After reading the arguments below, I will give in to the benefit of the doubt and say keep. I wish that those who say these articles can be expanded will do so, and soon (after 10 months of inactivity). Tinlinkin 01:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I created these with intention of expanding them into decent sized articles. I understand that the size and layout at the moment appear to make the article look non-notable however I must stress that these are just the beginning of the articles and more information with reliable sources will be added. - Erebus555 12:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:Could you at least add a secondary reference to the article, to show that it is externally verifiable without referring to a timetable? If it can be confirmed without reference to a timetable then it should be able to stay.Garrie 23:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have to say I agree with the above comments (by Tinlinkin and Sjakkalle) that the Midland Metro stops are notable. They have more in common with the Docklands Light Railway stations than they do bus stops, and all the DLR stations have articles. It might also get confusing if too much information is incorporated into the main Midland Metro. I would suggest a sensible course of action would to be to wait. If Erebus555 is indeed wanting to expand the articles, perhaps they should be given the chance to do so. Our Phellap 17:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I spotted these some time ago and we have been waiting for 10 months. If the creator was going to do something substantail he would have done it by now. There seems no danger of too much information; there is virually nothing. If something notable of such length appears that it would overbalance the main article then a separate article could be recreated. The one stop on the site of a former station is Wednesbury Great Western Street tram stop and there could be an argument for keeping that one. However, the question is why keep them? WP:NOT is quite clear - just because they exist is not enough to jusfy an article. This is /policy/ and says Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. What is needed is a good reason for separate articles; remembering all the encyclopaedic info is already in the main article. BlueValour 17:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - You say you saw these 10 months ago yet I only discovered them yesterday and I see that the articles I created yesterday have seemed to have sparked this. I have come across sources which I will use to expand these articles. I have not had the 10 months you mention to expand these. - Erebus555 17:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all proposed. Not per se notable, not specifically notable, and WP is not a travel guide. Gazpacho 19:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This Afd is part of a general anti-piblic transportation slant on Wikipedia. The article is not hurting anyone, and non-notability seems a bit harsh. This appears to be a type of LRT where the stations are "real stations" as opposed to "stops". Just because this happens to be a stub now does not mean that it is not of value to people. I think a lot of people just wish to delete for the sake of deleting. I will point out Wikipedia is not paper. As such there is limitless space for articles. If articles are not used that much, they will not slow down servers. This article appears to meet the LRT guideline, as a "real station" so why not keep it? What are you saving by not including it, except preventing greater access to information about public transportation? Nlsanand 19:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "except preventing greater access to information about public transportation" is simply untrue. No information is being deleted that is not in the main article. I am arguing that there is no need for 21 articles where 1 would do a better job. It is easier for the reader to find information in 1 place than clicking on 21 articles. /If/ so much encyclopaedic information is gathered on these stops that the main article becomes unbalanced then it can be broken out - initially into a Midland Metro: Tram stops article - that is normal editing practice. "What are you saving by not including it" - you are saving people's time in providing the information they seek in a more accessible form. BlueValour 02:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - that is (in my opinion) doing it the wrong way round. Create the combined article first, then delete all the individual elements, if that becomes the consensus. -- Tivedshambo (talk) 16:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep all - light rail stations like on the DLR are notable; this is one of them; not a street tram (whose stations would not be notable). This article has a template which is connected in with the British Rail system anyway; to get rid of it leaves platforms on interchange stations which are unexplained by a neighbouring stations box. It makes sense to keep this article. Leave them alone. (JROBBO 06:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Deleted, poorly-worded ad-like blurb for a doubtful product. If it is to be mentioned at all do that in the existing article. I really can't see leaving this to run its week. GarrettTalk 21:09, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PSP2

Contested prod, for some reason. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. No sources, no verifiability, and poorly written to boot. VoiceOfReason 04:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Sango123 02:02, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Young Leek

Apperently a young rapper, includes no real claim to notability, no chart posistions, admits no full album yet, the two sources are an AOL Music page and his myspace. -Mask 04:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yanksox 21:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Air quality in Oxford

Possible original research. Appears to be too limited in geographic scope for the encyclopedia. Article was previously prodded, but I felt a discussion would be a better idea as the author has raised a dispute on the talk page. — NMChico24 04:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Reads like a report. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 07:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this is rescuable, with some work. I doubt it's original research -- more likely to be sourced from published local government reports etc. I suggest merging with the UK section in the air pollution article, probably as a new subarticle under a different title. Given that the study of air quality in the UK by Calor (see Guardian article) identifies Oxford as the most polluted city in the UK, a concentration on Oxford seems ok. Trim down, identify sources, and delete anything that can't be referenced. Espresso Addict 08:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments from page author:
    • Hi thanks Expresso Addict, I entirely agree. Please bare in mind I have only been writing this for a about 8 hours over 4 days. I also wrote the UK section in Air pollution and that was my intent to show how local conditions effect the management of air quality. Oxford is a good case study for many reasons, not least because it is one of the most polluted UK cities. The articles I reference are all local government documents and the reason I copied the Oxford air quality summary reports into wikipedia is because the county council keeps moving them, they are PDFs so difficult to reference precise sections and PDFs are also difficult to search. I don't believe there can be copyright issues because these are public documents that are readily available on the web (am I wrong here?) If I am not wrong on this copyright issue then could you remove the deletion marker on these too please. I'll have to attend to the article in the evenings this week so will need more than 5 days to sort it out. Also I am happy to merge with Air pollution but had the idea that this could be a template for other entries on air quality for different cities. It is very interesting to see how a wide range of parameters effect air quality. Finally, this is not a report it is just me pulling together lots of publicly available information into one place under the heading of air quality in oxford. i still have to put all the references i have used (they are in my 'delicous account' and I am as yet to work out how to reference effectively (i.e. syntax for constructing a citation list). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hnoble32 (talk • contribs)
      • References are very important to Wikipedia, so it's good to put them in first rather than at the end. Don't worry about the syntax, other people can help with that. Re the other articles, I don't know the copyright situation on local government documents in the UK, but I'd suspect they were copyright unless stated otherwise. It might be wisest to take them down and try to contact the council about the copyright situation. Espresso Addict 09:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have been fighting for this article here too. So now I will just write here! In summary. I will tidy this article, clear the copyright with county council, and investigate whether it can be included in either Oxford or Air pollution. My feeling now about merging is that it will be good for wikipedia to have a set of articles on air pollution by city i.e. managing air quality in Oxford is very different to London, Delhi, and any of the top 10 most polluted cities in the world 7 of which are all in China (recent UN report). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hnoble32 (talk • contribs)
    • This article was nominated for deletion by some administrators but other suggested with changes it would be useful. Can I have some comments on the document now as I have dealt to most of the recommendations. hza 11:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - I've noticed this article a few times while going through the dead end pages list, and it looks like something that could be useful when it's finished -- particularly given the claims that Oxford is the most polluted city in the UK -- but probably should be more of a summary than a detailed report. Mark Grant 13:05, 29 August 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, NMChico24
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) 08:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LUNETA

Google hits: Logical UNifier of Extensive Transfer Arrays and LUNETA; neither are promising. Seems like NN techcruft. (|-- UlTiMuS 05:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) 08:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Tridel

Fails WP:BIO. If he were "famous", he would get hits on Google. He gets none (per User:IceCreamAntisocial). -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 05:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

-- why does it matter if he has a google page or not? all i need to do to get on google is make a stupid webpage somewhere with my name all over it. i support this article because john tridel is a lyrical genius (he talks about the CHURCH AND STATE FOOLS) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.126.198.126 (talk • contribs) 04:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep listen to the song. he has credibility as this song was PLAYED on the 92.3 radio station. Furthermore, the radio talk host was begging for him to come on the show and sing live. This guy has talent and will be famous. PS: the guy two above that supported this article and called john tridel a "lyrical genius" please message me! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paukka12 (talk • contribs)
The song may be good, but that hardly addresses WP:BIO, which is the operative issue here. The fact that it was played on the radio doesn't necessarily help either, since that's not exactly hard to achieve. That said, there might be press coverage as a result of a live appearance if he makes one - and there's bound to be press coverage if/when he becomes famous. Currently he isn't and hasn't received any that anyone can find. If you want the article kept, I'd suggest that WP:BIO and/or WP:MUSIC be addressed in your comments. BigHaz 04:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sango123 02:02, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Birthday of WWE superstars

Fancruft; Do we really need a list like this? Would anyone ever use it? (|-- UlTiMuS 05:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 keep arguments are quite poor, and are provided by WP:SPU's for the most part. Xoloz 17:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ALF House

A punk house in, well, I guess somewhere near Langley. No notability asserted, unless the claim that it is haunted can be sourced. Prod was removed without comment. ~ trialsanderrors 05:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. No notability shown or implied. Fails WP:V, lacks credible documentation. I my usual researches, but Google turned up nothing except "alf house" is a pretty common phrase, turning up in reference to houses in Cape Cod, Georgia, and a country club somewhere. Oddly, I found nothing for Langley, but that's only part of the problem here. Tychocat 08:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - No, there's no specific notability standards for punk houses, but there's no evidence WP:NOT, WP:V and the usual tests don't apply. Saying "if" these other places deserve articles, then punk houses do, rather misses the point and only begs the question. If you can show notability per WP:NOT, please do so. Tychocat 08:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, a house with no explained notability where some people of no explained notability live. No reliable sources, unverifiable, article a mix of fact (perhaps) and gunk. Weregerbil 13:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "'Keep"', If you google "alf house", you get a trail of punk show advertisements dating back to 2002. There's also an article in this weeks Discorder magazine (put out by CITR radio) a small blurb about this house in the newbies guide to the city. Follow the address below to see it. There are new references on the bottom of the wiki article that are first and second hand information. I'm pretty sure the person who started the wiki article has never lived at the house. The original article was a quotation from a Discorder review of the New Music West Festival (same magazine as above). The show involved a well known band and a dumpster fire. This is a DIY venue in Vancouver Canada, primarily aimed at political and DIY punks. And it's Alf house, not ALF House. What are the 'noteriety' qualifications?

http://discorder.ca/2006/09/vancouver-alf-house-on-east-georgia/


  • keep,The alf house is actually located in east vancouver, not langley, and it is an important venue in the local DIY and punk rock scenes. It has a widespread reputation throughout the city, as well as Canada and the United States in general as a venue that has hosted hundreds of shows and many people consider it to be of importance. I suppose that my being a random internet entity does not make a strong case for the reliability of my testimonial, but as I have spent a great deal of time at this house, both as a venue and as a living space I can confirm the accuracy and relevance of the information provided. If you don't take me seriously as a primary source, than the above posted discorder article should suffice as documentation, as I would imagine no one would challenge the accuracy of information provided by a UBC publication. 16:11, 8 september 2006 Dust and cinder (UTC)

0

  • Again, please see WP:NOT and delete-noms above for how you need to establish notability, not by waving alphabet-groups at us. Disagreement on basic facts, like where the place is, does not bode well though. Tychocat 01:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Delete. Robdurbar 10:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Cheetah Girls 2 in spanish

This article is completely unnecessary in light of the article at The Cheetah Girls 2 that featured much of the information here prior to the creation of this article. I have added the information in this page to the main article; now all that needs to happen is for this one to go away. Erechtheus 05:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 & move. Sango123 02:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actors who have played multiple roles in the same film

As with many list articles, this article has both original research and neutral point of view issues. They are clearly present in this article due to the awkward explanation of Michael Keaton's character's inclusion from Multiplicity. Erechtheus 05:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --- Deville (Talk) 22:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sloppy Seconds

Rescued from speedy delete, but notability highly questionable. Yes they had four records, but Taang! Records appears to be a storefront operation, while Musical Tragedies/Toxic Shock has no Google presence at all. "[B]eing proud to be fat, drunk, and stupid" does not, even in these benighted times, guarantee stardom. I hope. If the closing admin determines that Western Civilization can survive without this article, note that their albums and EPs have articles too, and this is a multiple nomination including those articles also. Herostratus 06:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - undecided on this one as the group's name has another usage that makes Google pretty useless but in terms of the labels involved, Taang! released albums by The Lemonheads, Spacemen 3, The Mighty Mighty Bosstones and Mission Of Burma so to dismiss them as "a storefront operation" seems somewhat narrow. Musical Tragedies has a page at Discogs that shows them to have worked with a number of notable underground artists including Lee Ranaldo, The Damned (a live album) and The Hafler Trio[14] as well as seemingly licencing some o/p punk sides. However, this group is not listed at Discogs for either imprint. Ac@osr 10:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah. I did not know that about Taang! Records. Since the group had two records on Tanng!, it sounds like they may meet WP:MUSIC: "Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable)." I would note that we are not required to keep all groups that meet WP:MUSIC, rather we (more or less) required to delete all that don't, which is a different thing. However I don't remember ever seeing a group that did meet WP:MUSIC being deleted. Herostratus 15:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. Taang! Records is quite established as a major label and Sloppy Seconds are one of their notable acts, easily passing WP:MUSIC. wikipediatrix 16:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and read WP:OSTRICH sometime. PT (s-s-s-s) 18:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Uh, I moved this from from a Speedy delete. I don't usually move articles with a good-faith Speedy tag to no delete, out of respect for the original speedy nominator. Would you rather I had left the article alone where it would most likely have been deleted out of hand. Herostratus 02:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I also still think it likely that the article should be deleted, BTW. This is not an AfD on Taang! records. Just because they hooked onto a label that also picked up some later-famous bands in their scufflin' days doesn't necessarily mean a whole lot. Yes they meet the minimum requirement where we are not honor-bound to delete them, but that does not require that they be kept. As the article points out, they were drunk and stupid, and it appears the the subjects of their lyrics were stupifying banal. Absent more information from someone familiar with the band, it seems likely that they were utterly uninfluential and forgettable. Herostratus 02:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Just because you don't like this band doesn't mean they don't belong. They meet WP:MUSIC, and that should be enough. They've had releases on Nitro Records, Bobby Steele played with them for a Misfits cover, they've toured nationally... if being stupid were criteria for being deleted from Wikipedia, we'd be out a whole lot of articles. PT (s-s-s-s) 03:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment - I actually have a problem with the position regarding the relationship of artist to label on Wiki. Anyone signing to a major label seems to get in on that basis alone whereas indie artists have to work much harder. Anyone on their own label seems to get canned straight away. To my mind, this is totally the wrong way around - a label can only be as notable as its artists (FWIW, I disagree with the remarks of Herostratus regarding the bands noted here being in their "scufflin' days" and thus not relevent - getting there first repeatedly is of remark - see Fierce Panda for an object lesson). Saying an artist is notable because they signed to a notable label is completely wrong as is the notion that an artist that is not signed to a large label cannot be of note. Anyway, having looked at this one a bit more closely, they seem to be an established touring act so it's a keep from me but well worth it for the interesting issue raised regarding transferrable notability. Ac@osr 20:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not notable, so delete. FairHair 17:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 both. Sango123 02:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Linearstone Holding Corporation

nn company. Xi95 06:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Addition - I have added the owner of Linearstone, Glenn Herrin, to this AFD. The two articles have the same author (who has done no other edits). --Brianyoumans 07:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 article is unsourced, not well-written, and even the keep comments here are weak ones. This subject may be notable, but this article is of no help to anyone. Good subject for a history restore once a decent article is written, however. Xoloz 17:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kreynet

nn website Xi95 06:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --- Deville (Talk) 22:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duke Kita

Fails WP:V and doesn't prove notability. Considered this a redirect candidate; however, there are only 10Ghits including Wikipedia, and the link to the Japanese page is to the Ken Kitashiba article, not a "Duke Kita" article. The Ken Kitashiba article on the JA Wikipedia then links back to this article on the English site as proof that his nickname is Duke Kita. Dekimasu 06:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (aeropagitica) 23:27, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Jorion

Apparently non-notable academic who fails WP:PROF. I cannot find from independent sources any biography of him, or anything that suggest that the books he has authored are well-known or significant. Kimchi.sg 01:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Initially nominated for deletion on 19 August 2006. Relisted here for further consensus. Thanks.-- Samir धर्म 07:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete, no notability claimed, vanity, unverifiable. NawlinWiki 17:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriel TUllis

Totally unverifiable (see edit summary), and with only seven ghits, none of which are proper articles regarding him. David Mestel(Talk) 07:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 02:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HSDH Shri Mahant Swami Maharaj

Not a single statement in the article is sourced. The article is highly unencyclopedic .It is essentially just a propaganda piece and has the tone and suggestion of a leaflet disseminated by SMSM's followers. At best, there should be a complete rewrite. At worst, a complete deletion. Hkelkar 07:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) 23:25, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bricemanning

Neologism with extremely narrow scope (per User:Ultimus). -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 07:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) 23:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fiesta del Sol

There are other Fiesta del Sol's that may meet notability standards, but not this one, so the recommendation is delete or merge. The festival again this summmer did not go down, due to lack of corporate sponsorship, a google search of "fiesta del sol ontario" found little else except a cancellation notice. It has no apparent historical value or mention, either in the article, or that could be sourced, other than how long it has gone on. If historical value can be found, and it can be differentiated from the "Chicago" Fiesta del Sol, then will reconsider. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmaguir1 (talk • contribs) 2006-08-29 07:59:04

  • Delete, unable to find anything but tourism listings refering to it. If sources can be found, then I'll reconsider. -- Whpq 16:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. An already minor festival too minor to support itself after two seasons doesn't establish much in the ways of notability, especially given it has no historical or cultural significance.--Wafulz 20:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete as blatant self-admitted hoax. Why bother keeping a page with choice snippets like these (for the benefit of non-admins):

  • "This story... may not be true, it is hard to find out as records were destroyed, every thing that follows is based on rumours."
  • "The legend of Helsini is that if you say his full name he will come back form the dead and kill you and then return to hell when he has finished, many people have been found dead in history with you said it written on the walls with blood."

and last but not least,

  • "some people belive its a hoax... yes this story is based on rumours but, so is many other things from around that time, the bible might not be true, and lots of the stuff proberbly douse come from rumours but no one calls that a hoax."

Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 12:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Helsini Frank Matazzi

Suspected hoax, Google gives no hits on this name. The person seems to be made up by the creator. -- TexMurphy 08:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete and redirect to emoticon. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 12:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ò ó

Complete nonsense, was tagged for Speedy deletion, but tag was removed, therefore listing here. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 08:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Redirect. Interested editor may merge from history as warranted. Xoloz 17:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Disclosure Project NPC Conference

Poorly written, badly sourced tripe... absolutely no notably anywhere on the page--didn't see much of any sort anywhere, conferences are notoriously NOT notable, will change if evidence given on page... and by evidence, I do NOT mean a local news network running a segment, see talk page for notability questions —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kmaguir1 (talk • contribs) .

  • Merge to Disclosure Project - coverage is realy about that rather than the conference. -- Whpq 16:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Disclosure Project already has much more on the subject. Nothing to merge if we disregard the link farm. Weregerbil 14:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The conference is notable, since it was a first high-profile washington based apperance of the disclosure project. The BBC report [22] is a good source, that also testifies about notability. It is not just ANY press conference, it is a conference that is a huge event for the UFO comunity. I bumped on the conference video and imediately checked background on wikipedia, and to my surprise, the article that was there is being considered for deletion. Now, the fact that one can find information on wikipedia about it was great, and deleting it would mean that some people will be denied information about this event. Wiki is not a paper encyclopedia. In short, the conference is a notable event because it is important to the UFO community (btw, i am extremely skeptical to the UFO issue, just as most people, but the conference and the campagn is an event in itself). 137.205.132.170 10:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, further evidence of notability - this is CNN coverage [23]. So, the conference was newsworthy, by wiki criteria, it should be included! 137.205.132.170 10:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Punkmorten 22:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zomk

WP:NOT for things made up in school one day, as evidenced by the fact that none of the first page of ghits refers to it in this context. David Mestel(Talk) 08:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy Deleted. kingboyk 09:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kieren O'flynn Watson

nn, 0 ghits. David Mestel(Talk) 08:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy Deleted. Seems to be sockpuppets working together to create nonsense == vandalism. kingboyk 08:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evan Jonathan Wright

A hoax. No Google hits for "Evan Jonathan Wright", "“Muffenta", or "“Bisqueten". GregorB 08:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Sango123 01:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amateur Transplants, Fitness to Practice, London Underground (song)

A band, album and song. Questionable compliance with WP:MUSIC:

  • Released one album
  • No chart hits according to articles
  • No national or international tour
  • Vague assertions of notability, mostly around the unsourced claim of being an "internet fad"

Previous nomination - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amateur Transplants (no consensus). kingboyk 08:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep all - At the very least merge, but not delete. They have significantly penetrated the internet as their high ghits from disparate sources suggests (we're not talking forks or directories; we're talking individual sites with comments in context). They have featured in two Edinburgh Fringe shows with reviews on Chortle. "London Underground song" gets 301,000 ghits. The FtP article gets significant enough attention itself (see edit history) indicating that it is of significant interest. Actually, because of the amount of space the parody information takes, a merge might look a bit messy anyway. According to their blurb for their fringe show, they have independent comment from two "quality" papers: The Telegraph and The Sunday Times (this satisfies WP:MUSIC's criteria). A link to a mention in The Torygraph is here. The JPStalk to me 10:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. Band and song were highly notable as a fad in the United Kingdom last year, even before WP:MUSIC is considered. Any British teenager could sing this song back to you if you ask them. See JPS' sources for verification, if you need more there will be ample available. Jdcooper 10:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per JPS. Techieed 11:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all per JPS. MLA 11:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Punkmorten 22:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Methalol

Prod removed by author; I stand by my original claim that this is a NN, unverifiable neologism, unacceptable per WP:NEO. Delete (|-- UlTiMuS 08:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 12:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

L2extreme

advertisement/vanity & not notable; prod on 8th July was removed. Marasmusine 09:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete advertispamvanicruft. Contains "We own and operate a total of seven servers." and an interview, both of which are entirely unencyclopedic. I'd even go as far as saying that server networks are about as notable as screen names (not notable that is). - Mgm|(talk) 11:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 article doesn't distinguish it from any other lab in a university. If it really "does in fact have a creditable history", someone can rewrite the article and tell it. - Bobet 13:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Lab

Contested prod. A university research group with no notability of its own. Nuttah68 09:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete this doesn't assert any importance. They appear to have some publications and patents... if the article could be rewritten to assert importance, I'd probably change my "vote". --W.marsh 14:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to beg the differ. This is indeed a UC Berkeley lab. And this lab does in fact have a creditable history, and is worthy of a wiki-page.

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

The result was keep. - Bobet 15:49, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AMD K10

  • Delete or Redirect
    Non-existent product or future projects solely based on media discussions. --AMD64 09:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep (or merge/redirect as appropriate). That it got media coverage from prominent sources makes it worthy of inclusion, even if it's a cancelled project (and the article is written to reflect this). --W.marsh 14:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it meets WP:CORP for a product with press articles about it. The fact that it may be a cancelled product is irrelevant. For example The Phantom (game system) does not exist (and won't ever exist), but has tons of press articles. -- Whpq
  • Delete or Redirect
    The article ia full of speculation and not backed by facts. Adding a sentence or two to the K8 article and redirecting there should suffice -- 62.178.136.129
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result wasspeedy deleted as a copyvio and (even with permission) pretty much contextless etc. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 12:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Systematic approach

There are two problems here:

  1. Possible copyvio, though author claims permission. This can be overcome, but why, when.....
  2. This reads like an essay, is contextless, and totally unencyclopedic. (|-- UlTiMuS 09:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed, it's been speedied three times in a row. I'd like to get this thing over with once and for all, though, since the author has qualms with the CV deletions. (|-- UlTiMuS 09:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Please defer merge discussions to the article talk page. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Computing Olympiad

nn group. Ghoe 09:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy Delete. --- GIen 10:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Inc.

nn companies. and Japanese WIkipedia article as delete. see ja:Wikipedia:削除依頼/ウィキペディア_(会社) Ghoe 10:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Punkmorten 22:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tarahaat.com

nn website. Ghoe 10:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete all three. --- Deville (Talk) 22:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Mekhraliev

I am nominating this article and the related articles on Dominic Joutsen and Alexey Zimakov. All three are creations of User:Joutsen (note that the name indicates possible vanity. The three articles are ridiculously promotional in tone. Moreover, the content seems pretty much unverifiable, although one would have to conduct a russian-search in cyrillic to be sure. I believe that all three fail WP:BIO. The total number of unique Ghits for "alexey Zimakov" for instance is 9 [24]. Only two of these are not wikipedia mirrors. You find another 11 for the spelling "alexei Zimakov". Joutsen gets 23 unique Ghits [25] and it seems all are either listings or mp3 download sites where anyone can upload. 10 uniques hits for "Edward Mekhraliev" [26] one of which explaining that he is currently Joutsen's boss! Pascal.Tesson 10:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was train wreck. As has been expressed by many, many people here, nothing good is going to come from this nomination. This closure is not a judgement for or against any one article, please re-list seperately where appropriate. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 19:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Caridee English

Reality TV show cruft, not notable outside TV show. MER-C 10:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominated for the same reason are:

  1. Nnenna Agba
  2. Sara Albert
  3. Catie Anderson
  4. Ashley Black
  5. Heather Blumberg
  6. Nicole Borud
  7. Anna Bradfield
  8. Furonda Brasfield
  9. Brittany Brower
  10. Tessa Carlson
  11. Jenascia Chakos
  12. Katie Cleary
  13. Adrianne Curry
  14. Lisa D'Amato
  15. Yaya Da Costa
  16. Sarah Dankleman
  17. Tatiana Dante
  18. Leah Darrow
  19. Michelle Deighton
  20. Joanie Dodds
  21. Rebecca Epley
  22. Danielle Evans
  23. Xiomara Frans
  24. Jennipher Frost
  25. Lluvy Gomez
  26. Cassie Grisham
  27. Kristi Grommet
  28. Ebony Haith
  29. Bethany Harrison
  30. Diane Hernández
  31. Keenyah Hill
  32. Yoanna House
  33. Kathy Hoxit
  34. Kelle Jacob
  35. Toccara Jones
  36. Anchal Joseph
  37. Kyle Kavanaugh
  38. Nicole Linkletter
  39. Leslie Mancia
  40. Robbyne Manning
  41. Ann Markley
  42. Camille McDonald
  43. Naima Mora
  44. Christina Murphy
  45. Nik Pace
  46. Nicole Panattoni
  47. Brita Petersons
  48. Eva Pigford
  49. Sara Racey-Tabrizi
  50. Sarah Rhoades (ANTM)
  51. Tiffany Richardson
  52. Magdalena Rivas
  53. Kahlen Rondot
  54. Jayla Rubinelli
  55. Brandy Rusher
  56. Giselle Samson
  57. Mercedes Scelba-Shorte
  58. Kari Schmidt
  59. Bre Scullark
  60. Elyse Sewell
  61. Noelle Staggers
  62. Brooke Staricha
  63. Mollie Sue Steenis-Gondi
  64. Shannon Niquette Stewart
  65. Kim Stolz
  66. Shandi Sullivan
  67. Amanda Swafford
  68. Ebony Taylor
  69. Julie Titus
  70. Norelle Van Herk
  71. Kesse Wallace
  72. Cassandra Whitehead
  73. April Wilkner
  74. Wendy Wiltz
  75. Coryn Woitel
  76. Jaeda Young

It is noted in previous AFDs that reality TV contestants generally aren't notable unless they come close to winning the show. Many of these do not assert notability under WP:BIO.MER-C 11:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep per nom, which appears to indicate that they are notable in the TV show. That should be sufficient. See, for example, Erika Hernandez, certainly not notable outside the TV show. And reality TV has its adherents, who may be looking for this information. -- JHunterJ 11:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per JHunterJ. A lot of perfectly good work would be deleted. Budgiekiller 11:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete those who can only be written up as "X is a contestant in the Y series of the show", keep those who have achieved more fame than that. A randomly-selected sample of the articles bundled here seems to show that there are some of both (run-of-the-mill contestants and winners), so a blanket delete does not apply here per the precedent cited in the nomination. BigHaz 11:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Too many articles to make a all-encompassing decision. I would suggest merging and redirecting notable contestants to the show pages, then renominate the ones that are not notable inside the show either. - Mgm|(talk) 11:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment most of them aren't remotely notable, having appeared briefly on a reality TV show isn't notability.Otherwise you would have a page for every reality TV show contestant there has ever been in the whole world. Maybe that's your idea of encylopaedic, but it sure aint mine.--RMHED 15:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The ones who have only appeared briefly on a reality TV show could be nominated for deletion separately or as a (smaller) group, but the list presented here is too broad. -- JHunterJ 15:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep allI worked hard on all those pages. I don't want to see all my hard work go to waste. Lil Flip246 15:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment not exactly a compelling argument. I suggest oyu ellaborate on the reason that made you believe theses articles were worth of your precious work. Best regards, --Abu Badali 15:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • CommentThese are worth keeping because first of all I spent so much of my time working hard on them. It would be a waste to see them all go. Second of all the majority of these girls have found modeling/acting careers post show. For example Elyse Sewell has done more modeling than all the winners combined. She is signed with multiple agencies, and is a top model in China. Also these pages are not yet complete. There is alot of available info in their MySpaces. Lil Flip246 15:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. WP:BIO, WP:NOT. Notability not established for these people, outside of what brief mention they may deserve on the competitions/game shows/reality shows they were on. wikipediatrix 16:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep some I concur with BigHaz. -- Whpq 16:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Which ones to keep? I've clicked each one and can't see it for any of them, even the ones that went on to do minor modeling or minor bit parts on soaps. wikipediatrix 16:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For starters, the ones who actually won their respective shows would seem notable (winners of any other reality show seem notable as well, so that solves that quandary). Those who made it to the final episode or however this show works are probably notable for almost winning (that seems to be what the precedent is, but don't quote me off-hand). Those who went on to bigger and better things despite not coming close to winning are probably notable because of what they went on to do. An argument could be made that anyone kicked off or involved in a controversial incident on the show is notable, but I'm not sure if that stands up or applies here. BigHaz 22:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Having a modeling or acting career does not guarantee notability. Actresses are often deleted here who have even done several feature films. Read WP:BIO. wikipediatrix
  • Keep This mass list is a bit deceptive: Adrianne Curry won ANTM, was on the Surreal Life had another reality show on VH-1, is married to Christopher Knight, appeared in Playboy etc. Love or hate reality TV, she's notable. Nicole Linkletter also won ANTM. Why the rush lately to delete reality show character articles (see the Project Runway Afd's from yesterday)? If it's really important to you that these articles do not exist on Wikipedia, then we need to do the work and take each one at a time. If it's too much work to consider each article on its merits, then I don't believe deletion should be an option. Dina 16:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Being married to Christopher Knight or appearing in Playboy does not guarantee notability. There's no set-in-stone policy yet about winners of such shows as ANTM, but I feel that these type of reality shows are essentially no different than game shows - they're televised competitions between unknown people - as opposed to celebrity-driven reality shows like The Osbournes or Gene Simmons Family Jewels. wikipediatrix 16:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Unless it's someone like Ken Jennings, people don't get wrapped up in the performances of particular game show contestants like they do with those on reality shows. Does anybody watch Wheel of Fortune and root for one of the contestants each night? I watch both game and reality shows frequently...I couldn't tell you who won on Wheel or Jeopardy last night, but I could tell you who got voted off American Idol or fired on The Apprentice last year. With reality shows, you get to know the contestants, their bio info, and their idiosyncracies. That just doesn't happen with most game shows, and that's what makes them more notable. (For the record, I've never seen a single episode of ANTM.) Kirjtc2 16:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well my point is just that in at least these two cases, the nom's stated criteria It is noted in previous AFDs that reality TV contestants generally aren't notable unless they come close to winning the show. Many of these do not assert notability under WP:BIO are not met. A mass deletion is simply not in order here. I don't exactly agree that the competitors on reality shows are no different than game shows -- game show contestants generally appear for only one episide, very little biographical information about them is offered, and game shows in general have a much smaller fan base than shows like ANTM Dina 16:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But those with modeling careers are notable. For example the likes of Ann Markley and Rebecca Epley. It's just dissapointing that some people want to delete this. We've worked so hard on these pages, and many of them are improving. If you want to delete some then ONLY delete those without modeling/acting careers like Heather Blumberg and Tatiana Dante. Lil Flip246 16:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All reality cruft. And all the images added today are unsourced. Grrr. The JPStalk to me 16:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Some of these girls have had some success outside/after the show, and I think people would want to know that. For me, Wikipedia is where I get a lot of info. on these girls and what they're up to, and I presume some others also use it for that same purpose. Mayukhers112 17:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extreme very weak keep. For most of the nominated articles I checked, I would say delete. Reality TV is just another form of game show, and we don't have an article on every contestant who was on The Price Is Right. That said, the sheer volume of nominated articles is too large and I am not about to say "delete" on a blanket nomination like this without checking all the articles, which I do not intend to do. Agent 86 17:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's because the Price is Right is a game show not reality show. Every episode of The Price is Right, there are new contestants. But on reality shows like ANTM, there is a main cast for each season. Lil Flip246 17:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Point out which ones you think are notable enough and perhaps MER-C will withdraw their nominations from the bundle. wikipediatrix 19:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have the time for such a mass project just now, but I've skimmed the list that Dina has posted below, and she has Keep beside a number of the names that I feel should be kept. Doc ♬ talk 20:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Along the lines of Agent 86's comments above, that's a lot of work for the readership. Better to use a little more selectivity in the nomination in the first place. -- JHunterJ 20:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What kind of reason is that? Wouldn't it be easier to Keep any that have some claim to notability? Or should all articles in Wikipedia be deleted, since the notable ones can always be recreated? -- JHunterJ 19:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nearly all are clearly non-notable, but mass nominations like this, although well-intentioned, just don't work - there's no satisfactory way to agree on and keep just the notable ones. Dlyons493 Talk
40 out of 77 are flagged Keep below, thanks to Dina's hard work. Not "nearly all", or not "clearly". -- JHunterJ 20:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative to a mass delete

  • Criteria I used for compiling the following list include:
  • the nom's own reality TV contestants generally aren't notable unless they come close to winning the show.
  • "Delete the stubs and redirect, keep the rest" from Soo
  • My own feeling that with a current modeling career (usually determined by whether or not they have been signed) this information is verifiable and therefore not running afoul of any wikipedia policy.
  • I erred on the side of inclusion. (signified by Weak Keep where the credits seem slim, but I don't feel like I know enough about modeling to judge.) I didn't google anybody, just used info from the articles.
  • Lastly, anyone who thinks this is all realityfancruft probably won't find the following useful, but in the interest of building a consensus, this is what I've got Dina 19:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC):[reply]
  1. Caridee English Delete
  2. Nnenna Agba Weak Keep not much of a career, but linked from Igbo people article.
  3. Sara Albert Delete
  4. Catie Anderson Keep runway model, TV credit
  5. Ashley Black Delete
  6. Heather Blumberg Delete
  7. Nicole Borud Delete
  8. Anna Bradfield Delete
  9. Furonda Brasfield Delete
  10. Brittany Brower Keep signed, TV appearances
  11. Tessa Carlson Delete
  12. Jenascia Chakos Delete
  13. Katie Cleary Keep modeled in Maxim is Deal or no deal model
  14. Adrianne Curry Strong Keep (winner season 1, tv appearances, etc.)
  15. Lisa D'Amato Weak Delete gah, I dunno
  16. Yaya Da Costa Keep signed, working on films
  17. Sarah Dankleman Weak keep modeled for Stuff
  18. Tatiana Dante Delete
  19. Leah Darrow Delete
  20. Michelle Deighton Keep Janice Dickinson Modeling Agency
  21. Joanie Dodds Keep placed second season 6
  22. Rebecca Epley Keep signed, working
  23. Danielle Evans Strong Keep Winner season 6
  24. Xiomara Frans Keep Hugo Boss model
  25. Jennipher Frost Delete
  26. Lluvy Gomez Delete
  27. Cassie Grisham Delete
  28. Kristi Grommet Delete
  29. Ebony Haith Keep signed model
  30. Bethany Harrison Delete
  31. Diane Hernández Keep signed working model. A rare plus sized model on ANTM
  32. Keenyah Hill Keep working model
  33. Yoanna House Keep tv host The Look for Less
  34. Kathy Hoxit Delete
  35. Kelle JacobDelete
  36. Toccara Jones Keep signed & Celebrity Fit Club
  37. Anchal JosephDelete
  38. Kyle Kavanaugh Weak Keep
  39. Nicole Linkletter Strong Keep winnner season 5
  40. Leslie Mancia Weak Keep
  41. Robbyne Manning Keep former Miss Tennesee, TV credits
  42. Ann Markley Keep signed, working
  43. Camille McDonald Delete
  44. Naima Mora Keep Winner season 4
  45. Christina Murphy Keep signed working model
  46. Nik Pace Keep came in second season 5, signed, working
  47. Nicole Panattoni Delete
  48. Brita Petersons Keep signed
  49. Eva Pigford Strong Keep winner season 3
  50. Sara Racey-Tabrizi Keep signed, working
  51. Sarah Rhoades (ANTM) Delete
  52. Tiffany Richardson Delete
  53. Magdalena Rivas Delete
  54. Kahlen Rondot Keep runner up season 4
  55. Jayla Rubinelli Delete
  56. Brandy Rusher Delete
  57. Giselle Samson Delete
  58. Mercedes Scelba-Shorte Keep runner up season 2
  59. Kari SchmidtDelete
  60. Bre Scullark Delete
  61. Elyse SewellKeep apparently has written a book. Who knew?
  62. Noelle Staggers Delete
  63. Brooke Staricha Delete
  64. Mollie Sue Steenis-Gondi Keep signed Elite
  65. Shannon Niquette Stewart Keep Miss Ohio runner up, Ford Models
  66. Kim Stolz Keep mtvU vj
  67. Shandi Sullivan Keep she’s a burglar!
  68. Amanda Swafford Weak Keep
  69. Ebony Taylor Keep signed, working, in movies
  70. Julie Titus Delete
  71. Norelle Van Herk Delete
  72. Kesse Wallace Weak Keep
  73. Cassandra Whitehead Delete
  74. April Wilkner Keep working, hosts something
  75. Wendy Wiltz Weak Keep
  76. Coryn Woitel Delete
  77. Jaeda Young Delete
Elyse Sewell's book is only available in Hong Kong. Being a "signed model or a working model", as you indicated for Ebony Haith and Christina Murphy, still doesn't make someone notable enough for an article and besides, the info on their articles is completely unsourced. The talk show you justify April Wilkner with isn't a real show, it's a spacefiller-type-thing that only lasts a few minutes (IMDB calls it a "mini" show) and only gets 25 hits on Google. And Robbyne Manning was NOT a former Miss Tennessee. Look it up. Most of the other "keep" votes are based on things that don't fit WP:BIO, like allegedly having modeled for notable (and often not so notable) agencies. And connections to notable agencies do not automatically confer notability. wikipediatrix 20:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My attempt here is merely to simplify a deletion proposal that's incredibly complicated because it proposes 77 (!) articles for deletion. All of my suggestions above are up for discussion. Wasn't it easier for you to check now that I've marked some Delete and you could just skip over them? As I mentioned, I didn't google anyone, but merely tried to sort the stubs from the articles with some content and provide a brief summary of why I think they should be kept, in the interests of inclusion and building a consensus here (which will require compromise for everyone as my first impulse was to keep them all and I've now marked roughly half Delete). It's a tool for the discussion, not the final word on these women's notability. And I realize there's been some unfortunate reversions on the affected pages recently that would get anyone's ire up. And I'm sorry if I somehow misread Robbyne Manning -- I'll have to go doublecheck where I got that she was a Miss Tennesee. But verifying all the credentials for all 77 women is a task I'll have to share with other editors. Dina
The user wikipediatrix has removed alot of information from all the pages above. I feel that he/she wanted to convince people that these pages are needed for deletion by making them stubs. Lil Flip246 21:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
These articles are filled with original research, unsourced gossip about living persons, outright copyright violations, and unsourced images that are scheduled to be yanked off Wikipedia in a few days anyway. You have already violated the WP:3RR rule and if you persist in your edit-warring to restore unsourced info and copyright violations, I will have to file a complaint. Captainktainer and I both have been very patient explaining how WP:RS and WP:V work, but you choose to ignore it. wikipediatrix 21:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Should be kept. We've worked so hard! Acne Wash
Almost all of the ANTM contestants have found success after the show. We only need to delete those who didn't get signed with an agency or didn't start a career in the entertainment industry. Lil Flip246 21:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We should ONLY delete those without modeling/acting/other entertainment careers after the show like Tessa Carlson, Ashley Black, Kristi Grommet, and Sarah Rhoades. Those with careers like Ann Markley, Sara Albert, Mercedes Scelba-Shorte, and Sara Racey-Tabrizi should NOT be deleted. Lil Flip246 21:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've been sourcing alot of the pages. But it's hard cause most of the are from the models' MySpace. They always update their work on their MySpace, but since we can't use myspace as a source. You get it. Lil Flip246 21:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As I've mentioned. It is hard make sources when most of the sources are the model's myspace, where they post their career updates. But we cant use Myspace as a source. This is frustrating. Lil Flip246 22:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the sources are the model's MySpace. But we can't use MySpace as a source. Do you understand what I'm trying to say. For example, the Ann Markley page, the majority of the info is from her MySpace. Also ALL these info is available in the hundreds of ANTM fansites. Why don't you trust the ANTM fans? Lil Flip246 22:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are lots of things that frustrate me with your changes. You ask to cite the obvious. For example you ask to cite about the winner's prize. I just feel that it's retarted that you want every sentence to be cited. There are hundreds of people pages here at wikipedia without sources. Lil Flip246 22:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What article are you referring to? I don't think I asked for the fact that someone won to be cited. wikipediatrix 23:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well someone did on the Eva Pigford page. They asked to cite the prizes for ANTM. Lil Flip246 23:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Concerning the source thing again. For example a page like Ebony Taylor's. It is filled with info on the modeling she has done since the show. Yet you ask to source it. The problem is that the majority of the information was taken from MySpace, BUT we can't use it as a source. So what are we supposed to do?? The majority of the ANTM contestants info is taken from their MySpace accounts. But as we know we can't use it as a source. Lil Flip246 23:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder why this career information can only be found on their MySpace accounts and nowhere else, could it be because they are non-notable?--RMHED 23:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sheesh. Lil Flip246: This AfD space is not really the right space for your edit dicussions with wikipediatrix. I'm going to post to your talk page my understanding of why Myspace pages don't work well as sources. wikipediatrix and RMHED: This discussion has value, despite the flaws of the articles and their editorial processes. There are no guidelines for articles about reality TV stars, the issue isn't going anywhere, and "non-notability" is not a criteria for deletion. WP:DP Let's all be civil here and discuss the issue that's presented -- it's a knotty enough problem and we could use your best reasoning. Dina 23:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can't speak for RMHED, but I generally think when we say a person is NN, we really mean they fail WP:BIO. (And WP:CORP if it's a company, and so on, etc.) And I do think the fact that proper sources for many of these articles can't be found outside of their own MySpace pages speaks volumes. wikipediatrix 00:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's still disputable whether or not WP:BIO applies to reality TV characters -- they are real people, but their notability largely depends on their role as characters in a television show. I think a more general guideline, like Wikipedia:Importance might apply here. And when I say that non-notability isn't a criteria for deletion, I'm including WP:BIO. There are three official criteria for deletion and notability is not involved, though verifiability is, which does, in fact, render some of these articles deletable in my opinion. Though not all. Dina 01:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well... I suppose wikipediatrix is right about the link between MySpace sources and non-notability. If we can't find non-MySpace sources for info on the girls, they most likely fall into the NN category. I can find a wealth of information on the winners and several of the girls without going to MySpace, though. Elcda0 01:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For me a reality TV contestant would need to have gone on to much bigger and better things in order to be notable. A few UK examples would be Ben Fogle, Brian Dowling Saira Khan or gained national notoriety like Jade Goody. Most, if not all the models listed, can't lay claim to this --RMHED 00:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a few points -
Adrianne Curry, even if you ignore the fact that she was the first winner of ANTM, has starred in in a season of VH1's The Surreal Life, and had her own VH1 show, My Fair Brady, for two seasons. Everyone else that appeared on that season of The Surreal Life has their own Wikipedia article. She has over 500,000 Google hits. A mere mention on ANTM or the page for Cycle 1 is simply not enough for visitors to Wikipedia wanting information about her.
Elyse Sewell, despite becoming popular for her time on ANTM's first season, has had significant success in modeling after the show. She appeared on the cover of Harper's Bazaar, which recently featured a naked Britney Spears. She has a popular livejournal blog, which according to the statistics on this site, is the 11th most popular blog on Livejournal. "Elyse Sewell" gets almost 90,000 Ghits.

I would suggest keep on at least those two. I admit some of the articles are a bit excessive, though. Fabricationary 04:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete selective list per Dina. Reality contestants are not inherently notable but may be if they have other achievements outside the narrow confines of the show. Although some might succeed in a few years and warrant an independent page, most of these girls will disappear and be forgotten in a few years. Anybody's hard work, where the subject does not satisfy wiki-criteria for inclusion should be deleted. Ohconfucius 04:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Ohconfucius Mad Jack 06:35, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all for now but without prejudice to later re-nomination for deletion. The nominator stated that "reality TV contestants generally aren't notable unless they come close to winning the show", yet most of the contestants were nominated for deletion even if they did win the show or clearly achieved notability from post-show activities (both were the case with Adrianne Curry). I could support deletion in some cases but it would be better to review the less notable contestants individually and keep the more notable contestants out of AfD consideration. As a second choice, keep the ones recommended by Dina for keeping and delete the ones she recomended for deleting. --Metropolitan90 06:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all per above comments. I don't see how these kind of mass nominations help achieve consensus in any way, each person has their own individual reasons for notability. This is just one big Charlie Foxtrot. RFerreira 07:00, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all, I don't like mass nominations like this, and a large majority of these articles are well worthy of being kept. bbx 07:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you should state which ones are "well worthy", and state why you think so... wikipediatrix 13:35, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the overall winner(s), plus any contestants who have other claims to independent notability. As for the others, I think it's reasonable to keep an article on each one if (1) the show is actively on the air, and (2) the individual contestant is getting regular press from it in the entertainment news. Those two factors give them a reasonable claim (IMHO) for at least temporary notability. Then, after the season finishes, take another look at the article. If the contestant's notability disappeared with the end of the season, merge their article back into the main show article, set up their name as a redirect to the show article, and life goes on. --Elonka 07:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Adrianne Curry, I'll admit right now that I don't know who most of these people are and probably don't care since I don't watch television. (yes, I have one, but I just watch rented movies) I'm also not about to go through a list of 76 people. But Adrianne Curry is a definite keep. Her appearances outside of the show make her noteworthy enough. Dismas|(talk) 13:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Many of the "keep" votes seem to be made on the basis of one or two entries on the list. That is not a valid reason to vote "keep" on the entire list. Be specific about which should be kept and which should be deleted, so the nominator can choose to withdraw some of the nominations before the AfD ends. Furthermore, some are voting keep simply because they don't like the length of the list of nominations - that's hardly AfD criteria. If you don't want to slog through the long list, I can't say as I blame you, but don't just blindly vote "Keep all" if you haven't actually read all the articles. People would be complaining even more if the nominator had actually filed 76 separate AfDs. wikipediatrix 13:35, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete most per Dina's list above. Those she found rationale to keep, even weakly, should be kept or get individual discussions, the rest should just go. GRBerry 13:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We should keep those with careers after the show such as Ann Markley, Sara Albert, Kim Stolz, Leslie Mancia, Sara Racey-Tabrizi, Amanda Swafford, YaYa DaCosta, Brittany Brower, Michelle Deighton, Nnenna, etc..But we should delete those who did not have careers in fashion/entertainment after the show such as Anna Bradfield, Nicole Borud, Jenascia Chakos, Tatiana Dante, Sarah Dankleman, Leah Darrow, etc. Lil Flip246 14:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Having "careers" does not establish notability per WP:BIO. Most people have "careers" but most people do not get Wikipedia articles. wikipediatrix 15:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but these girls with careers in fashion/entertainment are working their way to the top. For example, Sara is one 2 other models on the show to be signed with more than one agency. Also another example, Kim is the only ANTM model to grace the cover and pages of WWD..She is also the first to become a VJ...Another example, Ann Markley..She was the first to model for top fashion designers in NY fashion week. Eva and YaYa did only for one.. There are so many reasons to keep them. Lil Flip246 15:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, wikipediatrix can you please answer the questions on my talk page? Thanks. Lil Flip246 15:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete most per Dina's list and per LilFlip246 above (let's wait until they've worked their way to the top). I suggest the remained be renominated individually or in smaller groups as few, if any, appear to meet the standards set out in WP:BIO. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree completely with JHunterJ. CarlosTheDwarf 02:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment when looking at these articles I suggest you check the histories and look at versions of them prior to any edits by User: Wikipediatrix to get a better idea of their career and notability. This user has been deleting whole chunks of these articles based on their lack of cited sources (including information clearly obvious from the broadcasts and common knowledge), despite it being suggested that the best course of action is slapping "sources" and "fact" templates on them. Efforts are being made my myself and others to restore relevant deleted content and to source this, but it will obviously take time (and may be pointless if many of the articles are deleted). -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 02:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipediatrix is doing the right thing, actually. Sources should always be given for information, especially when it's about living persons. A lot of this stuff looks like the resumes of these models are being padded, and few people care enough to bother checking. Crabapplecove 13:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not exactly. Instead of asking for citation wikipediatrix just removes the information without giving anytime for people to give a source. Most of these that are in modeling career are taken from the shows' specials on what the models are doing now. Lil Flip246 15:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think the person who decided to ruin all the articles should be punished. What a petty thing to do just because you don't agree that these articles should be here. Unless you are the owner of Wikipedia you do not have any business messing up stuff people have worked on without at least asking for input first.
    • Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policies, such as WP:AFD and WP:BIO, before making such judgements. Nothing has been "messed up". The articles have simply not lived up to the guidelines of Wikipedia in the eyes of the editor that put the notices there. Dismas|(talk) 04:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's because the articles are not yet complete. Give it some time instead of removing valuable TRUE information. Wikipediatrix isn't giving us ANTM fans a chance. I've put proper links which state what is written on the model's page, yet wikipediatrx removes them, because he/she wants to make all of them stubs, and eventually deleted. Lil Flip246 15:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete almost all, except Adrianne Curry and Elyse Sewell. Crabapplecove 13:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all, Some of these models are very notable. This should not have been a mass nomination. --musicpvm 18:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. Mass nominations are not good practice, imo. Also, all of these people seem to be notable and the articles seem verifiable (though some are somewhat lacking in sources). --Myles Long 19:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seems pretty clear that this is going to roll on and on and end up No consensus. Listing fifty-odd articles all with their own merits (or lack of) is most definitely not the right approach. We need an admin to close this pretty quickly and then, if needed, we can relist individual articles. Budgiekiller 19:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 02:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rochester Hills Christian School

Short entry on a completely unremarkable K12 school, one of the apparently 105,000 K12 schools in the USA alone[27]. Having an article for each and every one of them would make Wikipedia truly an indiscriminate collection of information. Fram 11:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete school articles with no assertion of importance. Glancing at a Google search, [28] I'm not even sure such an assertion is possible here. --W.marsh 14:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per W.marsh -Shazbot85Talk 16:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Marsh. JoshuaZ 16:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC) Now redirect per Silensor's actions since GFDL forces the matter. JoshuaZ 22:00, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn.-Kmaguir1 21:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn —Khoikhoi 02:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per W.marsh, no assertion of (verifiable) importance. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 06:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No assertion of notability in the article, no evidence of notability in the google results W.marsh linked to above. GRBerry 14:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the reasons established at User:Silensor/Schools. This is yet another example of something that should have been resolved by placing the {{cleanup-school}} tag on the talk page. I am now in the process of rewriting and expanding this article, and invite anyone interested to lend me a hand. Silensor 19:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply: I see nothing in your essay that would make me reconsider deleting this article, and your rewrite has, for the moment, no compelling reason to do so either. Arguments about other articles that merit inclusion even less are not valid in this AfD. Basically, either you think that every school is notable per se, and thus should be kept (your position), or you consider each school on its own merits (my position), since there are many, many, many schools worldwide, and most of them would have extremely similar and highly non informative articles which don't convey any important information. One difference between schools and vilages is that for every person, the first info given is his date of birth and death, and the place of birth and death. Schools, certainly before the age of 18 or thereabouts, are very rarely given. This indicates, in my view, that most people don't consider what school someone went to as that important, and that they are from a historic, encyclopedic point of view not much more important than a post office, a bakery or a playground. Unless a school has some truly distinguishing feature, a remarkable history, or some other characteristic that makes it noteworthy or important, it should be deleted or merged to the article about the ___location it serves. Fram 19:54, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per W.marsh. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn school; and Dank U wel Fram for a well-reasoned response. Carlossuarez46 23:00, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, provides no claim to notability. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 02:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing special about this school. Going with BEEFSTEW too. Recent developments reguarding OTRS, that school articles are by far the most frequent sources of libelous content. The unmaintainablity and indescriminant collection of information across many articles that some of these super-stub school articles contain are dangerous. Kevin_b_er 06:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It would be really great if you could substantiate that somehow. The bulk of vandalism that I see is done to professional wrestlers, then politicians, and then some of the more interesting sex acts we document, not schools. We should probably semi-protect the entire Wikipedia if we're worried about libelous content. With any luck, the German solution underway will obviate these sort of problems completely. Silensor 08:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Someone from OTRS here talks about a rather large amount of complaints about libelous content is comming from school articles. With other reasoning, including this one, many of these types of articles should be merged into more managable mini-list, esspecially for schools which we can't come up with very many facts, they could be better watched on small lists. Kevin_b_er 15:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Having read that discussion, I didn't see anything which provided metrics, but I naturally I would agree that anything which is potentially-libellous and unsourced in *any* article should be removed without question. As for the article at hand, which has a very clean record, I have merged the contents into the Rochester Hills, Michigan page as suggested above until more information can be provided to expand from. The closing administrator may want to take note of this in order to maintain compliance with GFDL version 1.2 licensing. Silensor 18:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Silensor. GFDL compliance is a necessity. --Myles Long 19:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well we do need to preserve article histories if text from one article is merged to another... but I don't think that was intended as a last-ditch effort to thwart deletion. --W.marsh 03:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep (and copyedit). Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SpongeBob SquarePants controversy

Ooooh, controversy surrounding SpongeBob SquarePants! Has he been seeing some comely mermaid wench on the side? Does the show carry Satanic messages? Er, no. Actually this is more or less made up, as is evident from the unreliability ofthe sources. Only one item is properly sourced (if you allow Snopes as a reliable source), and there is more then enough room for that short sentence in the main article. Seriously, there is no significant controversy surrounding the rectangular yellow one. Just zis Guy you know? 11:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As silly as it sounds, I remember the satanic and other stuff being a big deal a while back - it was on basically every news program over and over. Not sure how much that related to the actual article, and it does need cleanup... RN 11:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. Yes, it made headlines here too. I suggest we try an {{afd-cleanup}} first, perhaps send it to the Cleanup Task Force. Just because the claims of satanism are nonsense, doesn't mean we can throw out those claims or sources reporting them as unreliable. All we need is someone sourcing the article. - Mgm|(talk) 11:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm afraid the entire thing gets an O RLY? from me. Is this "controversy" important or notable? Or large and diverse enough to justify a fork? I'd say a single para in the main article was enough. Just zis Guy you know? 11:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, the controversy itself was (unfortunately) quite widespread. Part of the problem with this is that even while it was going on I didn't really understand it much at all - it was really quite odd from what I remember. To give you an idea of how widespread it was, just the satanism stuff itself was mentioned weekly for almost an entire year on shows like Countdown with Keith Olbermann as well as numerous mentions on other shows such as The O'Reilly Factor. RN 12:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. I definitely remember this being in the news. But this clearly needs some cleanup and verification. Heimstern Läufer 18:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and summerize - SpongeBob is NOT gay. This should be summerized on the SpongeBob SquarePants page. It should be short, and with a conclusion. The conclusion is that he is NOT gay. Perhaps we shall just go with what the CREATOR says, after all, Hillenburg DID create him. Wouldn't he know about SpongeBob's "sexual status?" This article doesn't need its own page. Summerize this article on the SpongeBob SquarePants page, which should be Summerize this article on the SpongeBob SquarePants page, which a short section. -AMK152 20:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup or Merge Snopes is a reliable source. --Kalmia 20:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. Most of this article isn't about controversy that's real, it's about the innuendo and dirty jokes that WE, the viewers, see. The article even mentions that Hillenburg says SpongeBob isn't gay. That's all I need. Besides, we all know that he isn't. I have nothing against SpongeBob but we know that this show has had its fair share of controversy throughout its run. And for all those people who are obsessed with proving that "SpongeBob isn't gay": THESE ARE ONLY OBSERVATIONS THAT VIEWERS MAKE, NOT FACTUAL STATEMENTS. He's a cartoon character for Christ's sake, he can't be gay. Anyway, the article definatley needs cleanup though... - Doodoobutter 00:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup, the article is a mess now, but I'm sure the topic needs an article. bbx 08:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Punkmorten 22:39, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Locke and Demosthenes

Allow me some explanation, as this page does not convey it very well. The article is an essay comparing and contrasting Locke and Demosthenes in comparison to Peter and Valentine Wiggen, two characters in the novel Ender's Game. They took the two respective names as pseudonyms to write politics. Its all nice and rosy, except its very much original research. In fact it exemplifes original research in the highest degree through a comparative essay by the page's two authors. I like the book and its sequels very much, but wikipedia is not the place for personal essays. --Kevin_b_er 02:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Punkmorten 22:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mother3.org

Non notable website, failing web notability (hasn't been featured in important media, hasn't won a well known and independent award, neither is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators). Alexa rank of 304,480, forum with 401 members, notability claim is that they are currently translating a game, Mother 3. Site is fairly empty (Download and Tutorials sections are empty), with few links. Deprodded without comment.[31] -- ReyBrujo 04:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (aeropagitica) 23:08, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wallid Ismail

Procedural nomination: Not the best of articles. It lacks in formatting, but that's not reason enough to speedy as the tagger suggested. Based on the YouTube link provided, this person appears to have been part of one or more televised martial arts matches. Makes him notable enough for me. Looking for community opinion before I remove any deletion tags. I suggest Keep. - Mgm|(talk) 11:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep(Provisionally) Its a fan base article - a 9-3 record does not make you the greatest grappler ever known even if you took out Royce. Still if it could be just fleshed out a bit - where he's from, when he was born, something - then it would have some value. Among the BJJ crowd taking out a Gracie is notable. As it stands its a piece of fluff.Peter Rehse 06:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 12:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Philosophers

Was tagged as a speedy, but article claimed the band has an EP. Nomination, no vote. - Mgm|(talk) 12:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (aeropagitica) 21:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Return of the Living Dead (film series)

There is not any content that would not fit in each movie's article. Not to mention most of the text on the page is verbatim in each movie's own article. Also, there is already a mention of the series at Living Dead. Joltman 12:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) 21:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ExpressDrop

Advertisement. Fails WP:CORP. Pascal.Tesson 12:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Although the phrasing is "Chicago's first neighborhood eBay drop-off center" which is way less notable than "first eBay drop off point". Pascal.Tesson 12:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) 18:00, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reedus Design

Blatant advertisement for non-notable company, no sign of satisfying WP:CORP criteria. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 12:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete CSD A7. The article read: '''Hajieg Agha Khanum''' was the mother of [[Ayatollah Khomeini]]. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 12:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hajieh Agha Khanum

There are 2 problems.

  1. "Hajieh Agha Khanum" is not a name. "Hajieh"=a person who has made a pilgrimage to Mecca, Saudi Arabia. "Agha="mister". "Khanum" = lady. Many old ladies in Iran have permutations of this title. These are just 3 Persian words put together.
  2. I am uninformed on the criterion of which people merit an article. I want to know what standard Wikipedia uses to create articles on non-figures related to famous people. Do we create an article for the mother of every famous person?--11:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Probably, it was "Khanum-e Agha Hajji", meaning the "lady (spouse) of Mr. Hajji". This is my guess, but I am sure that this isn't a name.--12:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep and rename to Marriage websites as matrimony refers to the Catholic marriage on WP and this article does not appear to be restricted to one faith alone. Marriage is the wider term for the union of two people in secular and religious practices, so it appears to be more appropriate for this article. (aeropagitica) 17:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Matrimonial sites

Very narrow towards two sites in India, and may also be WP:SPAM (Not 100% sure on that though). Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 12:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - per nom. Most of the article is OR ("Believed to be a more serious venue", "Leading matrimonials sites.."). Not encyclopedic. - Aksi_great (talk - review me) 12:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC) Change to keep per great work by Uncle G. But needs rewrite. - Aksi_great (talk - review me) 12:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete CSD A7. Being a professor at a private school is not inherently notable. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 12:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Erik Viker

Average college professor. Has been tagged for notability for quite a while now. Fails WP:BIO. Pascal.Tesson 12:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) 17:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zonder

Speedy was denied since members of this band have been involved in more notable bands although a "three month stint with Good Charlotte" is a bit weak... I believe this group fails WP:MUSIC. Pascal.Tesson 12:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: I removed the speedy and I agree a "three month stint with Good Charlotte" and "Michael and Rus currently play in psyche/stoner/space/metal outfit, SubArachnoid Space" are too weak to merit keeping the article. But the standards for speedy are completely different - it's enough that the article claims to be notable. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just want to make it clear that I am not contesting your choice to deny the speedy. I think you're right and I also think the article should be deleted through AfD. Pascal.Tesson 16:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, count me in.  :) —Wknight94 (talk) 16:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(90569) 2004 GY14

While I appreciate this may at first sound noteworthy, there are a surprising number of these so-called 'minor planets' (e.g. big asteroids) in our solar system. Just because Pluto is now one of them does not make them all noteable. delete as a NN rock. Blood red sandman 12:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Change to Keep, for now, now that the page actually has some meaningful information. However, I do think that we need to have a proper debate over whether we want thousands of stub articles on individual asteroids. My feeling is not, but this isn't really the place to have the general debate. --David Mestel(Talk) 11:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - notability is a bad criterion in science, and certain types of things are inherently worthy of articles (i.e. any species can have an article, every random town can have an article, et cetera) - the general precendents on this kind of front are clear. WilyD 14:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep distant rock. If people want to catalogue every asteroid and every species of beetle, let them do it. up+l+and 15:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The problem that I see here isn't notability or verifiability, but a complete lack of information. How well are these rocks studied? Is there a chance that they'll ever become more than stubs? I'm not an astronomer, so I have no idea how well documented minor planets are.--Wafulz 17:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, uh - roughly speaking, it depends. The infobox already has a fair amount of information in it. The "most important information" is there with a few exceptions (colour, at the very least). There's always a chance it'll be more studied - but really this article is a stub isn't a very good criterion for deletion, given considerations like Wikipedia, she is a harsh mistress, but she ain't paper and the like. WilyD 17:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Additionally, given that this asteroid was only discovered in 2004 and isn't super-special like 2003 UB313 or the ilk, it's unlikely to come all that fast. But, we know it's magnitude, semi-major axis, eccentricity, as well as some of the less exciting orbital paramatres. What are you looking for, exactly? WilyD 17:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh, I'm not looking for anything per se. I was just wondering about how much information could ever be gained about this asteroid- I was thinking about the beetle comparison and figured "Hell, at least we can look at a beetle any time. To study this rock we'd have to spend hundreds of millions of dollars." Anyway, I'm entirely neutral on this article precisely because I understand that Wikipedia isn't paper, so even though it's a rather minor article, it shouldn't be deleted on the basis that it's a stub. --Wafulz 22:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, real place.  :) User:Zoe|(talk) 17:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment See this: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/17823 Bartels — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blood red sandman (talk • contribs) 2006-08-29 17:27:51
  • Merge to appropriate list. I initially thought 'keep' because it verifiably exists and chunks of rock have some inherent notability; however, I think the data about it could readily be transferred to a tabular list of similar objects. That would seem to me to allow easier comparison between the things, which is difficult with multiple pages. Espresso Addict 02:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per expresso. :) Dlohcierekim 06:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep asteroid articles. Valid encyclopedia topic. Fg2 06:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Verifiable. Wiki is not paper. -- Geo Swan 22:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I must admit that I've voted delete on a number of asteroids but the arguments put forward by WilyD have convinced me of the errors of my past (at least as far as asteroidal deletions go). Carlossuarez46 23:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, or Delete. You have to merge it with notable other asteroids; it can't stand alone, as it says nothing about why, of all the asteroids in the solar system, it is particularly notable. Is it its size ? I have no idea, but I'd imagine that was the case. But even if it were really big, I would still think merge, unless it were going to hit the Earth sometime soon. That's the problem with modern Copernican stuff--yes, we can no longer have a geocentric view of the galaxy, but we can still have, and should have, a geocentric view of our encyclopedia.-Kmaguir1 08:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • A geocentric view is definitely a failure of WP:BIAS ;). But seriously, how many articles have all the failures you ascribe to this? Cherry Valley, Arkansas, for instance - we don't merge it - but it's just a regurgitation of census data. There are thousands of other articles on American cities that are just regurgitated census data. That's the kind of precendent most of us are looking at. WilyD 11:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I respect that. I think that precedent should not be applicable. People live in Cherry Valley, Arkansas, there's an atmosphere there, in which there is breathable air. I don't think it's overly anthropomorphic to state that Cherry Valley, AR is a lot more notable and important to an encyclopedia than an asteroid article that doesn't give a single reason why that particular asteroid is notable outside of a statistical box. Everything in space cannot be on webspace. At least here. Of course, I could go the hyper-anthropomorphic route and argue for deletion based on the fact that this asteroid could only be notable because it's close to us, and an asteroid passing through space 350 billion light years away, about which we know nothing, that's not notable because we know nothing of it--and so it comes back to geocentrism again. It seems like a circle. I just think that people have to have been, or still are, or will soon be, in a place of a given size, for it to be notable to those same people, with few exceptions. If that's anthropomorphic, it's at least a great degree less anthropomorphic than the other argument I just gave for deletion.-Kmaguir1 04:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The important issue is notability, but verifiability, which is limiting us. Notability is rather a pointless criterion - if you ask only Is the content encyclopaedic and Is the content verifiable you'll end up with the right result in every AfD (except in highly unusual cases, like POVFORKs. My point I think still stands, that every Assbacks, Ontario can pass through AfD unscathed, every Cedar Meadows High School passes through AfD unscathed - there's a certain "class" of things that are inherently encyclopaedic. At a certain point solar system bodies are intrinsically entitled to pass through AfD. Wikipedia is not paper and I don't see a pressing need to delete this content. It's verifiable and encyclopaedic. It conforms to a neutral point of view. It's not spam, or vainity (as far I can imagine). WilyD 13:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 20:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lilo and stich experiment 221 sparky, Leroy (Lilo & Stitch)628 and

Subject is not notable enough for its own entry; description of character already exists at List of experiments from Lilo & Stitch. -- Merope 12:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also listing Leroy (Lilo & Stitch)628 and by the same author for the same reasons. -- Merope 13:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I know how you feel--nominating it will probably incur bad karma. I did leave a note on the author's talk page about why I nominated the articles and directed him/her to work on the other page. -- Merope 19:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Aww, sweet. I wish I had a little daughter or a son like that. Such amazing little--speedy delete.-Kmaguir1 08:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) 14:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Hoelting

Delete. Non-notable per WP:BIO; 3 Google results. Jim Backus Goes Bowling (which was previously listed under the subject's Filmography) is currently up for deletion. Prod tag removed by anon. ... discospinster talk 13:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) 14:27, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

S1 mp3 player scam

Not Suited for an Encyclopedia - Irrelevant. Refers to a "scam" on eBay.. Boochan 13:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) 14:25, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Defamation League

I believe this band fails WP:MUSIC. Its only claim to notability is that their music was played in various talk shows, of which there is no source, making it unverifiable, and that they won it was nominated for the 16th Annual San Diego Music Awards of 2006, which is a local competition (and they didn't win.) The creator's only edits are to this article, and removed the prod without comment. Placing Def league up as well as a redirect. ColourBurst 14:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to Bloor-Danforth (TTC). - Bobet 15:54, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

East Mall (TTC)

DeleteMerge - Station doesn't exist, nor is it planed, proposed, or under consideration - it's a fantasy Nfitz 14:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment nomination seems to conflict with cited source. WilyD 15:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • cited source, is a planning document - there are many, many, planning documents in the history of the city, that list many, many hypothetical subway lines that never have, or never will, be constructed. However, there are no plans afoot to proceed on, nor have there been any Ontario class or individual Environmental Assessments on the subject, unlike the proposed Spadina or Sheppard Extensions. Do you suggest we create a Gerrard Station link from the 1980's Downtown Relief Line plan? Toronto and TTC have clearly stated what they are planning in the next decade or two, and a Bloor west expansion isn't mentioned. At best there should be a page for this dead idea, similiar to Downtown Relief Line that lists the stations. Nfitz 15:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I didn't offer (nor have I really formed) an opinion on what should be done with the article. I only noted that planned/proposed/something. This isn't Wikinews, things that were once deserving of articles never lose that quality. As for merging to a general article on the whole line - who knows? That's a fairly minor issue. WilyD 15:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • The westward Bloor-Danforth subway extension was included in the Rapid Transit Expansion Study (which was made just 5 years ago), so it was planned, and can be built. Unlike this subway extension, the Downtown Relief Line wasn't mentioned there, so that wasn't planned, and won't be built. Geo android 15:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • - hang on, that study you cite, considered various options, and as part of the study, eliminated the westward expansion of Bloor subway as a viable option. Since 2001, the only subway extensions that TTC have considered are the Spadina extension, and the Don Mills extension. There's been no discussion of a station at this ___location, except in this dated planning document that eliminated this as an option for further consideration. Nfitz 15:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • That may be true, but this isn't Wikinews - subjects don't somehow lose encyclopaedic value with time. WilyD 16:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • It was never encylopaedic. It was proposed and rejected within the pages of an internal planning report. A mention of the station within an article about the proposed extension, is one thing. But a couple of people are systematically creating pages for every proposed subway station within the city. Soon there will be more fantasy stations that real ones. Each page is virtually identical except for the name of the station. Nfitz 16:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Systematic coverage isn't a bad thing - there's even a bot to create a page for every Assbackwards, USA from census data. It passes WP:V, and there's even a template for planned infrastructure. WilyD 16:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • I have no problems with planned infrastructure. But that's the whole point - this isn't even planned, or proposed. It was simply tossed out in the middle of a planning report, and then eliminated from further consideration. I could live with it being merged into something though ... Nfitz 16:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Merge into Bloor-Danforth (TTC), mentions this as part of a larger proposed extension, but this is not enough to warrant a separate article just yet. The article mostly discusses the extension as a whole. Merosonox 16:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. per above. Nlsanand 19:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Stations that don't exist surely cannot be counted as notable. I think it is doubtable that stations themselves are notable. -Kmaguir1 21:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Vociferousness of argument does not equal strength of argument. The raw vote total was 12-6 Delete, on top of which the Delete side had much the stronger arguments. Let us all recall that Wikipedia is basically a tool for scholarship, education, and research. No evidence has been presented that inclusion of this article would markedly enhance the encyclopedia. It appears from the one of the stronger Keep arguments is that she appears in her own frequently-aired TV commercials. As one contributor commented, "I have seen her commercials on TV all the time, she is very notable." That is not a strong argument. The remainder of the Keep arguments are not much stronger. Herostratus 03:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: It now comes to my attention that this AfD had been spammed trolling for Delete votes. These votes would not have changed my decision (which is mostly based on strength of arguments) but they did change the raw vote totals. If this AfD close is brought to deletion review, commentors might want to take notice of the tainted nature of the discussion. Herostratus 03:54, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roni Lynn Deutch

This article, under its previous title "Roni Deutch" was deleted through this AfD. A DRV consensus overturned this deletion in light of new information, and directed the move to the new, full name. Please consult the DRV for the new evidence before commenting here. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 15:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as non-notable person, per WP:BIO. Looks more like an ad than an encyclopedia article. Valrith 21:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep she is a notable person, and before claiming she is unnotable people should read the discussion about this article in the deletion review where consensus was to charge the article's title. There are nearly 10,000 results in google for "roni lynn deutch" and thousands more if you look at the results for common mispelt names. She easily passes the bio standards mathewguiver 22:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looking through the first 5 pages of google hits, I don't see any that are about the person; many appear to be ads for businesses she's been involved with. Others are ads for products from those businesses. I don't see any specific bullet of the bio standards that she would "easily pass". Perhaps you could point it out and give the reference that you feel satisfies it... Valrith 03:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would have to disagree with you on this one. When looking at the google search for "Roni Lynn Deutch" the second and third results are both from rip off report.com which both mention her as a person multiple times. Also many of the results are from law related websites which mention her. This goes towards one of the BIO standards, "other professionals whose work is widely recognized (for better or worse) and who are likely to become a part of the enduring historical record of that field." And try googling Roni Deutch, you will see many results in the first five pages mentioning her as a person. I would think that any result on google mentioning her goes towards fulfilling this requirement. Because of her aggressive television commercials she has gained some popularity on the internet, she is mentioned in many blogs and forums. She even has an entry at Urban Dictionary about her, and there is even some one who has started their own Roni Deutch Fansite Also, if you would have read the articles entry in DRV, you would see that her name is very commonly misspelt. Ronnie Deutsch yeilds over 13,000 google results (many of which mention her as a person), and there are many other spellings that also return many results, such as Roni Deutsch - 1870, ronnie deutsch - 938, ronnie deutch - 938, ronni deutch - 759. I think that any mention of her online goes towards proving that her work is widely recognized, which is one of the requirements in WP:BIO. Also, look down to my comment on news articles, I think her inclusion in those articles (specifically the one from AP) help to fulfil another requirement "The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person. (Multiple similar stories describing a single day's news event only count as one coverage.)" I know that 10 news articles is not a massive amount, but I don't have any, neither does my neighbor, neither do my coworkers... I think that 10 articles would qualify as multiple sroties. mathewguiver 15:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete advertising. News hits on Newsbank: 2 for "Roni Lynn Deutch", 5 9 for "Roni Deutch", all but one from the Sacto/Fresno area. Here's one: Apparently super TV tax attorney Roni Deutch can settle your tax debt and civil penalties for pennies on the dollar. According to her Web site, she was able to get a Chicago tax procrastinator who owed the government $1.6 million off the hook for $20 last year. ~ trialsanderrors 04:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment - I would just like to point out that your numbers here are slightly incorrect. Actually a Newsbank search for Roni Deutch brings up 17 results, 10 of which I would say are relevent to Roni Deutch. Some of which include articles that discuss free seminars which she spoke at, some are from 1986 and discuss her athletic accomplishments, one talks about her company occupying a new office, one is about a lawsuit in NY that was pending against her, and one is about her company's halloween party. In regards to all but one article being for sac/fresno, actually one of the articles is from San Jose and another was an AP article meaning it was featured in news outlets across the country such as yahoo. mathewguiver 14:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fresno Bee, The (CA) - September 25, 1994

YOUR MONEY Pacific Business Services Inc. will present a free seminar on Living Trusts at 10 a.m., 1 p.m., 3 p.m. and 7 p.m. Tuesday. Speakers will be lawyer Roni Deutch and tax specialist Stan Unruh. Information: 431-0381. * Stephen E. Prout, a certified financial planner, and Richard E. Hemb, a lawyer, will present a free Living Trust Seminar sponsored by Smart Trust Advisors at 10 a.m., 2 p.m. and 7 p.m. Tuesday at Smuggler's Inn, 3737 N. Blackstone Ave. * Pamela Catling, a certified...

  • Fresno Bee, The (CA) - October 2, 1994

YOUR MONEY The first in a series of money management workshops sponsored by the American Association of Retired Persons and the University of California Cooperative Extension will be held 6-8 p.m. Tuesday in the College Community Congregational Church, 5550 N. Fresno St.* A free seminar on Living Trusts will be presented by Pacific Business Services Inc. at 10 a.m., 1 p.m., 3 p.m. and 7 p.m. Thursday. The speakers will be Roni Deutch, a lawyer, and Stan Unruh, a tax specialist. Information:...

  • Fresno Bee, The (CA) - June 5, 1994

YOUR MONEY A free seminar on Women Inheriting Investment Responsibilities will be presented at 10 a.m. Tuesday in the Merrill Lynch office at 5260 N. Palm Ave., Suite 100 by Dick Powell and Pete Baumstark, financial consultants; Kevin Gunner, a lawyer, and James E. Cornwell, a chartered life underwriter.A luncheon will follow at D'Mils restaurant. For reservations: 436-3323. * Pacific Business Services Inc. will sponsor free seminars on Living Trusts at 2-4 p.m. and 6:45-8:45 p.m....

  • Sacramento Bee, The (CA) - May 27, 2004

Corner to see shops, offices Complex will spruce up Watt and Myrtle in North Highlands. A $4 million office and retail complex that will house a law firm which represents taxpayers having problems with the Internal Revenue Service is taking shape at a key North Highlands intersection. Sacramento County Supervisor Roger Dickinson said the complex demonstrates the "new level of energy and vitality we are seeing along Watt Avenue." Construction has already started on a two-story, 20,000- square-foot office building and 4,500 square feet of...

  • Fresno Bee, The (CA) - October 16, 1994

YOUR MONEY College Planning Services of Fresno will sponsor a free seminar for parents needing Money for Children's College Education at 7 p.m. Tuesday in the Ramada Inn. Terry Wilfong will be the speaker. Information and reservations: 228-8051.* Richard D. Moore and Rick R. Staggs, certified financial planners, will give an introductory class called The One-Hour Financial Manager from 10 to 0 a.m. and 7:30 to 9 p.m. Tuesday. Information and reservations: 227-0704. * Carole R. Ford, a...

  • San Jose Mercury News (CA) - May 22, 1986

FENDICK REPEATS STUNNING PERFORMANCE Stanford's Patty Fendick shocked top-seeded Caroline Kuhlman of Southern Cal for the second time in three days, handing her a 6-4, 6-4 loss Wednesday in the quarterfinals of the NCAA women's individual tennis championships in Austin, Texas.On Monday, Fendick snapped Kuhlman's 30-match win streak 7-5, 6-2 during the team championship. The Cardinal won the team title. On Wednesday, Fendick went up 2-0 in the first set and never allowed the USC sophomore to...

  • Fresno Bee, The (CA) - May 13, 1986

'DOGS NAMED NCAA SOFTBALL REGIONAL HOSTS NORPAC HONORS PARRENT, WRIGHT The good news came right on schedule Monday for Fresno State University's softball team. The Bulldogs are in the NCAA postseason tournament, and they're taking the NorPac Conference's top award winners, pitcher Melanie Parrent and Coach Margie Wright, with them. FSU was awarded an at-large bid and, better yet, assigned to host the Northwest Regional at Bulldog Diamond this weekend against 10th-ranked Long Beach State. Parrent was named the player of the year...

  • Fresno Bee, The (CA) - April 27, 1986

'DOGS, CAL SPLIT IN SOFTBALL AFTER CONTROVERSY IN OPENER They'll be talking a long time about the wild pitch that really wasn't Saturday at Bulldog Diamond. That call -- made by home plate umpire Dennis Wren -- resulted in a 1-0 Fresno State University victory over the California Bears in the first game of an important NorPac Conference double-header before a sunbathed crowd of 947. The ninth-ranked Bears, lip-biting mad over the outcome of that opener, went on to plaster the sixth-ranked Bulldogs 4-2 in the second game and...

  • Associated Press Archive - June 6, 2006

2 NYC lawsuits claim company failed to deliver promised tax help A company whose nationwide advertising offered tax delinquents a chance to settle with the IRS for "pennies on the dollar" collected hefty fees but often couldn't deliver on its promises, according to a pair of lawsuits. New York City's Department of Consumer Affairs filed a lawsuit Monday accusing American Tax Relief of bombarding households with junk mail that exaggerated what it could do for clients with big tax debts. Separately, a...

  • The Sacramento Bee - November 1, 2003

As spooky as the law allows Sacramento Bee / Manny Crisostomo For those who don't think visiting a lawyer's offices is scary enough, the Sacramento staff of Roni Lynn Deutch dressed Friday for Halloween - tax director Scott Schimleski is Dracula, behind legal assistant Le Deutch - and entertained youngsters....

    • Now I get 9 total. I corrected the number above. Between 1986 and 2006, that still amounts to nothing for a supposed TV personality. ~ trialsanderrors 16:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • There was never any claim that Roni Deutch is a "television personality." She is a tax attorney who is the head of a nationally recognized law firm. She is a busines professional and should be held to the bio standards for business professionals, not television stars. WP:BIO says that "The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person." It says the person needs to be the subject of multiple articles, it does not say they need to have a hundred articles, infact it does not mention a number at all. I think that having 10 articles written about a busines professional could make them notable. I would also like to mention the Pokemon Testand that everything included in wikipedia does not need hundreds of news articles. mathewguiver 16:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's perfectly up the discretion of the editors to assess the quality of the news items and draw their own conclusions about notability. I find them partly trivial, partly passing mentions, and all local. Hence, notability not established in my book. ~ trialsanderrors 19:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I hate to be argumentative, but I do want to point out that all of the articles are not local. First of all Fresno and Sacramento are not the same city, they are three hours apart. And in addition to the articles in sacramento and fresno, there are ones from the associated press, San Jose Mercury News (CA) and The Herald News (Joliet, IL). mathewguiver 19:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per trialsanderrors. Smells of pork. Counting Ghits is not research. It is possible that mathewguiver may have an undeclared agenda. While this article shows up as his main edits, he has done a few others on subjects within the ___domain of RLD (Income Statements and some other tax/legal definitions). Ohconfucius 07:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment before commenting how about looking at my list of contributions. As you can see I have contributed to more then just the Roni Lynn Deutch article, and other roni related topics. I have only had an account for a little while, please remember to not bit the newcomers mathewguiver 1502, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. mathewguiver - you are free to protest its relevance (i.e. having a special interest in no way invalidates your opinion), but Ohconfucius made a very judicious summary that does not WP:BITE. Eusebeus 18:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete she is a prolific advertiser in the Sacto area, as John Scherer whose "video professor" ads infest TVs US-wide merited a deletion, so does she. Carlossuarez46 23:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Wow, this one must have slipped through the cracks. It's not an advertisement--she's in advertisements. If it acts like an advertisement, well, then, edit the article. But she's on tv all the time, and we have to remember, as wikipedia is not paper, the quantifiable accountability we have for our edits. Almost no one has heard of a British law from 1850 banning segways on roads, but millions upon millions have heard of Roni Deutch in the English speaking world, in 30 second segments where she is the only speaker, speaking directly to the audience. People wanting to find out more about her, for example, to buy one of the products she is advertising, might very well indeed go to wikipedia to look up her rating in the BBB, as is mentioned here, or just some of the wider summary of what she's done. The article has to get better at doing those things--but I don't see anything horrible that suggests deletion is warranted here.-Kmaguir1 08:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I am an attorney and CPA and I have been in tax practice for over twenty years. I'm sure Ms. Roni Deutch is a fine tax lawyer and a fine person, but in the world of tax law she is simply not notable. I am straining to think if I had ever heard of her before I came across this. I could make a list of notable U.S. tax lawyers based on pre-set criteria, but I can't think of how or why she would be on the list. Nothing personal -- also I would in no way make the list either. The article is an advertisement for her. Not encyclopedic, and the subject is in my opinion non-notable. Yours, Famspear 15:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • PS: For what it's worth, a few minutes ago I ran separate searches on "Roni Deutch" and "Roni Lynn Deutch" on the CCH Tax Research Network website (it's a "pay" website used by tax lawyers, CPAs, etc.) including the text of nearly every reported Federal court decision (U.S. Supreme Court, the appeals courts, the district courts, bankruptcy courts, and U.S. Tax Court) involving Federal taxation since the year 1913. Both searches returned zero hits. That doesn't mean she's never been to court in a tax case (and most tax law practice is outside of court anyway), but it should at least be taken into account to the extent that she is supposedly "notable for" being a tax lawyer. Yours, Famspear 18:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Roni Deutch is a tax attorney, but she is the head of a national company (similarly to Jackson Hewitt and JK Harris & Company, LLC) with many lawyers working under her. The reason ther should be an article on this site is because she is the head of Roni Deutch, a Professional Tax Corporation that represents thousands of people per year, and has tons of ads on television. Millions of people know who she is, google results for her name variations yeild thousands and thousands of results. She is mentioned and talked about in hundreds if not thousands of forums and blogs. And remember that just because you havent heard of her does not mean that there aren't people who have.--mathewguiver 18:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • OK, let me see if I have this straight. Because Roni Deutch is the head of an eponymous "professional tax corporation" that supposedly "represents thousands of people per year" and has purchased "tons" of TV ads, and supposedly "millions" of people know who she is (because of those tons of TV ads she bought), and because there are "thousands and thousands" of google hits for her, and she is supposedly talked about in "hundreds if not thousands of forums and blogs" -- that means there should be an encyclopedia article about her? Yours, Famspear 19:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I would have to think that yes, being the founder and head of a largely known company does warrent an inclusion in wikipedia. Again, just because you haven't heard of some one does not make them non notable, there are obviously plently people who know who she is... Per [WP:BIO] "other professionals whose work is widely recognized (for better or worse)." I would think that having thousands of google hits helps show that her work is widely recognized. --mathewguiver 20:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I have seen her commercials on TV all the time, she is very notable. Also, if her article should be deleted so should Jackson Hewitt and JK Harris & Company, LLC, right?? I think this article should stay.--NoelleWiley 15:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
NoelleWiley makes a good point about the article on JK Harris & Company, LLC. Looks like blatant advertising and copyright violation as well. The verbiage in that article was apparently copied and pasted from a website for JK Harris & Company! And you have seen her commercials on TV all the time -- so therefore she is notable for purposes of an encyclopedia article? Running commercials on TV makes somebody worthy of an encyclopedia article? Wow. Famspear 03:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Odd, I don't recall seeing 'has been in a commercial' in the WP:BIO criteria... Valrith 03:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes very odd because I don't recall stating anything about wiki WP:BIO criteria, I was simply reply to the talk about her not being notable! Know were did i state that her being in a commercial made her worth of any encyclopedia article. NoelleWiley 15:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear NoelleWiley: At the expense of spelling out what is stunningly obvious to everyone, you stated: "I have seen her commercials on TV all the time, she is very notable." You yourself mentioned the "commercials." Sorry, but a reasonable person will infer that you are implying that her being in a commercial made her worthy of any encyclopedia article. You yourself linked the two concepts in one sentence. Yours, Famspear 00:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - any body who has ever watched morning talk shows and game shows will know who she is. And thousands of google hits does make me think people must know who she is. - Chelsea — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.150.226.215 (talk • contribs) 18:15, 4 September 2006
  • Keep. Maybe I've seen one too many of the tax lady's television commercials. In any case, I do think that there is a small claim to notability, enough to pass WP:BIO, and can imagine someone coming to Wikipedia in order to learn more about her or her business. I come to Wikipedia for the same reason all the time, most recently to learn more about the GEICO gecko. That's one of the things that makes Wikipedia so great. RFerreira 18:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please per rferreira there is no reason to erase this article it passes bio guideline Yuckfoo 07:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete search ripoffreport.com and bbb.org, and you will know why she doesn't belong here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.26.172.248 (talk • contribs) 16:42, 7 September 2006
  • according to WP:BIO "other professionals whose work is widely recognized (for better or worse)" so having negative articles on her does not negatively affect the article but rather goes to show that she is notable. Also the person who made that anonymous comment ironically added a link to a smaller competitor's site (tax-tiger.com) on the Offer in Compromise page right before voting to delete here. --mathewguiver 17:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear fellow editors: Actually, the language at WP:BIO is "Painters, sculptors, architects, engineers, and other professionals whose work is widely recognized (for better or worse) and who are likely to become a part of the enduring historical record of that field" (emphasis added). Are we seriously trying to contend that Ms. Deutch's work is "widely recognized" in the field of tax law merely because she advertises? Who is "recognizing" her legal work? Legal experts and scholars, or the people who watch her commercials on daytime TV? Please show us where or how her work is part of the "enduring historical record" in the field of U.S. law, or U.S. tax law. Advertising oneself on television? Under that line of reasoning Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. could have rated a Wikipedia article had he never served as a Federal judge or written the scholarly articles and books he wrote, and had simply advertised on television (had TV existed back then). It seems we are saying that what is being recognized is not her legal work, not her contribution to legal scholarship or legal history, but rather the fact that she advertises and is well known because she advertises. Yours, Famspear 18:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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: as far as I can tell, players who have played for their country's youth sides are considered notable enough to have an article. See England_national_under-21_football_team#Current_and_recent_players for example. --- Deville (Talk) 22:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Fellah

Non-notable youth footballer, appears to fail vanity guidelines (WP:VANITY), as well as being non-neutral point of view (WP:NPOV). Original author has only contributed to this article, so possibly an autobiography. Bob talk 15:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Is junior national squad player enough to warrant an article on Wikipedia? --Nishkid64 16:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Roughly speaking, yes WilyD 16:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Fourth best 17 year old in Norway? That's not notable enough. Being fourth best in one country, at the age of 17, doesn't mean anything until he actually goes pro and shows prowess at his sport. If he goes into pro club ball (if that's what they call it), then I would be all for making this guy's article. --Nishkid64 14:54, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, if that's your opinion on notability. I'll keep mine, and also note that he has played games for Vålerenga, but not in the domestic league (he has played as a substitute in the Royal League). Sam Vimes | Address me 15:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pierre Fitch

This article was speedy deleted under CSD A7. A DRV consensus overturned, finding an assertion of notability. This article is submitted to AfD for full consideration. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 15:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PORN BIO does suggest 100+ movies for an actor, but many of the porn actors on Wikipedia have far less than that threshold ( they probably meet other criteria, but that's not the point). However, it says that they were discussing the number requirements for homosexual porn actors. According to the talk page, people said that 100+ is quite an amount for a gay actor, and the bar has to be set lower for homosexual actors (regarding number of movies made). --Nishkid64 16:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Added Comment: IAFD is not an accurate measure for gay porn actors, either—nor is AFDB. Neither bother to list most performers.—Chidom talk  23:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. After a thorough search on Google, I saw that Fitch was nominated for Best Actor for the GayVN Awards, but did not win. I could not find him on the Adult film database, but I found five movies that he had done on IMDB. According to WP:PORNBIO, I would say Pierre Fitch does not meet any of the suggested criteria listed. However, I'm still a bit uncertain about this actor. I personally don't know if the movies he made are notable in the gay porn industry. --Nishkid64 16:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Even if the standard for gay porn is set lower than a hundred, five films doesn't approach any reasonable porn standard. Fan-1967 16:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep One of the 16 Men of Falcon, 2006. Even if passed over by GayVN, still pretty special. Donnabella 19:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm the one who nominated it for Speedy Deletion to start with; the content hasn't changed all that much from the article as originally written. I do not believe there is enough content available for him to have an article at this time; that could change. Right now, he's a gay man who has been in five or six porn films in three years and is living with his husband and giving webcam shows. There are plenty of webcam shows; that's not asserting importance. As for being a Falcon Exclusive, that doesn't negate the need for a larger videography, and he's resigned from Falcon and film pornography. While he doesn't need 100 (see the discussion of WP:PORN BIO, he does need a larger videography. The nomination doesn't add importance at all; many newcomers to the industry are nominated their first year or so in it. He has not established himself as a porn star. This performer is a prime example of self-promotion and what a vanity article looks like.—Chidom talk  19:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NN. -Kmaguir1 21:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 18,000 google hits/ :) Dlohcierekim 05:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. You may or may not know, but you can never use a Google test when discussing an AfD on a porn actor. Many porn sites use Googlebombing to inflate the number of hits that their porn actors receive, so the number of G-hits is quite misleading. --Nishkid64 14:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. He has resigned from the porn industry and is giving webcam shows. That will never make him a major force in porn.—Chidom talk  02:02, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Barney Dallenbach

While the Pillar of Fire Church may or may not be notable (it gets only 530 Google hits), there's no need for these auxilliary pages about its employees and their children to exist. Notability not established, fails Google test (Mr. Dallenbach gets almost no hits at all), reads like vanity and spam.

Comment: Or you can run the search like this: over 120 hits searching for his lst name and the name of the church; instead of 31 hits by searching for his first middle and last name in quotations. Its all how you manipulate the search terms to get the effect you want. Its easy! Its fun! Try it at home! --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 21:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These articles are also part of the bundled AfD:

wikipediatrix 15:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - per nom. Wickethewok 17:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per WP:BIO. Mention of these people could be made at Pillar of Fire Church if it happens to survive the AfD it is currently undergoing.--Isotope23 19:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and I'd extend that keep to all the bundled articles. I've never heard of these folks before, but I'd have to say that a multi-generational organization with "six congregations in the United States, two colleges, missions in six other countries, and three radio stations," and a history dating back almost a hundred years, meets notability criteria. That being the case, the bios on the leaders over the last century should also stay, by my reckoning. I'm no fan of churches (and missionary organizations in particular), but nonetheless this strikes me as a well-established social entity with international aspects, not some flash-in-the-pan storefront church. --Pagana 20:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your comments are all regarding the church, not these people. The Church's own article is not included in this AfD. We're discussing the notability of these people as individuals here as per WP:BIO, not their Church's notability. And just because they're connected to the Church doesn't make them notable themselves. wikipediatrix 20:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I agree: just being "connected to the church" is not notable. But these bios seem like a good-faith attempt to document the leadership, over the better part of a century. It's worth noting that this isn't a "church" in the sense of a single building and congregation, but in the sense of a religious sect that appears to be spreading and growing. They're no Mormon church, but neither do they seem to be trivial. --Pagana 21:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, the organization itself may be notable; but the individuals listed here don't meet WP:BIO; I'm having a hard time finding any reliable sources about any of these people that would establish that they meet WP:BIO. Everything I'm seeing is Wikipedia or mirrors.--Isotope23 20:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per Isotope's comment. The church looks notable--the bishop in the church does not look so.-Kmaguir1 21:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The Church is notable, and the founder is also notable by extention. However, the descendants of the founding dynasty of a family business are not, especially seeing that the entries are purely geneological and have the odd detail of where the went to school and which college they attended. These people are not nobles: Nobility may be inherited, but notability is not. Ohconfucius 06:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Why is the college someone attended an "odd detail"? Every biography lists where someone went to college. As a matter of fact each college has a category for alumi. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 21:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep: An organization with the breadth, scope and history of the Pillar of Fire Church is exactly what belongs on Wikipedia. These articles are not merely about the "employees and their children" of this Church, but of its leadership. The top leaders of a religious denomination with the characteristics of the Pillar of Fire Church have a strong claim to notability, and the choice by the New York Times to publish obituaries for several of them is prima facie evidence of notability. I find it disturbing that so many are ready to choose to Delete, and not consider the possibility of a Merge. Alansohn 17:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Read this and tell me again why you think he has a "strong claim to notability". And by the way, getting a NYT obituary isn't even close to being "prima facie evidence of notability": 99.9 percent of the people who get NYT obituaries do not have Wikipedia articles and never will. If you don't believe me, select any issue of the paper from any year, check against Wikipedia, and see how far you get. wikipediatrix 18:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are confusing cause and effect. The fact that many subjects of NYT obituaries do not have Wikipedia articles only shows a failure to reach many worthy individuals as subjects of potential articles. The fact that the New York Times selects a handful of the hundreds of thousands of people who die each day for inclusion on the obituary pages is a very strong claim for notability that goes far beyond the far more trivial counting of Google hits. Alansohn 19:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Give him a few sentences in the Pilar of Fire Church article, and delete his entry, as there isn't enough noteworthy material here. Dr U 14:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nobody is saying that the succession of leadership of the church shouldn't be mentioned in the church's article. That can be done without giving these folks there own article. Dr U 03:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep The Pillar of Fire Church is definatly notable and I argue that its' leaders and prominent members are notable as well. A seperate article for this particular leader is neccessary to provide context for the rest of the subject. Again, I reiterate, strong keep on all of the subjects of the bundled deletion. Regards, Shazbot85Talk 03:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. --CharlotteWebb 20:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dogpile

Doesn't seem to assert notability. Delete unless notability shown. --Nlu (talk) 16:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) 14:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HomeBlue Contractor Network

This is a spammy and a non-notable website Alexa:812,097. There are plenty of results on Google, but the first several do not appear to be of the sort that would satisfy WP:CORP Erechtheus 16:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep. --CharlotteWebb 21:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

George P. Bush

This guy's life really has completely no relevance to the world Nwe 14:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Really, since when has being related to famous people been a reason for getting a bio on wikipedia?Nwe 16:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just what the article says: he's been a very high-profile member of the Republican party and the Bush campaign, spoke at the national convention, and has been the subject of much media scrutiny. This is why he has an article but Kenny Guinn's son, for instance, doesn't. wikipediatrix 16:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pillar of Fire Church

here is the last stable version with references intact from before the vote for deletion: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pillar_of_Fire_Church&oldid=63154355

This article is NN and completely POV, devoid of any sources backing up the information listed. The Selected Coverage section is misleading in lable as none of the links actually pertain to the church, but to church members, and they are listed as obituaries. Shazbot85Talk 16:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Did somebody wake up on the wrong side of their God this morning? *joke* I am the author, I am not a member of this organization. If a 100 year old organization, where each leader has an obituary in the New York Times is not notable, what is? What is the cutoff? When did Google inflation start to take effect? When did 530 hits become insignificant? I also fail to see how the article violates NPOV. What agenda am I trying to promulgate? And how is the commentator deciding it is original research? What phrase or fact is derived from my own thoughts? I am not a member of the organization, and all the facts come from the website listed or the New York Times articles, or the biography of Alma White, or the Time magazine references. As I scroll through the Google list, I only see two of the first 5 pages as having Wikipedia hits. The rest are various church websites, the Time magazine archive, and the New York Times archive. What gives?

--Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 19:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I dont appreciate the joke very much. While I respect the fact that the church leaders had an obituary in the New York Times, that is perhaps basis for they themselves to have Wikipedia entries, not the church they led. The church, itself, doesn't seen notable, but I'm willing to abandon that stance in the face of consensus. Regardless of that, citation for the information present in the article needs to be presented, as it is now, it appears to be only POV or original research, nothing seems to be taken from peer-reviewed sources. -Shazbot85Talk 21:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am not a member of this church (I'm Catholic), nor have I ever even heard of it. This church does seem to have a large sphere of influence in different areas across the United States. I think this article should be kept, but the article needs to contain more outside research if it is to be kept.Trevor 19:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and I'd extend that keep to all the bundled articles. I've never heard of these folks before, but I'd have to say that a multi-generational organization with "six congregations in the United States, two colleges, missions in six other countries, and three radio stations," and a history dating back almost a hundred years, meets notability criteria. That being the case, the bios on the leaders over the last century should also stay, by my reckoning. I'm no fan of churches (and missionary organizations in particular), but nonetheless this strikes me as a well-established social entity with international aspects, not some flash-in-the-pan storefront church. --Pagana 20:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, there are no bundled articles in this AfD. Secondly, without sources, we have no way of verifying if any of the information you use to support your vote is true or false. "The article says it, I don't question it, therefore don't delete" is not a valid AfD criteria. wikipediatrix 20:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment With all due respect, Wikipediatrix, you're putting words in my mouth. I never advocated for blanket acceptance of the article itself. I directly verified that the claim of radio station ownership is true; the station's websites assert Pillar of Fire Church as the owner. The NYT citations also come up in the archives over there, although I'm not going to pay to access the full text. As to "no bundled articles in this AfD"--well, they're a few notches back in the AfD list. --Pagana 21:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You fail to address the lack of citation in the article, which is one of my motives for bringing this up. This fact still remains, regardless of consensus on notability, which I'm willing to conceed to. -Shazbot85Talk 21:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you want a citation, add the proper "fact" template to the fact you are disputing, then I will provide a citation. You can't be disputing every line in the article. Add the "fact" template to any of the facts you disagree with. If people added a citation for every fact, every line of every entry in Wikipedia would have to have a reference. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 21:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am, in fact, disputing every little line in the article. Is it neccessary to go through every sentence and cite a source for the information? No. What is neccessary is for sources to be added so that the information provided can be verified as fact. As it stands now, this entire article is either POV, or original research, due to the non-existance of citation. It is neccessity that articles have their sources revealed so that original research and POV don't leak into articles, surely you have to realize and agree on this. -Shazbot85Talk 21:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you add the proper template to each fact you dispute, I will source the facts from the references provided. (repeated as per above).
I repeat, I dispute the entire article as none of it is sourced or verifiable. -Shazbot85Talk 22:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, unless it's a faux church of just someone spouting off. I would remove both the Christianity infobox as well as the statement of faith, and effectively stubbify the article.-Kmaguir1 21:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But the problem is, is it true? Are there six churches, and two colleges? Can evidence be found for this?-Kmaguir1 22:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know,\ that's why I've requested the article be properly sourced.-Shazbot85Talk 00:36, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is not an insult and should not be taken as one: If you can't find the reference you really should take basic lessons in using Google. When I google "Pillar of Fire" and "Alma Heights" together, I get the following from the very website you looked at: http://www.almaheights.org/about/ministry.htm#pillar. Its the very first reference that Google gives. So, after all your talk about not a single reference in the entire article being believable, this was the only thing you could come up with?, and thats why you wanted to delete the article? I think this could have been handled with one "fact" tag at that specific fact.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs)

Don't put words into my mouth. This is merely one, and you didn't even dispute the fact that I found Pilar of Fire Church nowhere in the school's website in the information or history section. The school never makes the claim of affiliation with the church. Also, you still havn't provided references, you've smply provided external links. You give the article more credit than it deserves when you claim that it does have references. It doesn't, and none have been incuded which makes a firm case for the entire article being POV and original research. Without sources, it's just original research and this isn't the place to publish your research. Shazbot85Talk 02:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can't put words into your mouth, you will have to remove your foot from that orifice first. * "I kid, I kid" * I do give your credit for reading two paragraphs from their website, but research is more than scanning a paragraph or two and then calling it quits and watching TV. External links are references, If you dont put in any external links, a bot will flag the article as being devoid of references. I will repeat this now for the third time: Flag any fact you see that you believe is not verifiable, or you think it came from my imagination. Use the "fact" tag. You must have read the whole article and searched already since the one you thought was BS was close to the bottom. I think at this point you are just arguing to save face. Please write specifics and not generalities. Find another fact you believe is wrong.

You wrote: "The school never makes the claim of affiliation with the church". If you are still disputing the relationship, here is the text from the website that you say does not contain any mention of affiliation:

Our school partners with a local church, Coastside Community Church. We are a dual ministry -- a church and a school -- with collaborative leadership, complimentary functions, and shared facilities. Our vision is for harmonious growth of church and school with each ministry strengthening and helping the other.

Our school and church belong to a group of national and international ministries founded and directed by the Pillar of Fire, International. The Pillar of Fire provides us with oversight, advice, and material support, and gives us opportunities to participate in congregational, educational, media, and missions ministries around the world.

The Pillar of Fire is an evangelical Christian organization that emphasizes personal faith in Jesus Christ and the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit that results in lives devoted to Christian purity and service. The name for the organization is based in the biblical account of God leading his people with a pillar of cloud during the day and a pillar of fire by night (Exodus 13:21-22). We believe that God continues to lead His people through all life's circumstances.

The Pillar of Fire is headquartered in Zarephath, New Jersey. It has six congregations in the United States, five Christian schools, an accredited Christian college, three radio stations, various publications, and missions/partner ministries overseas in England, India, Malawi, Liberia, Nigeria, and Costa Rica.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs)

External links are NOT references. They are external links, nothing more. wikipediatrix 02:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for finding that one relationship to an external link. That is still not a source of the information on the page. I suggest you stop dodging sourcing what you have erected because as of now, it violates the WP:No original research, WP:Verifiability, and WP:Neutral Point of View policies. You must source the information and you havn't. All you have provided is external links to schools or organizations that affiliate with the church, but nothing backing up what you've posted about the church itself. Again, I contest the whole article, all "facts" that you have erected, and charge you to source it, which you have avoided doing to this point. If you can't provide the sources, then you prove that it's original research, and the article needs to come down. Shazbot85Talk 02:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually a vote for deletion determines whether the article stays or goes, not whether it uses external links, or in line references. I think at this point you are just vandalising the article and disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. I understand from your page you have a stong Calvinistic background, but why are you trying to delete information on rival religions. Isn't religion supposed to be about tolerance, and all those good things?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs)

Since when did Christianity and Calvinism break apart from each other? Are you insinuating that Calvinists are not Christians or Armenianist aren't Christians? What you mean to attack is two differeing views of biblical interpretation and theology, not differing religions. Again, I take mild offense to your insinuations about my motives. The fact that I engage in a different brand of theology than the Pillar of Fire Church has nothing to do with the fact that this article lacks citation. Again, I urge you to provide sources and stop derailing. Shazbot85Talk 03:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stick to the topic at hand and work to provide sources. Don't try and de-rail this discussion or try and avert attention away from this unsourced article by providing your opinion pertaining to my character. I consider that mildly insulting but will take it in good faith and again reiterate that what is provided remains unsourced. Also, you are incorrect in your assumption that a "vote for deletion" decides whether a page stays or goes. A neutral moderator will weigh the evidence and ultimately make the descision. If you can't provide the sources, and by now I'm assuming you can't through your use of diversionary tactics, I suggest you simply take the article down until some sources can be added. If they can't, then there doesn't need to be an article. Shazbot85Talk 03:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not attacking you personally. I just think this has become a religious issue for you and not an editing issue. By removing the template for christianity from the article, you, or your friend, are giving me the impression that this particular flavor of religion doesn't fit into your mind as what you think christianity is, hence your hard work to have it deleted from Wikipedia. People don't burn books or witches anymore, the delete ideas they don't like.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs)

But you are attacking me personally, especially with that last comment. Your own presuppositions about people who ascribe to differing brands of theology are derailing this discussion and I don't appreciate it. I have not removed a single thing from the actual article page, nor has anyone else at my behest. I suggest you stop baselessly accusing me and stick to the topic at hand. I've been as patient with you as I can be, in spite of the fact you continually attempt to derail, please stick to this topic and stop trying to defend the article by attacking me. The fact of this matter is your article cites nothing for its' information and that's unacceptable. Please repair this, as I've requested numorous times. Shazbot85Talk 03:42, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Addition See User talk:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) for further discussion.Shazbot85Talk 04:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: An organization with the breadth, scope and history of the Pillar of Fire Church is exactly what belongs on Wikipedia. I am baffled as to what about the article makes it either non-notable or POV. Alansohn 17:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that it is entirely comprised of original research and lacks sources. Shazbot85Talk 20:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention the unnecessary section entitled simply "Bible", which was filled with long Biblical quotes. Alansohn's addition of a loooooong list of (unclickable) NYT articles is fascinating, but didn't anyone else write about this church? You know, like major media sources we can click on and see for ourselves? And are these mysterious NYT sources actual full articles, or are they mostly the one-paragraph tiny "local church interest" type of squib-filler one always finds in the Religion section of any newspaper? This church got press in the New York Times because they're a local church and thus, sometimes mentioned in the local papers, just like all the other local churches. Big deal. Had they been based out of Arkansas, North Dakota, or New Mexico, I promise you they would not have gotten NYT coverage. wikipediatrix 20:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I used a tool called ProQuest, which is available through my library system online and provides a fully searchable database of articles from The New York Times going back to 1851, very little of which is available in public ___domain internet searches. While one or two items are short mentions, most are substantial articles covered in the main section of the newspaper. I encourage you to try to obtain access to these materials, which provide a fascinating look at the Church and its leaders, including involvement with the Ku Klux Klan in the 1920s. Given the focus of the New York Times on New York City and the world, a church in tiny Zarephath, New Jersey, 45 miles from Times Square in Midtown Manhattan, might as well be in "Arkansas, North Dakota, or New Mexico" as far as its editors were concerned. Additional items from Time magazine were added, including an obituary of Alma White that discusses the church and her work. These all seem quite notable to me, who only bumped into this because of my participation in Wikiproject: New Jersey. Given that the church was at its peak some 75 years ago, the lack of Google hits is not surprising. Alansohn 21:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
FYI

These articles are also nominated in a separate AfD:

  • Comment it does not seem proper to include these articles in the "Pillar of Fire Church" AfD discussion when they're already "bundled" with the AfD on Robert Barney Dallenbach (above) and when the AfD templates on these five articles takes one to to the Dallenbach discussion. Agent 86 23:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree they shouldn't be bundled. If you're looking to piggyback the descision for those articles in with this article, I'm completely against that, whether that descision be affirmative or otherwise. If this page cannot stand alone, with it's own citation and notability, then it should be deleted and/or merged. -Shazbot85Talk 00:35, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I nominated Robert Barney Dallenbach and the other people's articles myself, deliberately leaving out Pillar of Fire Church, which was nominated later. Don't confuse or connect the two. The church itself is not part of my bundled AfD, and it's counter-productive to drag them into this AfD when I've already got them listed in a separate AfD. I've taken the liberty of rewording the language in this section header. wikipediatrix 01:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As verifiability is a fundamental concept of wiki. Here the organisation and the physical church become separate entities. The fact is that the church buildings exist and are considered part of historical Colorado springs. The establishment dates and ownership details of the radio stations and the schools should be easy enough to verify for an american who knows how to search commercial registers. Some of the other events, such as ordination dates, however, are probably folkloric, and thus NPOV. Nevertheless, it would not warrant deletion of the entire article, just the offending sections. Ohconfucius 06:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article provides zero sources. Shazbot85Talk 07:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup Article is about something on the cusp between a church and a denomination. It thus is more notable than individual church articles. Article does lack citation, but that is not evidence that verification is impossible, unless the attempt has been made. Cleanup is needed (for example, deaths of former leaders should go) and citations should be added, but with no evidence in the article history of a serious attempt to clean-up, I can't believe that the issues are unsolvable. If the issues are solvable, deletion is the wrong anser. GRBerry 14:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup I think the notability concern has been addressed. Meanwhile, if one wants to request sources, please see WP:CITE on two ways to do that (fact tags for specific items and a general tag for a whole section or the whole article). I see that they've both been done in the meantime anyway. Hopefully, someone will add citations now.--Anthony Krupp 20:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Alright, I've already conceeded to consensus on notability, and if that's the correct way to go about requesting citation I'll do that in the future. I assume the moderating administrator will rule in the same way as the consensus is, as my big arguement was citation and that's taken care of elsewhere. I totally conceed to public consensus in every respect now and withdraw my claims for deletion. Now, the moderating aministrrtor simply needs to make a ruling, which I assume will be to keep. Immediately following that, I will work on some citations for the article. Regards Shazbot85Talk 20:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep since nom withdraws his nomination. That's the spirit! A better article is always a better result. Good for you for being willing to look up sources.--Anthony Krupp 20:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep But delete the associated biographies. Dr U 14:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now now, calm down and take it elsewhere. This page should be shut down soon as I have withdrawn my AfD claim. Shazbot85Talk 01:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I worked on the POV in theology section. Billbrock 16:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) 14:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JamesWeb

Does not appear even close to making WP:WEB. Google turns up very little other than related self promotion. Alexa claims rank over 2,000,000. Also, please note there are several redirects (Windows RG, Jamesweb, "windows rg", and Windows rg) which should probably go if this page goes.

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

The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) 14:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Koktebel Jazz Festival

nn event Foo^ 16:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) 14:06, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Funfail.com

nn website Foo^ 16:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) 14:05, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dcsportsfan.com

nn website. Foo^ 16:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) 14:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

31 Media

nn company Foo^ 16:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (aeropagitica) 14:00, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hopkins Rides Inc

nn company Foo^ 16:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was No consensus, so keep. (aeropagitica) 13:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of art magazines

Delete (nom) WP is not an arbitrary collection of lists. Articles can be added to an appropriate category. All this seems to be is a collection of redlinks and web links (which WP is also not). — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 16:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment From WP:LIST: Lists have three main purposes: Information ... Navigation ... Development - Let's address them. Information - there is no additional info over a category. Navigation - more than 1/2 are redlinks so it is just a web directory. Development - are all these magazines actually notable enough to create articles for each? (Hint: I found this list cleaning up behind an AfD on one of them already). — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 17:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'll address the issues seperately.
  • Information - the list does contain some information that the category doesn't (such as where some magasines are based). So it passes the first main purpose of a list
  • Navigation - there are some redlinks, but also lots of blue links. Therefor, the list does serve a navigational purpose.
  • Development - if half the magasines are redlinked, there's obviously room to use this article for development, if desired. If not, it at least satisfies two of the three possible uses of a list. The arguments for deletion all boil down to This article is a stub which is a terrible criterion for deletion. WilyD 17:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How would you feel about removing the red links and transporting the blue ones to an "art" section of List of magazines? wikipediatrix 17:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lists of magasines is already sorted by country - double sorting seems undesirable (but I may be alone on that). There are already several other entries in Category:Lists of magazines. I'm really not attatched to the redlinked ones regardless of the outcome of this. WilyD 17:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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_August_29&oldid=72634534"