Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 December 15

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by JulesH (talk | contribs) at 10:51, 15 December 2006 (Correct previous entry for Tower Hamlets College). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
< December 14 December 16 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. —Doug Bell talk 15:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My Show

My Show (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

The article describes a low-budget show featuring an aspiring talk show host named Matt Chin. An example is available here: [1] My view is that the show or the host could eventually achieve sufficient popularity to be included in Wikipedia, but that at the moment there is little to distinguish it from many other programs on Youtube and elsewhere. Arsene 3:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Weak Keep - Clearly this does exist but I think deletion would be a little harsh. It appears to be an actual TV show and the page does cite its sources and references. I see no reason for this pages deletion but the page itself needs a little bit of cleaning up... Debaser23 12:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)--C.lettinga 06:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - Is on the internet, but also Category 2 cable TV in canada. May not be the most notable show, but is available on cable so I think it should get a chance. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 12:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I don't want to be overly stubborn about this, but does its appearance on Bite TV really offer an argument for its inclusion here? From what I can see the channel isn't particularly selective about its content, maybe more so than a public-access station but not a great deal more. It seems like a public access program (unless it were an especially noteworthy case) would be deemed insignificant for Wikipedia, and so what I want to ask is whether this program really has enough at this point to distinguish it from the former case. Arsene 4:44, 8 December 2006
  • Delete. It's short on reliable sources and full of original research. Youtube is not a reliable source for anything (moreover, these are primary sources, there aren't any secondary sources). ColourBurst 19:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, —Doug Bell talk 00:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cbrown1023 01:49, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Milton Chan

Milton Chan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Non-notable individual. Doesn't meet WP:BIO. Being mentioned once or twice on the news doesn't make one article-worthy. Two other similar articles (Emmanuel Morin and Sheryne Morcos) created by the same user have already been deleted. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 00:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep Vice president of the largest political youth organization in Canada. Also did some newsworthy things. Delete Just vice president of policy not an actual leader--M8v2 01:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment He's vice president of policy for the Young Liberals, not an outright vice president (as in second-in-command), according to the article. Also, the president of the organization doesn't himself have an article. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 01:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. Has been the subject of non-trivial coverage (including on the CBC national news), as has his "Election Prediction Project" website. Plenty of relevant Ghits as well. Agent 86 01:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete unless there's more evidence of notability. He's not even the current VP, Policy, and that (basically a board position isn't really notable enough of a position. --Dhartung | Talk 02:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep as per User:Agent 86, and the Election Prediction Project, which could use it's own page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by C.lettinga (talk • contribs)
  • Weak delete, the minimal coverage & junior position in org don't seem to meet WP:BIO. SkierRMH,06:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Chooserr 08:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes WP:BIO with flying colours. WilyD 14:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is maybe one independant news story of any substance about him, and it's only for handing out condoms at a Catholic church. That does not meet WP:BIO. Mus Musculus 15:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I'm sorry things are not available on-line, but google can at least point to some of these, but this person has featured on both CBC and CTV national news, and a number of other media sources, not just for his church activities, but also because of his election website and political activities. The election website is extensively referred to by many election-oriented websites.Agent 86 19:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • During the recent Liberal leadership, several Young Liberal articles were created, probably so that their articles could be linked from the Liberal leadership endorsements article. I nominated several for deletion but I left Chan because I felt that he had some notability. At the time I would have been fine if somebody else had deleted the article. But having thought about it, I think that this is a keep for me (I'd say a "weak" one if I used those terms). He's certainly no Andrew Tanenbaum but his website has been around longer than electoral-vote.com and is probably more important on the Canadian scene than EV is on the American one. He was possibly the most prominent liberal Catholic in Canada when the Pope came, which was a huge news story day after day for weeks. And then there's his Liberal Party activities. No single thing really distinguishes him but taken together he seems notable enough to me.--JGGardiner 19:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the minimal coverage and completely mundane bio information does not add up to a totality of notability. I have school board councilmen that have a stronger rap sheet than passing out condoms and fifteen seconds of fame.--NinjaJew 20:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete doesn't meet WP:BIO in my opinion. It's been claimed that there are more sources of notability, but that they aren't online - they don't need to be. If multiple media sources are available to cite, offline or on, doing so in the article might change my mind. Without those citations, an assertion that the media mentions exist doesn't help me see the increased claimed notability. If someone gets around to writing an article on the Election Prediction website, he certainly should be mentioned there. --Krich (talk) 23:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete doesn't meet "The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person", or "Political figures holding or who have held [...] office" or "Major local political figures who receive (or received) significant press coverage. Just being an elected local official does not guarantee notability." or "The person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field" and so on Darkov 14:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cbrown1023 01:50, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lotacracy

Lotacracy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Fails Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. voldemortuet 14:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. --MECU≈talk 15:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Wiktionary. It would probably suit better use there Jamesbuc
  • Keep and improve. There is enough material available to develop this in to a full encyclopedia article, by discussing the history of the term, and history of lotacracy in Pakistan.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Barastert (talk • contribs).
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, —Doug Bell talk 00:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, after hearing everyone arguments, I think it makes sense to have this article in wiktionary or somewhere rather than here. So change my vote to delete. --Barastert 18:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 13:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Hudson

Rachel Hudson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Neither Rachel Hudson, nor her murderers' trial, has encyclopedic importance. Yes, the trial is the subject of multiple news articles. But, while media coverage is necessary for inclusion at Wikipedia, it's not sufficient. One of the rationales for the primary notability criterion is that we rely on the editorial judgment of reputable publishers as to a topic's importance: if they think it's important, we consider it worthy of inclusion here. But importance is not the only reason things get published. In general, when sources exist on a certain topic, we have to look at the reason the publisher decided to publish on that topic before we conclude that it's appropriate to have a Wikipedia article on the topic. We should ask, did the publisher consider the topic important or consequential in any way? In this case it should be clear that the BBC and other news organizations decided to publish articles about this trial only due to its sensational aspects: Rachel Hudson's brutal treatment and death at the hands of her own family was truly horrific and attention-grabbing. The trial had no importance, or consequences; as far as I can tell, it engendered no widespread discussion on crime and punishment or on the human capacity for cruelty (that's been around for a while now), and had no impact on the legal system or on society at large. In 100 years (even 10 years? even now?) this case will (has been?) surely and rightfully be forgotten, and almost surely not included in any history books. Rachel Hudson herself should, of course, not be forgotten, but that's no reason to keep the article here, because Wikipedia is not a memorial. (Note: De-prodded with comment "seems like there are reliable sources... perhaps it should be renamed, since it was the trial rather than the victim who was notable, but not deleted" -- as I have explained, I don't think either the victim or the trial has encyclopedic notability.) Pan Dan 15:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. I hadn't even herd of this case, granted I do live in the US, before today. While the story is sad, heart-wrenching, and sick it still has not notability as the nominator points out. This is the kind of thing that, sadly, happens often enough that a brutal, cruel, terrible murder such as this doesn't raise an eyebrow once the commercial break starts. wtfunkymonkey 15:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Weak Delete It is always amazing how people writing in deletion debates can read the minds of publishers and decide what they were thinking when they published a story. To become encyclopedic, such a case would need to have a longer shelf life than "crime-arrest-trial-imprisonment." This might include a prolonged debate about the actual guilt, a retrial, and books and movies about the crime, such as In Cold Blood (book), In Cold Blood (film), Sam Sheppard, Charles Starkweather, Leopold and Loeb or Hawley Harvey Crippen, which focussed mostly on the thrill killers, or spree killers, not the victims, and some of which have passed the 50 year test if not yet the 100 year test. This is a horrible murder, following torment. Sadly, it is far from unique. If it becomes the subject of books, movies, scholarly analysis, etc. as did the other cases cited, then recreate the article. Edison 16:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. It has ever been my understanding that crimes, criminals, and their victims form a partially unwritten exception to WP:BIO. Though many times they can easily be verified, and are the subjects of non-trivial news coverage, they nevertheless are routine and unremarkable. Only a few causes célèbres jump the hurdle of being things that people next year or a hundred years from now will be interested in. This case may be one of them, but the article does not make that case yet. Cheerfully open to revising my opinion if further evidence is mustered; from reading one of the BBC reports, this may go beyond a situation involving a violent family of degenerates and raise issues of bureaucratic incompetence as well. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notability is not a proper criterion, verifiability is. Wikipedia is not paper (and lots of paper was spent on this case). dml 20:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, —Doug Bell talk 00:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless this is turned into a biography. WP:BIO can't hold unless the sources actually provide biogrpahical information. ~ trialsanderrors 00:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, to be fair, the argument on the other side would be that the article (if expanded) would be about the trial not the woman, and that therefore, what you say about WP:BIO is a reason to rename not delete the article. (Of course I disagree with that: as I said, neither the victim nor the trial is encyclopedically notable.) Pan Dan 00:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain. Both sides raise valid points. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hotentot (talk • contribs)
  • Strong Delete. Non-notable bio, this is not of encyclopedic importance. --Sable232 01:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not everything verifiable is notable. This article certainly doesn't in present form make any assertion of real notability. --Dhartung | Talk 02:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - I can see both sides of the issue. Perhaps more discussion is needed. (Liveforever22 02:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Strong Delete Verifiability is a necessary but not sufficient condition for article inclusion. Wikipedia is not a news report archive. Media coverage does not automatically translate to encyclopedic notability. This case doesn't seem to have generated exceptional levels of media coverage anyway. Bwithh 03:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As an aside, Here's the apt essay from Orwell in response to Edison and Smerdis' comments... Bwithh 03:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable case. frummer 03:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep and expand The story here, of course, isn't so much the the murder victim herself, but the bizzare circumstances of her death, the fact that her abuse apparently continued with no intervention from neighbors or authorities, and the British public's reaction (or lack thereof) to this incident.. WP:BIO is pretty specific, Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events, such as by being assassinated , qualify. Whether that is due to sensational aspects or not is not part of the criteria, neither is anyone's opinion on the notability of the person in question, or the case they were involved in. The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person There's 4 separate BBC national news reports referenced, and there are certainly plenty of print reports... this is a pretty open and shut speedy keep case. Also, the perps have actually taken the distinction from the Sheriff as the most cruel person(s) ever from Nottingham. (Football fans excluded) That in itself has to have some notability. Tubezone 04:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Media coverage does not automatically translate to encyclopedic notability - the BBC, the New York Times, The London Times, CNN whatever... these are mainstream news channels which cover much non-encyclopedic material, including serious matters, on a daily basis. WP:BIO is a guideline. The primary purpose of Wikipedia is to be an encyclopedia, and not to be a news report archive. And there's no evidence that the murderers have displaced the Sheriff of Nottingham as a local icon except short-lived tabloid headlines. To be encyclopedic, there needs to be substantive evidence that this case has lasting social/political/cultural impact beyond personal tragedy/police log/media sensationalism e.g. if this case brings about a new law; if it inspires a movie; if it leads to creation of a significant charitable foundation etc. Bwithh 04:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I want to assume good faith here, but it seems like you and some other British folk are engaging in some vanity denial, same way Richard J. Daley had the garage that the St. Valentine's Day Massacre took place in plowed under (there's no historical marker for that or the spot in Chicago where John Dillinger was gunned down, either, but if you ever visit, I'll point the spots out to you). WP:BIO states Subjective evaluations are irrelevant to determining the notability of a topic for inclusion in Wikipedia. Same criteria is why Elvira Arellano has an article... yes, I know about WP:INN, but her article survived an AfD based on the that criteria. The fact that it's embarassing to some folks or others would like to subjectively minimize the newsworthiness of the subject by declaring the news coverage to be sensationalistic is not part of the criteria. Fact is, much material in WP is decided to be encyclopedic by WP standards based on mentions in the same mainstream media, and plenty gets deleted due to lack of mentions in the same media.. because that's the standard set by WP:BIO. And, honestly, I think one could safely assume that books and other media on this weird crime will appear in the future, probably because it's embarrassing and sensational... and it's a fairly good wager some law might turn up to prevent a similar incident in the future. Now... how'd I get involved in two British related AfD's in one day? Oh, yeah, the other one was in the hoax-article category... Tubezone 05:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding your points about sensationalism, notability, and "subjective evaluations" -- I explicitly acknowledge in my nom that this story passes the primary notability criterion. You, on the other hand, fail to address the main concern of the delete voters here, which is that this story is not encyclopedically notable, due, in the opinion of most of the delete voters, to lack of any indication of legal or long-term significance. Whatever you think of these arguments, none of us is making "subjective evaluations" as you claim. We're making an objective and reasoned judgment that this story doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Pan Dan 16:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment such as by being assassinated, not specifically being assassinated. Actually, WP:NOT doesn't say "WP is not tabloid journalism", either, that's not to say it is, but there's no rule that tabloid journalism can't make an event or person notable enough for a WP article, eg: Paris Hilton. Tubezone 16:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if the article is expanded. Right now there is no useful information on the page to read, its just a bunch of links and a dictionary sized entry. There is no context and details. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 19:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Expand. --SECurtisTX 19:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep at least for now. Meets basic notability criteria. Let's watch this one improve and we can reconsider in the future. I will help fix. i expect same frm all keep voters :) Obina 20:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Expand. This event is bizarre, out of the ordinary, and has received moderate media attention due to its nature. Things like this don't happen often, much like assassinations, and because such receive notoriety. --NinjaJew 20:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Expand per dml- wiki's not paper, Tubezone, and Jayron's reasons.--Xiahou 23:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Nominator's argument is a prime example of the No true Scotsman fallacy. Yes, says the nominator, it may at first seem as if the BBC considered the story important, publishing 4 stories on it, but they didn't really consider it important. I am impressed by nominator's abilities to look deep into the hearts and minds of BBC writers. Our Wikipedia: Notability criterion, however, lacks such abilities (thank God) so until it does, keep. And, of course, expand - devoting more space to the references than to the story is a prime sign on a stub ready for expansion. AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please read my nom again, because you misunderstand it. I explicitly acknowledge in my nom that this story passes the primary notability criterion. You mischaracterize the basis of my argument as "What the BBC publishes is notable, except when it's not." On the contrary, the basis of my argument is a distinction between notability and encyclopedic notability, i.e. "Some of what the BBC publishes is encyclopedically notable, and some of it's not." Finally, you completely ignore the delete arguments of Edison and others. Note that Edison, like you, challenges my remarkable ability to see into the hearts and minds of BBC writers, but nevertheless comes to a conclusion that this article should be deleted because there is no indication of wider significance. Pan Dan 18:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Read again. Still stand by every word. You are waving your hands at the well defined criterion of notability, which you concede this meets, and replacing it with "encyclopedic notability", a tautology that apparently means whatever you want it to mean at any give moment. "Some of what the BBC publishes is encyclopedically notable, and some of it's not." That's No true Scotsman all over. Just replace it with "Some Scotsmen are true Scotsmen and some are not." The cure is the same - define what you mean by "encyclopedically notable", and we can argue about that. We may even get that accepted as the defining criterion in place of Wikipedia: Notability. But meanwhile, we haven't. I happen to disagree with Edison's criteria, "wait for the book or the movie", because I see Wikipedia's ability to react quicker and cover more than a publishing house or movie studio as an important strength, but his, at least, is well defined. Yours isn't. AnonEMouse (squeak) 02:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The BBC is not an encyclopedia. There is clearly much published or broadcast by mainstream media which is not encyclopedically notable (which is not a tautology by the way - see WP:NOT which clearly excludes a variety of notable forms of knowledge, information and discourse from Wikipedia as it detracts from Wikipedia's primary purpose to be an encyclopedia). Bwithh 03:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh, "... we have look at the reason the publisher decided to publish" is even worse, since you are requiring psychic powers. If the articles says somewhere "this is not an important case", yes, I'll listen to that. Some do, saying: "this is just one of five hundred similar cases, we're detailing this one as an illustration of the trend." Do these? Others say "this case has not drawn any attention outside of Nottinghamshire." Do these? If not, then, unfortunately, lacking psychic powers, I have to assume that it is being covered as something the BBC did, in fact, consider important enough to be covered by multiple articles. As did the Telegraph. [2] As did the Mirror. [3]. As did the Scotsman (ironically enough). [4]. As did Clarin (in Argentina). [5]
  • You've got the wrong end of the stick with those sources. These articles do not support the idea that there is a wider social impact of this case - they merely place the case within a broader social context. It's like any drunken spree by teenagers can be said to raise the question of the wayward behaviour of kids today. Or any time there's a major traffic accident, it can be said that this shows that we should all be more careful drivers. Bwithh 03:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rachel Hudson is not current news. The trial ended a year ago. Also WP:BIO does endorse a little crystal balling, see "Alternative Tests". Also, your or anyone else's judgement of the overall social impact is not part of the notability ciriteria, besides WP:BIO, you might want to read User:Uncle G/On notability, which is not policy, but part of what WP:BIO is based on. As to encylopedic notability, where in WP is that defined? If there's no WP definition, it's subjective for the purposes of this discussion, right? Tubezone 04:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Rachel Hudson is not current news." Well, of course. Nothing stays current news forever. The point of Bwithh's citation and comment (I think) is a distinction between news that has fleeting interest, and news that has lasting significance. If we apply WP:BIO's crystal ball test, which you seem to favor in your comment, it is clear that the article should be deleted, because there is no sign of lasting significance. Pan Dan 13:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We're still here discussing here a year later, aren't we? But that and Alternative Tests don't apply in this case as the subject already passes other WP:BIO criteria. If you want to discuss notability criteria, there's a place to do that, discussions on notability, which are ongoing. The guidelines have been explained, even an admin explained them. JMHO, you're beating a dead parrot here. This AfD is 10 days old and should already be closed. Tubezone 13:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(1) Re: "guidelines have been explained" -- Guidelines are not policy. I, for one (can't speak for other delete voters), acknowledge that this story passes the guideline WP:N. You continue to ignore our arguments that there is good reason to be stricter than the guideline WP:N in this case. Note that the guideline template says "it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." (2) Re: "even an admin" -- There's at least one admin who has opined to delete above. (3) Re: "a year later" -- The only reason we're still discussing this a year later, is that I came across this article in an alt-x search. A Lexis-Nexis search shows that the last mention of Rachel Hudson (in Headline, Lead Paragraphs, or Key Terms) in European papers was in March, in two local papers; there has apparently been no mention of Rachel Hudson in the BBC since the last family member was sentenced. That's a very good indication of fleeting interest, not lasting significance. Pan Dan 13:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cbrown1023 01:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3D-Analyze

3D-Analyze (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Original reason was no notability within WP:SOFTWARE. However, I found a third-party user guide at http://www.3dfxzone.it/dir/articles/template.php?id=5, implying some notability (even if shaky). --Sigma 7 17:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm not sure I selected the right category. If possible, can you change it? --Sigma 7 17:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, —Doug Bell talk 00:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete.--Húsönd 04:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hezekiah Griggs III

Hezekiah Griggs III (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Vanity, vanity, all is vanity. This is vanity. - crz crztalk 00:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orchestra Right Records

Orchestra Right Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This is a record label that currently represents six bands. [Check Google hits] Ghits total 12 for "Orchestra Right Records" and even searching for "Orchestra Right"+label" brings very few relevant articles in the first five pages. Contested prod. ... discospinster talk 16:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also adding two of the label's clients:

Herowin - Music available on MySpace only; record not released yet. Few relevant Ghits for the name, and none of them indicate that the subject meets WP:MUSIC.
Paperfilm 67 - No album released yet, but his friends (including Herowin) like his music. 55 Ghits for the name, 17 of them "unique".

... discospinster talk 16:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Agent 86 00:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete.--Húsönd 04:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rachael Ray Sucks

Rachael Ray Sucks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

A prior debate was speedily deleted, a decision which in turn was overruled at deletion review, and is now back here for a full run. Procedural listing, I have no opinion. trialsanderrors 00:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which you can read if you have a subscription - it is, therefore, technically verifiable--Dmz5 07:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - per Elaragirl. Non-notable, and unverified. Moreschi 08:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Super-Speedy Delete - this didn't even need an AfD. should have been speedily deleted. And what's wrong with Rachel Ray?
  • comment-I really don't have much of an opinion here, but I think it's strange that so many of these votes have said stuff like "there's nothing wrong with Rachael Ray" and "she does not suck!" etc. Obviously you are all sockpuppets of Rachael Ray.--Dmz5 09:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If Rachael Ray wants me to be her sockpuppet, she'll have to do more than cook and look cute on TV. My old lady can cook circles around Rachael Ray, but Rachael Ray's looks and cooking abilities are not at issue here, this is about notability of the the RRsucks web site. So far, we have one verifiable NYT article, one unverfiable LA times quote. Keep digging, what else you got? Tubezone 10:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In light of the fact that it's still there, I'm all for simply deleting this article.--Dmz5 21:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Per TonyTheTiger, this LiveJournal was apparently the subject of a human interest story in November in the New York Times, and that is its claim to notability. I remain unconvinced that this is the sort of news coverage that has enough legs to keep this site interesting after a few more months have passed. And personally, I think the pendulum has swung too far, and editors are becoming too timid about making decisions which might be called subjective. I don't think that this news story makes this journal noteworthy enough. - Smerdis of Tlön 22:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New York Times Article Posted on Discussion page at 19:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC) by User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) TonyTheTiger 19:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete though I have frequently heard of this community its a pure cruft article that would only interest certain people. There could be a small tidbit added to the Rachael Ray article if it is not listed there already but I'm still hesistant to even consider that as a beneficial edit.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 23:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete their 15 minutes are just about up --Infrangible 14:42, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Hey, guys, WP:WEB. That's the overriding guideline here, and this undoubtedly meets it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Def agree WP:WEB. Strong presence on the web and info deserves to be here. RayNay 22:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC) — RayNay (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Strong keep. Strongly Agree WP:WEB. Just because the "Rachael Ray Sucks" site is an "insult" to Rachael Ray does not mean it should be deleted. Should we delete the article on the Ku Klux Klan because they are an insult to black people. No. Wikipedia is a repository of information, not a place for personal vendettas. The Rachael Ray Sucks site has a strong prescense on the Web, and therefore deserves to stay on Wikipedia. GeneralChi 22:57, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This AfD was blanked to remove all the "delete" recommendations. I think I've reconciled to the correct version. --Kinu t/c 02:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Could someone in the "keep" camp explain which of the WP:WEB guidelines this article meets? I personally cannot find satisfactory reliable sources (plural... as in it was mentioned once in NYT Consumed column, and that's it). I'm willing to reconsider my recommendation if more sources are found. --Kinu t/c 02:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Fact, this group DOES exist. Fact, it has been written up several times in various publications. Fact, the owner of the group has done numerous interviews. Fact, there ARE people who dislike Rachael Ray. You can't change the facts. You can only try to hide them. michelle 13:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC) — Recipe addict (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • Comment: Mere existence does not make this encyclopedic, WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information, nor is it Google. Where are the "several" references of which you speak? Several editors have asked for these, but these requests are simply met with generalizations and commentary about "Rachael sucks, don't mask the truth!" Personally I don't care one way or another for her, so I suggest that those in the "keep" camp stick to the facts rather than perceiving this as an outlet to classify those who seek deletion based on policy as Rachael Ray minions. --Kinu t/c 15:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment It should be noted for the benefit of those people commenting on this who have never been to wikipedia before, but wikipedia is NOT merely about "facts" or "the truth". It is about verifiable facts. Please click the blue link to learn more about this important concept. Mere existance is not enough to qualify an article for acceptance at wikipedia. Anyone can create any website at anytime. It does not mean that one can then use Wikipedia as a means of advertising that website. There does not seem to be any compelling reason that Wikipedia needs to keep this as an encyclopedia article. Perhaps as a single-sentance mention in the article Rachel Ray. But not as a complete article on its own. --Jayron32 17:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge: I agree that it needs to merge with the Rachael Ray article. The mention in the NY Times alone gives it enough presence to at least be mentioned on the RR Wiki-article. Nico2001 23:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fact: Wikipedia is (intended to be) an encyclopedia. —Encephalon 09:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The topic has Already been added to Rachael Ray, just so people who don't want to read this entire debate are aware. --Dmz5 10:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cbrown1023 01:53, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

R G C Levens

R G C Levens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Speedy deletion for lack of assertion of notability was overturned, so Mr. Levens gets a full run at AfD now. Procedural listing, I have no opinion. ~ trialsanderrors 00:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not that ISBNs are 100% reliable proof of a book's existence anyway, but at least one of the books mentioned does have a ISBN[8][ Bwithh 05:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If kept, maybe it should be moved, either to his full name or to R. G. C. Levens. —EdGl 01:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Spaced initials without periods is per typical British usage, as opposed to American English which would include the periods. I have located nothing in WP:MOS speaking to this issue, though there appears to have been a tentative proposal to include the periods and most articles do. In notable cases both conventions are supported, e.g. J R R Tolkien redirects to J. R. R. Tolkien. Newyorkbrad 02:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Stubbiness is not evidence of non-notability. If all past article stubs had been deleted on the basis that they didn't yet assert notability, Wikipedia would have almost no content today. dryguy 04:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Failure of WP:PROF and failure to assert substantive encyclopedic notability (even stubs should do this). The only insubstantive attempt made is the claim that he edited a classroom version of a speech or speeches by Cicero. A search of the Oxford library catalog turns up only the two books mentioned in the article plus a brief Greek translation of a Shakespeare scene he did as a student to win a student prize. Google Books (Oxford University Library is one of the 9 library partners of this project) returns 37 hits but no books by him. Of the 37 hits (some of them are inaccessible), I can only find one which is more than a passing mention or footnote[9] (no hits for his full name) Bwithh 05:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. So many people are involved in writing textbooks it isn't funny, and it definitely doesn't make them notable. -Amarkov blahedits 06:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:PROFC.lettinga 06:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:PROF as well as BIO... SkierRMH,06:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Vicarious 07:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per SkierRMH Akihabara 14:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Since there is no coverage of subject by reliable, third-party sources, the contents of this article cannot be properly verified. -- Satori Son 22:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think some of the earlier contributors have been labouring under a misapprehension. Levens certainly didn't write textbooks. Editing a classical text is a substantially more complex and academic procedure, involving consideration of sources and careful analysis of documents over several years. That the edited text was then widely used in schools is a red herring: editions of classical texts are typically used by scholars at all levels of the discipline, and his work in this area was not like that of a "textbook hack". In addition to his work as an editor, it appears from a cursory google that Levens also researched in classical studies, and published papers in such academic journals as "Greece and Rome" and "The Classical Quarterly". Because almost all of this work was paper-based, it's difficult for us to track it down quickly: google-hits are not a good guide to notability in this case. Note that Levens was a fellow of Merton College ( for many years perhaps the most academically prestigious college at Oxford University - see the Norrington Table ): this, on its own, is a pretty good indicator of academic distinction. I've adjusted the article to reflect these points. As it stands, the article is too brief, but it's not clear to me that deleting it is the way to go; rather, we should keep and expand as time and information permit. One final thing: to say that Levens was a Mods tutor is to misunderstand the way classics are taught at Oxford, so I've deleted that as misleading. Roughly speaking, at the time that Levens was working at Oxford, his teaching load would have been largely in Literae Humaniores: Mods would have been concerned with the literature of ancient Greece and Rome, and Greats with the related history, philosophy, historiography and related disciplines. Levens would have taught whilst researching: the Oxford system is built on the principle of putting smart students in the company of leading researchers, and hoping the genius will transfer from one generation to the next ! I hope all this is helpful. WMMartin 14:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I should also add that I think he passes WP:PROF. As noted above, editing a widely-used edition of a major text pretty much guarantees that he passes "Criterion 1", and this is before we get to the academic papers. WMMartin 14:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Google Books project includes the digital archiving of old book texts from Oxford, Harvard, Stanford, New York Public Library, and several other major libraries[10]. I ran a search through it and specifically looked for references to his work mentioned in other books - not simply books that he wrote. I also ran a search through the Oxford University library catalog, which even threw up a prize essay he wrote as a student. So I didn't base my conclusion on a cursory use of normal google. If he was a prolific scholarly paper writer and that hasn't been shown by searches so far, that still needs to be verified (WP:V) and not simply assumed. btw, I graduated from an old, venerable college in the Oxbridge system too - but I don't see why simply being a teacher at a place like this is a supporting reason for justifying a encyclopedic article. Bwithh 15:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 then Redirect to Bear Camp Road. Cbrown1023 01:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dewitt Finley

Dewitt Finley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Non-notable / Wikipedia is not a memorial -- a sad story, to be sure, but not every untimely death is worthy of inclusion. Pop Secret 00:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest that article be merged into Bear Camp Road article. Yaf 05:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I could co-sign a redirect. Pop Secret 09:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete.--Húsönd 04:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2006 Parkway West Longhorn Baseball Team

2006 Parkway West Longhorn Baseball Team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Non-notable; high school team which didn't even win a state title, just a local championship. MisfitToys 00:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cbrown1023 01:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Offer of the Albanian Crown to Victor Emmanuel III.

Offer of the Albanian Crown to Victor Emmanuel III. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Article is just a string of two long quotes. Overall, useless by itself (very trivial), and useless for the article Victor Emmanuel III as well (I checked, and I don't think anything can be merged). —EdGl 00:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cbrown1023 01:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MaxiVista

MaxiVista (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Page is about a generic commercial kvm product and should be merged into the kvm page. The page is only used by the company to advertise their product. References to competing products, alternatives or even the general kvm page are frequently removed by company officials and thus this article does not bear any encyclopedic value. Qdr 18:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

-- Keep 1. Maxvista is not just "a generic commercial kvm product". If you review the specs carefully, you will find that it rather consists of two different features while the major feature is rather the screen extension to another computer by using a virtual video adapter. As far as I can see, this is a quite unique functionality. The links to other software programs do not have this major feature and cannot be compared to Maxvista at all. The particularly mentioned program "Synergy" is frequently considered falsely as an alternative to Maxvista. However, it completely lack the essential virtual video card functionality.

2. I cannot see any false statement or advertisement language in the debated article. It uses neutral description according to the Wikipedia guidelines.

3. I cannot see a compelling reason why a product description must include competitor links. If they are considered to give the feeling of objectivity they should be appropriate and as far as I can see the links which have been added and removed occasionaly do not have much in common with the virtual video function of Maxvista and can be considered as spam.

In conclusion I formally request to remove the deletion tag. 84.166.80.9 23:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Unless I've been dooped by for-hire reviewers, there appear to be multiple reviews of the product including [12] (though I'll have to say that review is suspiciously optimistic). Lots of blog chatter which isn't notable in and of itself for the purposes of WP:RS, but its always a good sign in my opnion. Needs to be re-written to be a bit more neutral, but squeaks by WP:SOFTWARE. - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 04:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, —Doug Bell talk 01:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unless someone comes up with multiple non-trivial references. Agree with Authalic about the WP:COI manipulation. --jaydj 03:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Authalic. MER-C 05:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain. per User:CosmicPenguin's good points, but warry of WP:COI manipulation.--C.lettinga 06:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Authalic- really fails WP:CORPSkierRMH,07:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Software notability should not be determined by reviews - there are many Web sites that review any and all software that comes down the pike. Most of it is completely irrelevant. A software wiki, maybe, but Wikipedia, no. Mus Musculus 15:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as it seems to be a unique software concept. There seems to be any competition. I cannot find biased advertising language in the neutral description as well. Please quote evidence if you find any bias. I assume, that other entries (mainly 'Synergy' and 'Multiplicity') have been deleted as these programs completely lack the Maxivista core functionality of the virtual video port/screen extension. (Would this user 'Qdp' please stop removing my discussion entries and start accepting that my ISP (T-Online) is using shared IP addresses for approx. 50 Million internet users here?! All T-Online users use IP addresses like mine. It is amazing to see how aggressive you are trying to manipulate this article. What is your motivation here, please? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.166.88.56 (talk) 11:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Mr. 84.166.* Your IP space does just allow 65535 addresses. Also your style of discussion and your way of arguing gives away your identity easily. You already voted twice in this discussion, while adhering to WP:COI would require you not to take part at all. Please abstain from further attempts of manipulation. You may also notice that nobody cares whether your software is unique, if its wikipedia entry violates WP:CORP and WP:COI. If you want to erase any doubt in manipulation, please get an account and sign your comments. Please refrain from personal attacks in the future. --Qdr 15:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Qdr: 1. Your initial deletion request is showing that you fail to understand the actual purpose of Maxvista at all. 2. Regarding your false accusation that I would be associated with Maxvista please finally aqcuire some basic skill about dynamic IP provision for dial-in internet accounts: Such IP addresses are temporarily assigned to millions users of ISP clients. If you would visit the makers website you rather find the IP 82.165.99.90, so finally stop making false accusations. 3. It is not my software, but I am a user of the software. I hope that this does not prevent me from defending this article 4. I have not manipulated anything. Rather YOU have erased MY vote. 5. I have not doublevoted (See 2.) 6. Sign your comments with full name and address before you try to teach me about id. Your Wikipedia participation does not show significantly more contribution than the continuous attempt to delete this article. 7. Refrain from false accusations in the future where you can provide no evidence. Regarding IP addresses, see #2. 8. Provide reason for your aggressive motivation to remove this particular software entry. Why not promote to delete Acronis_TrueImage or acdsee (Just as random examples) as well if you try to use WP:COI/WP:CORP as a vehicle to justify deletion of a software listing? 10. Regarding WP:SOFTWARE: [13], [14], [15], [16], [17],[18] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.166.115.119 (talk • contribs) 4:36, 17 December 2006
  • Update - I have updated Multi_monitor and feel that it adequately covers this functionality (in Multi_monitor#Multiple_PC_multi-monitor ). Cheers. --jaydj 02:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jaydj: How does the reference at Multi_monitor#Multiple_PC_multi-monitor cover the two embedded Maxvista features of remote control plus extended screen? Maxvista is not only a multi monitor tool but also a remote control tool. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.166.92.150 (talk • contribs) 03:00, 19 December 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 No consensus. Cbrown1023 02:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Adventures of Fatman

Does not contain references to support claim of notability. Appears to fail WP:SOFTWARE. Andre (talk) 22:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, —Doug Bell talk 01:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC) [reply]
Original closing statement seems to be closing this out of order:
The result was Speedy delete, spam at worst, no assertion of notability at best. Guy (Help!) 00:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Seems somewhat notable plenty of sources and awards.--M8v2 01:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Spammy article about game whose claims to fame are 1) won independent adventure game of the year award from a review website that has 2 writers and an editor[19] 2) won a couple of lesser awards in a contest that is based on voting from an online forum on the website of the company which makes the obscure create-your-own-adventure-game software that the Game uses.[20]. Bwithh 06:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per User:Bwithh--C.lettinga 06:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, my gut tells me this article should be deleted, however this article does in my opinion meet WP:SOFTWARE. My personal tipping point was that at least one of the websites that reviewed this game is itself notable (Adventure Gamers), and the content of that page is a non-trivial discussion of this game. Vicarious 07:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep GameTunnel, Adventure Gamers and Just Adventure all seem like perfectly acceptable critique of the game. It isn't WP's fault or problem that the indie/freeware developing community doesn't receive critical review in printed sources or the major gamesites, it's up to the indie community to club together and generate websites that can do that. On the other hand, when that is accomplished when will WP stop rejecting review sites because they're not Gamespot? The adventure genre is not widely covered by the published gaming press, this includes 'proper' games sold through stores, not just web-distributed ones. That's resulted in a far stronger online presence from smaller sites reviewing these titles, some of which are featured in this article. Whilst I don't accept AGS awards as being sign of anything in terms of articles belonging to WP, honest reviews are another matter. QuagmireDog 08:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Further to that, in my eyes this is a clear pass of WP:SOFTWARE, which is not policy but certainly makes a good start. The sources seem perfectly reliable which passes WP:V. QuagmireDog 12:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't find any references to print articles on the AGSwiki page linked. The AdventureGamers website is not obviously a significant source. Getting a passing mention in an O'Reilly Book as an example of an AGS game doesn't prove much. Roger Ebert has won a Pulitzer Prize for his review work and is the first film critic to have been awarded a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame, and has his work published in 200+ newspapers. If the people behind DIYGames can claim a relatively comparable level of recognition, that would make up for their being few in number Bwithh 13:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I took a look at the corrected media link that Amaccormack sent me. My opinion of AGS is not that it may not be very obscure, but its is still peripheral to games culture. Bwithh 19:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn webgame. Web content is not subject to lower standards of notability, even if "It isn't WP's fault or problem that the indie/freeware developing community doesn't receive critical review in printed sources or the major gamesites". Deizio talk 14:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lower standards? No less than 8 rival adventure sites have reviewed it! WP+SOFTWARE does not state that the non-trivial need to be in print. Since anyone can make a print-on-demand book via BookSurge these days, the printing doesn't really add very much in notability IMHO. Just Adventure, one of the reviewing sites has been described by USA Today as "an editorially rich destination for adventure gamers on the Web. It prides itself on pulling no punches and digging for scoops." PC Player touted Just Adventure as "the ideal meeting place for adventurers old and new." JA have been quoted on box covers, in magazine advertisements, and in newspapers. Adventure Gamers built a solid, dedicated readership over 7+ years, owing to its reputation for high editorial standards. The website has been quoted in magazines and on box covers, has been cited in game-related books and appeared on television several times. Adventure Gamers has over 20,000 unique visitors every day. gametunnel.com have been on G4TV in February 2006, September 2005 and January 2005. etc. etc. if you care to look. Please, if you are going to deny the validity of the references in the article, please specifically denounce each one, with evidence, until there are less than 2 left and the article then fails WP:SOFTWARE. --Amaccormack 16:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ~ trialsanderrors 02:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tanakh (band)

Tanakh (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Fails WP:MUSIC. A few releases on an obscure label. - crz crztalk 23:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Tagger fails to point out criteria by which subject is non-notable. According to the sixth criteria listed in the guidelines of WP:MUSIC, the entry is permissible:
"Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable..."
Notable musicians which have performed as part of this collective include David Lowery and Mick Turner; the outfit's labelmates include Polmo Polpo and Tim Hecker. --Folajimi 04:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article states they merely "collaborated" with the band. - crz crztalk 12:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Quit grasping at straws; members of any musical collective usually have to collaborate. --Folajimi 18:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, —Doug Bell talk 01:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jaranda wat's sup 01:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Highland Middle School (Libertyville, Illinois)

Highland Middle School (Libertyville, Illinois) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Article was prodded and deleted but restored on request at WP:DRV, so it's now here for full deliberation. Procedural listing, I have no opinion. ~ trialsanderrors 01:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete, WP:CSD A7, nn group, no assertion of importance. Deizio talk 14:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Noesis Interactive

Noesis Interactive (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Does not meet WP:CORP and has no reliable sources. BJTalk 01:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete . Dakota 05:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Coyle's Country Store

Coyle's Country Store (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Relatively small chain of stores in southern Ontario. Originally prodded as a nn company that does not meet WP:CORP. It is claimed in the article, without proper verification or reliable sources that a past proprietor of the store invented instant coffee. This runs contrary to the verifiable attributions of the invention to others. Absent the instant coffee claim, there is nothing encyclopedic about this company. (See also the AfD discussion on A.J. Coyle‎, the purported "true" inventor.) Agent 86 01:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I forgot to sign my comment: Preston47 02:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Preston47, I'll reply on your talkpage. Newyorkbrad 02:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was REDIRECT to Shen Gong Wu. Larry V (talk | contribs) 09:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wudai Weapons

Wudai Weapons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

The article is an exact duplicate of a section in Shen Gong Wu. Jay32183 02:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete.--Húsönd 05:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stunner at Staples

Stunner at Staples (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Not notable, unclear writing, no articles link to it. Croctotheface 02:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Gone to Selkirk Delete.--Húsönd 05:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To Go To Selkirk

To Go To Selkirk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Non-notable neologism. prod removed by author with non notable source added. WP:NFT also applies. delete Aagtbdfoua 02:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Dakota 05:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Company B (a cappella)

Company B (a cappella) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

A student society with no claim to fame than being oldest a capella group at Brandeis University, and does not appear to pass WP:MUSIC. The article is mainly a vanity list of names. 0 hits on CDBaby, 3 hits on Amazon.cm - it's a girl group by the same name. Will they sue or be sued?? ;-) Delete per WP:ORGOhconfucius 02:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 06:45, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Hangovers

The Hangovers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)
  • Collegiate a cappella group. Has released a number of albums but does not otherwise appear to assert notability. I suspect the albums are self-released, as they are not listed in Amazon.com nor cdbaby.com. I reckon the group fails WP:MUSIC. Delete. Ohconfucius 03:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. MER-C 05:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Refer to the previous discussion when this article was brought up for deletion. The Hangovers, although perhaps not incredibly notable outside their sphere, are certainly notable in the realm of collegiate a cappella and Cornell University music. They are certainly far more deserving of recognition than many organizations and ensembles on Wikipedia. Referring to the criteria for a musical ensemble in WP:MUSIC, I believe The Hangovers meet the following to varying degrees:
    • 4: "Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one large or medium-sized country, reported in reliable sources." - The Hangovers have toured extensively internationally and nationally for many years. Last year they toured Italy, and they will be traveling to Spain next year. Many of their performances have been for important individuals, such as their performance for South Korean President-elect Kim Dae-Jung in 1998. [21]. On their 2004 tour of Brazil, The Hangovers were shown on the Brazilian national television news, Jornal Nacional.
    • 6: "Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable" - The Hangovers spawned the Washington, D.C. a cappella ensemble, The Tone Rangers, about 20 years ago. The Tone Rangers were recently referenced in the Jennifer Aniston film, "The Break Up." [22]. Another group spawned by The Hangovers is The Breakers [23], which recently toured Malaysia. Musicians Brian Chu [24] and Alan Farouk [25] are merely two of the accomplished musical alumni of The Hangovers. Also, although not a musician, politician Alan Keyes was a member of The Hangovers.
    • 9: "Has won or placed in a major music competition." - The Hangovers have often participated in the International Championship of Collegiate A Cappella (ICCA), placing in the regional competitions. In 2001, they placed in the Mid-Atlantic semi-final competition and won recognition for "Best Entrance."
    • 1: "It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable." - I admit that the "independence" of this source can be questioned, but The Hangovers are the subject of a lengthy chapter in the book Songs From the Hill [26].
    • 10: "Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show." - The Hangovers have performed on a variety of television and radio networks. As the article mentions, they perform in a PBS documentary.
    • 7: "Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city" - The Hangovers are certainly one of the pioneering groups in collegiate a cappella, and have shaped the a cappella environment at Cornell University and likely elsewhere.

I feel it better serves the Wikipedia community to strive for a broad coverage of articles than to cut itself down to only the most notable or impressive in some broad category like "music." I recognize that some organizations use this site for blatant publicity, but I think this article serves a broader purpose. Honestly, would a general encyclopedia have incredibly awesome articles like the Back to the Future timeline? Such articles only appeal to a small niche, but they are part of what makes Wikipedia great. (To clarify, I am not a member of The Hangovers.) CREarle 07:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Whilst you may have a point with some of the arguments, I have just re-read the article, and now believe that if we trimmed out a lot of the trivial and POV crap, pardon my French, in the earlier part, I would have not got completely turned off by the time we got to the tours section. However, I must contest some of your arguments:
"backwards notability" is highly problematic, IMHO: the Tone Rangers may have came out of the Hangovers, but the fact is that group "became" the Tone Rangers, whilst the Hangovers "became" another group on their departure. Members have drift out of it by rotation on their graduation (sic), and the Tone Rangers does not equal the Hangovers.
I do not feel that WP:MUSIC/WP:BIO defines that being placed in a regional competition is noteworthy.
Songs from the Hill is a history of the Cornell Glee Club and not the Hangovers (which is but a later offshoot), Having said that, anything less than a chapter in the book on the latter would IMO be a death knell. It is indeed correct to say that it is not independent, nor is it multiple.
By (10), I'm pretty sure the drafters didn't really mean that anyone who has publicly performed "The Theme from the Rockford Files" or "Who Are You?" be notable. They were referring, inter alia to Trevor Rabin, Stanley Clarke, Stewart Copeland, Thomas Dolby, Bobby McFerrin, who performed theme songs "for" (and not "from") films and TV shows. Ohconfucius 08:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Massive POV problems, fails WP:MUSIC and WP:BAND; being notable in their own niche doesn't make them encyclopedically notable. SkierRMH,07:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - POV is not a reason to delete an article (and I'm not really sure what you're referring to anyway), WP:MUSIC and WP:BAND are the same thing, and being notable in its own niche is absolutely a mark of notability for most things in most topic areas, including musical acts. JDoorjam Talk 20:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It needs work but I think I have to go with keep, the stuff cited above does seem to tip the balance in favor of notability.--Dmz5 08:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Cornell University Glee Club. These are not notable unless they have won major competitions. Mus Musculus 16:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, for the same reasons it was kept last time the article was AfD'd. CREarle lays out a good number of reasons to keep this article. Ohconfucius: the Hangovers performed the theme song for the PBS special. It's them singing. It's not a cover. And, as ICCA is as major a competition as there is in this genre, they clearly qualify under criterion #9. They've had an original song that's been written up in college-related publications and has gotten airplay. They tour widely and have been featured in international media while touring. The article is sourced and the group has notable accomplishments. JDoorjam Talk 20:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • sorry to be pedantic, but nowhere in the article does it state the group "performed the theme for a PBS broadcast" - that's a new piec of informaion you've imparted; I'm not deprecating the ICCA, but the group won competition at a regional level, whilst policy states this should be a major competition. In all the other debates I've read, the consensus meaning is competition at a national level. Ohconfucius 00:10, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This group meets many criteria for notability, beyond that, they are a part of the oldest organization at Cornell. Some members have gone on to produce other notable groups. If there are POV problems, I suggest they get fixed instead of deleting this otherwise good article outright. Pumeleon 21:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per CREarle. This is a clearly a notable group, and if the article needs work then let that work get done. Cornell Rockey 21:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • ABSTAIN Normally I would be all over deleting the hell out of an article like this, but I'm too tired right now to research it to back up a delete. I will, however, be happy to edit the hell out of the article, police it to get rid of the POV crap (no, I don't apologize for that remark...it is crap), and generally clean up the article. I will remove anything that is not cited or sourced so that should help clean up the article and clarify which way this AFD should go. --Brian (How am I doing?) 23:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per CREarle --Xiahou 00:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Since this AfD began, a great number of references have been added to the article, including international news coverage of one of the Hangovers' tours. Further tags, most likely citing the chapter of Slon's book dedicated to the Hangovers, are likely to be added in the next twelve hours. As often happens, this has proven to be a good opportunity for article growth. I encourage those editors who have cited citation or POV issues to take the discussion to that talk page, where it can be addressed in a drive to improve the article. JDoorjam Talk 00:21, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per previous arguments, the group's history and achievements certainly merit an article. The article itself could be tightened to reflect those rather than focusing on recent and more minor issues, but should not be removed. I see it is being edited even as I write this. airbreather
  • Keep (but improve) they are notable, their site is visited often according to Alexa, and they have 636 listeners on last.fm (which only represents a small percentage, not many people use last.fm) Noteworthy, keep the article! But remember NPOV! Matt 01:44, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:RS and WP:NOR. Does not have any reliable secondary sources to back up any of the claims cited above as per its notability claim. It's "international tour" is a Cornell Univiersity press release, not a real third party news source. They haven't placed in ICCA, only participated and placed in much smaller local competitions. Even the keep vote above admits theres no idependent coverage of this group (i.e. non-members; not within the bubble of their university). Having been on television is not the same has having performed the theme for a television show. There is no evidence that they are any more notable than the average a capella group (i.e. having performed in front of a few famous people, been on tv once, 15th place at the local competition, paid BOCA to get on the cd). There is no way this article will ever be able to become substantial based off material that can be cited to reliable, non-trivial, secondary sources. If they only people who would want to write it (or who would be able to write it!) are members of the group, that is clearly indicative of a WP:V violation. savidan(talk) (e@) 04:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: There are already multiple non-trivial references to the Hangovers, including both a national newspaper article about them and a book with a chapter dedicated to the Hangovers. Yes, you're right: there are also university press releases, and references to the official website, but you're moving the goalposts here. Those are both reasonably reliable sources which add to the scope of the article; you're acting as though using them somehow weakens the content. I'm still not clear on the confusion about the TV show thing: they went into a studio and recorded a song, written by a member of the group, specifically for the TV show. It was then broadcast as part of the production of that show. Not incidentally, the reference to their participation in the production of that show is listed at PBS.org, which is certainly (yet another) "reliable secondary source." You are correct that they were also later on television performing, but that was an entirely different event (which seems, therefore, to further add to their notability). The article is well-referenced and only continues to get better-referenced. I'm not at all clear how deleting this article would be anything but a net loss to Wikipedia. JDoorjam Talk 04:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Based on the recent edits by savidan, he's gone on a crusade to delete 20+ collegiate a cappella groups. CREarle 04:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily deleted. Grandmasterka 08:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hit Paws

Hit Paws (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

College a cappella group with very weak or no assertion of notability. I see nothing on their website which would indicate it passes WP:MUSIC Ohconfucius 03:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was REDIRECT to Elizabethan era. Larry V (talk | contribs) 09:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabethans

Elizabethans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

College a cappella group. Article has little or no assertion of notability. Albums appear to have been self-released, and most likely fails WP:MUSIC 0 hits in Amazon.com, 0 hits on cdbaby. Delete Ohconfucius 03:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Luna Santin 10:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Game-Spectrum

Game-Spectrum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Not notable. Fails WP:WEB. MKoltnow 03:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete as an article about a web site, ... online forum ... or similar web content that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject. This is just an OR history of a website with not assertion of notability whatsoever. Being created by a single-purpose account and edited by anon IP's points straight to WP:AUTO. -- IslaySolomon | talk 03:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 13:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Humtones

Humtones (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

College a cappella group. Article has some notability. Albums appear to have been self-released, and I hardly consider 7 gigs (in fellow universities) over 2 semesters a "nationwide tour" per WP:MUSIC. With the possible exception of two alumni listed, most likely not to be notable. 0 hits in Amazon.com, 0 hits on cdbaby. Delete Ohconfucius 03:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 13:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Whitby Incident

The Whitby Incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

From what I can tell, this is an old stale joke, (traditionally associated with Hartlepool in County Durham) restated to poke fun at Yorkshiremen (who supposedly think a chimp is Frenchman because of what they read in London newspapers). Google gives only 2 relevant hits: WP and the reference used in the WP article. The real Whitby incident involved the first Luftwaffe plane shot down in England during WW2. The joke is adequately covered under Hartlepool, although I'm pretty sure similar jokes predated the Hartlepool incident. Tubezone 03:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just out of interest, I think several Luftwaffe planes had already been shot down in Scotland. .. dave souza, talk 22:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Larry V (talk | contribs) 09:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Centaurs in antiquity

Centaurs in antiquity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

I'll skip the prod since I'm sure it would be contested. POV fork from Centaurs as acknowledged in the page history. I assume the controversial assertion is that Centaurs actually existed and the article suggests (via non-reliable sources) they still exist today. One section outlines reports of centaurs in antiquity, which can be merged back to Centaurs Aagtbdfoua 03:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Fails verifiable sources. My apologies to Wikiproject:Paranormal, but UFO/Paranormal websites are not peer reviewed secondary sources, so do not count as valid sources for wikipedia. Footnote #1 looks like it may be valid although I'm not familiar with that site, but #2 through #5 are not. Lacking decent sources, this teeters toward either OR or outright hoax-Markeer 04:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not censored. --- RockMFR 18:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 13:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Out of the Dawg House

Out of the Dawg House (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

I find absolutely nothing notable about this college a cappella group. Self-released CD (nothing on CDbaby). No assertion of notability otherwise. Delete. Ohconfucius 03:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 12:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Freeman

Bill Freeman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

(See also first AFD) This page was brought to the attention of WP:BLPN so I took a look at it. It is filled with nothing but rumors and allegations against the subject of the article. "By the late 1990s, allegations resurfaced that Freeman's wife, Patsy, had caused numerous divorces in different cities and mentally abused many different church-members." What the heck does that mean? She caused numerous divorces? That doesn't even make sense. The ENTIRE article is an attack page - it isn't just one or two sentences. I looked back in history and this article is basically identical to the first version [28] 1.5 years ago, so there is no good version to revert back to. The article was kept at AFD before, but the only question was notability. But we now have a new policy, WP:BLP which says that unsourced or poorly sourced information must be removed. I have no idea if the guy is notable or not, but this attack page ought to be deleted so that a decent article can be written, if desired.

  • Speedy delete as attack page. So tagged. MER-C 06:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't disagree with you ... I just think it seems strange to speedy a page that has survived an AFD and been edited by three administrators I recognize. By all means, though, I am in favor of a speedy. BigDT 06:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm not sure I agree that the "entire article" is an attack page -- seems to me about two sentences could be removed and two others trimmed, and you have a basic history of the group. The "Whitworthian" coverage is certainly WP:V to that extent. I'm less convinced of the WP:N side of things, because the controversy seems to all be local and minor (of the church kerfuffle variety). They don't cause controversy in the community, that is. --Dhartung | Talk 08:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It looks like the Whitworthian is a school newspaper ... if it's like our school newspaper was at Tech, I'm not sure I'd believe it if it said the sky was blue. The content of the article seems mostly to come from an opinion piece written by the editor of the school newspaper. The other two references are anti-cult sources. Googling, I couldn't find anything else out there except for other anti-cult publications ... so I'm not sure that there's anything out there to even attempt to write a neutral article. At any rate, an article that is just a rehash of allegations is, in my book, an attack page, even if someone else has made the allegations too. BigDT 14:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not an attack page, per Dhartung. But the sourcing fails WP:V and the subject(s) fail WP:N Bucketsofg 00:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Balance The two anti-cult sites are clearly relying on the Whitworthian coverage, and are effectively just reprinting portions of it. (The Apologetics Index is more honest about it; it uses quotations and cites its source.) At this time, there is one book he edited with Amazon sales rank above 150K, and three he wrote with sales ranks between 500K and 1 Million. Amazon shows that he wrote some books back in the 1970s, so somewhere in the past 30 years there probably have been multiple independent reviews of his work, causing him to pass WP:BIO. But the article doesn't demonstrate it, or even say anything about his writing books. So I'm comfortable with deletion as the article really only has one source, and that one is inadequate for writing a NPOV article. GRBerry 03:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Deletion for violating Wiki policies on biographies of living persons. This article is highly biased. When blatant POV statements are removed, the author promptly reinserts them, making a neutral article about Bill Freeman's life and work as a Christian speaker and writer impossible. Additionally, the article is factually incorrect. For example, it claims that the Freemans own SIX houses, which is not accurate. It is apparent that the author of this article has a personal vendetta against the Freemans. The "sources" are nothing more than published personal attacks which do not constitute a factual biographical article. This article needs to be deleted entirely to prevent the propogation of misinformation.Wh4ever 18:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Deletion for obvious attack article. The author uses and maintains incorrect facts to support a personal agenda. Ckmnstr
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Although a current student at MIT myself, I must agree with the conclusion that Resonance isn't that notable. Larry V (talk | contribs) 10:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Resonance (MIT)

Resonance (MIT) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Second nomination for deletion (see first one here) The article only asserts notability weakly, as having been "recognied by the Contemporary A Cappella Society". They play on campus and do not seem to go on tour, and their albums are self-released, so it fails WP:MUSIC. The article has remained in this state since March. Delete. Ohconfucius 03:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom. No encyclopedic notability asserted. Fails WP:Music. It was asserted in the first afd that inclusion in the 2006 Best of College A Capella CD (as one of about 20 tracks from about 20 different groups) indicated that the group had won a major competition. I'm not sure about this. Here's an excerpt from the contest's FAQ[29]:

Does it cost anything to appear on BOCA? Yes. Groups are required to pre-purchase 50 CDs at $5 apiece, for a total of $250, in order to appear on BOCA. Note that you are not limited to 50 CDs; some groups have bought many more and sold them on campus for much more than $5 each. What do we get out of appearing on BOCA? Bragging rights for one. More than 100 CDs are submitted each year for BOCA, of which we will choose fewer than 20. You can sell your copies at any price, though you only pay us $5 for them, so at $15 per, you make a 200 per cent profit. You also get international publicity, and we include contact information in the liner notes so people who like what they hear can order your disc.

Well, the "international publicity" sounds nice (though all the groups on the 2006 CD were from the US, and the organization running the contest is taking, rather than giving money away...) Bwithh 04:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus to delete, any mergers remain an editorial decision. Sandstein 06:50, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hash Bash

Hash Bash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

I think that this article does not establish notability for the event that it describes. The second paragraph does not seem to have anything to do with the event. Delete unless material is added to establish notability. I prod'ed this but the prod is contested, so that's why I'm bringing it for discussion. It does return a lot of google hits, but there does not seem to be a lot of national coverage. The most pertinent guidlines for notability on this might be WP:ORG and it does not seem to pass those.TheRingess 04:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete without some proof of notability. I'm convinced from the refs below that it's notable enough to stay on Wikipedia in some form - Merge into Culture in Ann Arbor, Michigan seems like the best choice. Quack 688 06:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. MER-C 06:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - doesn't seem to pass ORG, not much non-local coverage.SkierRMH,07:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a UofM alum, the Hash Bash is a huge event (if you can't tell by the photo). The google hits are indicative of its significance. If deleted should be merged more fully into Culture_in_Ann_Arbor,_Michigan. TonyTheTiger 20:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I agree with the idea to merge, I simply don't think this event is notable enough for its own article.I simply think that the article does not provide enough context to establish the notability of the event. I just read the culture article and it is already there. This article says nothing more than the brief blurb in that article. To me, that's another reason for deleting this stub.TheRingess 20:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Hash Bash was/is a distinct footnote in American social history. I had heard of it before coming to Ann Arbor.--EricaAckerman 20:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment thank you for contributing to the discussion. Without sources, we have no way of determining the accuracy of your statement, and this is really what the discussion is about. If you can, please edit the article to include sources that show the national/international notability of the event. For example, coverage in a national newspaper/magazine might help, but articles in alumni newsletters/magazines or magazines that do not have a broad readership, probably wouldn't. Thanks again for your desire to contribute. TheRingess 20:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge No sources providing notability, but if they can be found, I certainly wouldn't be against mergine into the approrpiate UMich article. -- Kicking222 21:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Detele per nom.≈Krasniy(talk|contribs) 22:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm perplexed. As a Michigan alum I know this gets tons of coverage in the local press each year, but I cannot seem to find any of it with a quick search, with the exception of some articles in the Detroit News [30]. Merge until we can find some reliable sources that discuss the event. JChap2007 00:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Ummm, the PRODer notes that there are many hits, some of which I note are the result of the Ann Arbor historical society, yet these are dismissed because they are largely local? The vast majority of the hits for CN Tower from from Toronto, so that criterion seems extremely weak. There's also mentions of caselaw at what appears to be the State level, which seems to nullify the argument, and a large number of link-ins from various "pot" related sites that are not local. And given that the "zeroth" bash (1970) included John Lennon, Yoko Ono and Alan Ginsberg [31], it would seem the justification for inclusion based on historical notability is more than obvious. Maury 17:41, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not sure that comparing this to the CN Tower is a good analogy. According to the article the CN Tower is listed in the Guinness book of records as the world's tallest building. That fact alone qualifies the CN Tower for an article in Wikipeida. John Lennon and Yoko Ono must have played lots of venues in their time, does that automatically qualify every venue for inclusion in Wikipedia? I simply think that this is fine as part of the culture in Ann Arbor article, but does not qualify for a separate article. Lots of universities have street fairs, carnivals and parades. Should wikipedia have an article for each one? I change my vote to redirect to the culture article and if an interested editor wishes to expand that section (for example, to include a history of the event, notable performances, coverage in national media, etc) to the point where a separate article is warranted, then great.TheRingess 05:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you can provide examples of other "university street fairs" that are quoted as legal precedent, I'm all ears. You ask "Should wikipedia have an article for each one", but that's a non-sequitur, whether or not it should (and I say "sure") is no argument on whether or not this one should be here. It seems more than notable, which pretty much ends the argument IMHO. And it's not like merging it into some other page would save resources or anything, all that would do is make it more difficult to find. Maury 15:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree, but I agree to disagree. A merge would not make it any harder to find, it would simply redirect them to the culture article (which as pointed out) already contains pretty much exactly the same material.TheRingess 15:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The event is of broader historical/cultural interest for several reasons, including: A.) its catalyzing role in broader battles over marijuana legalization in left-leaning U.S. college towns in the early 1970s (see, for example, Marijuana laws in Ann Arbor, Michigan); and B.) its creation as part of the widely noted struggle to free poet/activist John Sinclair from prison, which drew support from a number of nationally noted figures. I do agree that the article could use quite a bit of improvement at this point. Ropcat 17:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Larry V (talk | contribs) 10:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frenzy on Figueroa

Frenzy on Figueroa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Not notable, no references, unclear writing, no articles link to it. Croctotheface 04:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, discounting the last comment as rather unhelpful (see WP:ILIKEIT). Sandstein 06:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Antistatic (band)

Antistatic (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Neutral bump up from contested speedy. A claim that it meets WP:MUSIC is on the article's talk page. Procedural nomination, so I abstain. Kchase T 04:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I placed the speedy since it did not appear to meet WP:MUSIC, but the author has clarified and the band seems to meet the criteria. --Walter Görlitz 06:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete The article/author asserts that they have performed nationwide, received independent coverage from multiple independent sources, and been placed on rotation by a major radio network. However, these have not been supported with a citation as of yet. Delete unless one of these can be supported with a reliable source. —ShadowHalo 12:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:V. Article does not provide reliable, third-party sources and I was unable to locate any. -- Satori Son 02:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've added three sources now, which I believe to be reliable (they are from well-known Australian music websites). A-Thousand-Lies 15:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep - its a small article and it seems like the band will be GREAT someday68.6.66.11 07:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 13:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Johns Hopkins Mental Notes

The Johns Hopkins Mental Notes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

The weakest assertion of notability. 3 self-released albums. No indication at all that it has toured. The group is known, presumably to the University only, for "exhibiting wild, deranged and often depraved qualities for the sake of being funny" Delete Ohconfucius 04:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Larry V (talk | contribs) 10:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ransom Notes

Ransom Notes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Second nomination for deletion (see first one here). The article has remained in this state since it was nominated for deletion in March 06. It only asserts notability weakly, as having won a regional ICCA award for a song arrangement in 2001 . The group does not seem to have gone on any serious tours, and the albums are all self-released, so it fails WP:MUSIC. CDbaby search shows up 1 article, a Texas a cappella group, and I don't think this is a case of mistaken identity. Delete. Ohconfucius 04:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Larry V (talk | contribs) 10:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ubuntu Satanic Edition

Ubuntu Satanic Edition (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Just a desktop theme, no more notable than anything on freshmeat. Twinxor t 04:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Larry V (talk | contribs) 10:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Niche RMS

Niche RMS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Fails WP:SOFTWARE. Only mentions in the media were reprinted press releases. Contested prod. MER-C 04:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Larry V (talk | contribs) 10:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neco-Arc

Neco-Arc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Non-notable fictional character. Unreferenced. Contested prod. MER-C 04:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kungfu Adam (talk) 20:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Silvercrest SL65

Silvercrest SL65 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Doesn't seem to meet WP:CORP. Contested prod. MER-C 04:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rewrite and Rename - the parent company has several products, this one has 20,000 ghits in multiple languages. I would suggest this be re-written as the parent company, with the products given their own sections. Also, this reads too much like an ad. SkierRMH,07:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - But why does anyone wants an article with the details and functions of an unknown product? Maybe it looks like an ad but without mentioning the brand (silvercrest) of the receiver this is of no use to anyone. This shouldn't be deleted because there's no other article of wikipedia regarding this FTA receiver and it is very difficult for people to find a good structured information on google about this. AR PcPro • contribs) 18:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete. This article is about a product range from a single retail chain. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a catalogue. Under no circumstances should this article be merged with that of the retail chain: we don't detail products carried by other stores, nor should we here. To suggest, as an earlier participant in this discussion has, that this article shouldn't be deleted because there's no other article about this product in Wikipedia is to entirely misunderstand what encyclopedias are for. My own view is that this is an obvious "speedy". WMMartin 20:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Larry V (talk | contribs) 10:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I haven’t understood yet why you want to delete this. If it’s because it could be advertising in that case let’s also delete all articles with individual products of several brands. For example when I search for Nokia 6630 it’s advertising to Nokia isn’t it???? Or if I search for Sony VAIO…But let’s suppose it is advertising and I’m here promoting this item. If someone specifically searches for it, then it is because it wants to know information about it, either with the intention of buying it or not. And my view is that the role of an encyclopaedia is to provide information to people. Plus this receiver is not sold exclusively on that particular chain. It’s a Comag receiver sold on many satellite stores around.

AR PcPro 24 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep I think, the matter is if this article must be deleted or not. But not rewritten (perhaps made more accurate, or little changes)... If we look for what means Encyclopedia I find the following:

-An encyclopedia, encyclopaedia or (traditionally) encyclopædia,[1] is a comprehensive written compendium that contains information on all branches of knowledge or a particular branch of knowledge.

In this case, I find that this article gives knowledge about a specific product, quite popular in the Satellite receivers world, and whose info available in the net, is spread and confuse. I found this article in the net, and was very useful for me... OK... I can accept an "traditional" encyclopedia is not a catalogue, but Wikipedia is not a traditional one. It has pages with thousands of "devices", like cameras : Canon_XL-2, computers : Icube, Mobile phones Nokia_6230, cars Seat_Ibiza.... And so on.... is TRULY easy to find popular brand+model items on wikipedia, and they offer knowledge about popular devices, products, items of our life.... When a item is not popular enough to appear on wikipedia? I don't know ... It its because lack of popularity.... Someone can explain me why those products mobile phones/cars can be on wikipedia, and this not?? .... Nevertheless... I think is OBVIOUSLY not an ADVERTISEMENT, even is difficult to find/buy itself because their marketing techniques... and it uses a very objective language --

pismak 02:01, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Larry V (talk | contribs) 10:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outdoor vending

Outdoor vending (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Non-notable and obscure department of Disneyland. Crufty. Contested prod. MER-C 04:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete especially since the Indoor vending department doesn't have its own article! :) SkierRMH,07:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete while I realize that all subjects related to Disneyland and Walt Disney World are of at least some interest to families, this reads more like a how to guide to employment opportunities at the Anaheim site. If people wish to know what jobs are available, they can visit the Disney Corp's HR website. -Markeer 13:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The employee department for outdoor vending at Disneyland doesn't seem encyclopedic in itself. Subject maybe rates a one sentence mention in the Disneyland article. Dragomiloff 22:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails the "is it more notable than my socks?" test. The word "cruft" was invented for this sort of stuff. WMMartin 21:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 13:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My Jewellery Shop

My Jewellery Shop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This business is a small jewlery shop in Mexico. There are insufficient, third party references availible to expand this article to a fully encyclopedic article, and thus it fails the Primary Notability Criteria as spelled out in WP:N. Additionally, there are problems with violations of WP:NOT specifically, Not a directory of businesses. Jayron32 04:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Larry V (talk | contribs) 10:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Centro (company)

Centro (company) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Found while clearing out CAT:CSD. Deletion reason was -- {{db-g11}}. Looks like the author did quite some improvements since it was tagged. It is not a clear cut advert in my view. Therefore I nominated this to afd. Opinions on what to do with this? No Stance —— Eagle 101 (Need help?) 04:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 13:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas J. Reilly

Thomas J. Reilly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Was tagged as speedy delete and contested, but meets no WP:CSD. Still, I fail to see how this person is notable under WP:BIO. Sandstein 06:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, A7 —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-15 10:28Z

Newcastle Tango Society

Newcastle Tango Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

nn Tango society, deprodded without comment. Possible speedy candidate Hornplease 06:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Larry V (talk | contribs) 10:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Teabagging (disambiguation)

Teabagging (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

original research, unverified, dicdef, and oh yeah, only links to one actual article on the topic Vicarious 06:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. If somebody wants to recreate this later, with proper reliable sources, they can, but it doesn't pass WP:V in its current state. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bookscout

Bookscout (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Unsourced; prod removed with a request to list. Bringing it here. Hornplease 06:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Majorly (Talk) 21:42, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 12:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cameron Carter

Cameron Carter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Contested speedy, there is an assertion of notability here: "the youngest pilot to ever attend a Chicago Public School". However, this seems a fairly standard case of WP:BIO failure and probably WP:COI. -- IslaySolomon | talk 06:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Majorly (Talk) 21:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Celorio

Victor Celorio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

contested prod (removed from article); reason given was "InstaBook PR ad and non-notable bio". Google search backs up assertion that he's NN. Dave6 06:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's primarily an issue of notability, not spam. If he's in the historical record, then references to that record would help establish notability. Dicklyon 01:40, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank's I'll try to fix it. User:BadBull 10:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not Delete. According to the Wikipedia guidelines, a person is notable if there have been articles and other bibliographic references about him or her that can be verified. Victor Celorio meets that requirement with hundreds of articles about him and his invention. If his invention is what made him notable, this in no way diminishes his accomplishments and/or his notability.

The genesis of the main article was the inclusion by somebody else of Victor Celorio in Wikipedia on a List of Notable Mexicans. My article specifically didn't mention the trademark name (InstaBook) to avoid the appearance of promotion. While it is true that a search of InstaBook will provide more hits, the fact remains that a search for Victor Celorio pulls a significant number of hits as a leader in Print-on-Demand technology, which is a growing segment of the publishing industry.

Therefore I believe that the entry of Victor Celorio meets the criteria set by Wikipedia and should not be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Llambert (talk • contribs) — Llambert (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • Keep. I change my vote, now that evidence of notability is included in the article. Now if Victor and his friends will take the time to learn wikipedia editing style (start with WP:MOS, and stock deleting the editorial suggestion tags before acting on them, this article can be rescued. And if they refrain from putting commercial external links on pages other than the InstaBook article itself (if there is one) or the PediaPress article, we shouldn't have much problem about it. Dicklyon 17:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not Delete. He is notable as a pioneer in the fledgling 'Books on Demand' field. He has patents as well as business operations in that arena. A google search turns up a bunch of hits on him as well as his company. The article is neutral and does not violate any copyrights that I see. Please keep it.--JustKeith 03:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC) — Kperkins411 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Weak keep. Changing my vote as well, as the sources seem to establish verifiability and notability for InstaBook, and Victor Celorio founded the company. My concern, however, is that the articles don't seem to say much about him other than "Victor Celorio founded Instabook", so perhaps we should be putting this information into InstaBook and redirecting this page there. (By the way, I'm not convinced that his books are at all notable; they all have Amazon sales ranks over 4 million, and that's the ones that even have a sales rank. I would imagine it's not hard for the founder of a company that prints books on demand to get his books published.) Dave6 08:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ~ trialsanderrors 22:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lulu Fellows

Lulu Fellows (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Curious one, but I'm not at all certain about notability. Young girl about whom little is known, who died in 1883, and whose grave is slightly enigmatic. The article is unencyclopaedic, poses as it does more questions than it answers. Created by User:Lulufellows ;-). Make of that what you will. Ohconfucius 06:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 12:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bama bangs

Bama bangs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Probable nn haircut. Prod removed, references added of debatable RS status. Neutral listing. Hornplease 06:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 01:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maurice Abbot

Article has been a stub for three years, little hope it'll ever be more than a stub. -- RosemaryPark 06:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ~ trialsanderrors 21:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Taran Rampersad

Taran Rampersad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Delete or Merge/Redirect to Digital Divide or Linux Gazette. Individual does not meet WP:BIO. Seems to not have any media coverage beyond the one BBC article in which he just interviewed and not the actual subject of the article. The Digital Divide works seem to be primarily promotional as he is associated with that. Doesn't meet WP:BIO on his own merits but could be an inclusive part of other articles. Strothra 15:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment By Carbon Based Subject of AfD Hello again, happy campers. It appears once more (there was the speedy delete too)... here's the deal. I could add more content to the entry, and there is plenty on the talk page - but people are more interested in deleting this entry than actually fleshing it out.

    The articles on me ABOUT the Wikipedia were seen as self-referential - and there were some that I know of, one being Associated Press. Any stuff I put on the talk page doesn't get added, instead the article is put up for deletion. Further, there has been more media coverage through Reuters references to my writing.

    Screw it, I'm tired of this. Is this a personal attack? It's a possibility, it's the same person who tagged it for deletion before. So here is my thought: If you're going to keep it, fix it or allow me to work with someone to fix it. If we're going to see this deletion notice again, delete it - it's boring me. If it's to be deleted, then the reason should not be POV. It should be solid, and it should take into account all information available on the Talk page since the first deletion notice was placed on it (by the same person, come on!). I will not write about this on my site until the process is completed, and even then it may not merit a writeup. But be advised that I have been participating in other deletion discussions. I do believe assisting in post-tsunami efforts is a little more notable than the Naked Cowboy, but perhaps less than Zanta.

    A suggested way to handle this would be to redirect to my user page, where I could put the stuff up that relates to me without conflict of interest concerns (it's a User Page). Then someone can put my user page up for deletion and we can all have a good laugh. :-)

    I'm now outside of the debate, but I will point out that data is available if there are questions related to that. --TaranRampersad 19:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Note that I never even stated POV as a reason. I stated that it failed WP:BIO guidelines. The reason I mentioned the Digital Divide articles is because they are cited in the article and the policy states that a criterion of notability is being the "primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person." I know that you have not edited the article and thus the article does not have any self-promotional characteristics or POV per se. --Strothra 19:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ahh, well, you responded to me. Putting an article up for deletion is a matter of POV, mi amigo. You make judgements based on guidelines and your personal beliefs; that you are now trying to delete this entry again with the same facts available (and no attempts to assist in fixing it) does lead me to believe that you simply think this entry should not exist and that you're not interested in contributing to it. Nothing has changed since the last AfD, including your commitment to delete it. The talk page has plenty of stuff, but - shucks - it's easier to delete than contribute to this article. Trust me, I understand. :-) --TaranRampersad 20:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I believe I misunderstood you. I thought you were saying that I had nominated the article because it had POV issues. All I've seen are bios of you and a BBC article in which you are interviewed. I cited the exact policy above. There are no results when doing a GoogleNews search [36] A regular Google search mostly returns the above bios, no published works in which you are the primary subject and comes from sources with which you are not affiliated. --Strothra 20:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Have you visited the Talk Page of the article, do you know the affiliations I have? *Some* are on the talk page, so hey - I did what I could. Do you know some of them are related to the Digital Divide and may not be on the web because of the nature of the work (bridging that divide)? We've had this discussion before. Of course when you do a Google search with someone who writes often, you will find a lot of stuff that isn't used- but if you sift through them, you'll find a lot more, Strothra. Again, nothing has changed since you posted the first AfD, apparently. If you track my history, I stopped contributing for a while after the last AfD because I found it distasteful. I start contributing again, I see this again. Deja vu gets boring. Put me out of my misery, one way or the other, but for Pete's sake - be done with it. I'm quite tired of this, please don't respond to this. Save it for the debate with the people below. --TaranRampersad 20:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree the individual completely fails WP:BIO. One interview with the BBC does not constitute in and of itself notability, and nothing else here seems to qualify. Fail delete, I would support merge and r/d to Linux Gazette. Eusebeus 16:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per before. What is this now, the 5th chapter in Strothra's campaign against Taran? Get over it - holding a grudge and waging vendettas against fellow editors is totally unacceptable. Guettarda 17:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Guettarda. Possible bad faith nom. --Oakshade 18:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It isn't a bad faith nom, I haven't had any interaction with the editor or the article in many months. I recently came across it again and it clearly violates WP:BIO. Guerttarda had a grudge against me when I placed the last AfD and so I can perhaps see why he may think that now. Look at WP:BIO and you will see that it clearly fails to meet those guidelines. --Strothra 19:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This seems to be the person all the magaizes go to for an interview on the digital divide, and as such seems to be one of the top experts in his field. As such no reason to delete --T-rex 22:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - this is a classic case of having a two-cent article on a million dollar subject. If this is rewritten less as a resume and more of an encyclopedic article, there won't be yet another AfD in its future. Expansion of the explanation of the activities that make him notable would definitely not hurt... including a little bit on the details and effects of his ingenuity. The external links overwhelm the stub tags below. B.Wind 03:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Sorry, but I'm not seeing any evidence of encyclopedic notability here at all. Or even news media notability beyond passing mentions. Taran seems pretty deft at building up his online profile through writing on various websites, but nowhere in the article or in the references do I see a convincing claim to encyclopedic notability. The strongest claim is the editorial position at the Linux Gazette, a free Linux webzine. The Gazette website currently lists 6 individuals in various editorial roles[37]. On Taran's own resume, it is explained that for 9 or 10 months, he was the editor/forum admin/website manager for the site - he was not editor-in-chief or anything. Not seeing any other claims to encyclopedic notability on the resume (there is a very vague claim to have been "published widely on the internet through technical and information technology related websites and news" but nothing specific to back this claim to reputation up aside from being a contributor to a blog and also uh... contributing to Wikipedia).

The volunteer work assisting disaster relief project is of course admirable, but I'm not seeing how that is exceptional - I have friends who are working in development/aid programs (one of them is an engineer too) and come up with original schemes; it's not that unusual... there are many (though not enough) people who volunteer for this kind of disaster relief effort. In this case, the Alert Retrieval System is a great idea, but not groundbreaking - as I understand it, it consists of ARS receiving SMSs and then posting them on a website and in a mass email bulletin in order to circumvent cellphone reception problems in an affected area. (Incidentally, the article suggests that Taran proposed the idea for the Alert Retrieval System but the ARS website says someone else came up with the concept and Taran is the "project coordinator"[38]).Ran a Factiva query on him - 17 hits breaking down as 1 letter to the editor by him, 1 passing mention in a list of people speaking at a conference; 1 question posed by him in a transcript of a public online chat by User:Jimbo in 2006 in which various people asked Jimbo questions; 14 reprints of a 2004 newswire story about this newfangled invention called Wikipedia, in which Taran is used as an example of a typical non-US Wikipedian who creates articles, including one on his hometown. Is every Wikipedian who creates an article to get a Wikipedia article about themselves now? Bwithh 07:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I was Editor in Chief, Community Facilitator, etc at LinuxGazette.COM. A reading of the history of LinuxGazette is necessary for that. I tend to agree with many of your other points, but I take issue with this statement: "Taran seems pretty deft at building up his online profile through writing on various websites". Why? Simply because of my work on digital divide issues, which by the nature of them requires someone to write them. As a human being, Bwithh, I don't appreciate that statement. I have *never* written of myself to portray myself as being larger than I am, and that one line is something I find offensive. I'm a writer. I write. No one else covered conferences in the Caribbean. That said, I can go with a delete based on present Wikipedia policy, but I find fault with a policy which enforces a digital divide. I didn't write the bio in the first place, and I have problems with the way it was written and the manner in which it has been dealt with on Wikipedia. --TaranRampersad 20:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - I don't really have anything to add, Bwithh pretty much summed it up right there. --Wooty Woot? contribs 08:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per BwithH. Akihabara 14:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn person. An WAY too much chit-chat about editors, their personalities, their personal lives, and their grudges. Take it to each others' talk pages or to RfC. Talk here only about the article, please. Edison 16:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Get This Done Delete it or not, tarrying further is not productive. That this has been relisted on the Second AfD demonstrates how little people seem to be concerned about the PERSON that is being discussed here. Why isn't this done yet? First a speedy delete, then an AfD, then another AfD drawn out with it hanging over the bio. More than sufficient time has passed. 9 days? Come on. Delete it and be done with it. I'd rather no entry at all, and if this article is still in AfD process within the next 12 hours, I will write about it. Holding someone's reputation hostage is not very nice. --TaranRampersad 20:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per User:Bwithh's research. --Kinu t/c 20:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Immediately - I didn't ask for the article, I find fault in the way the entry has been handled, and I find fault with Wikipedia policy as related to those who are the people who do communicate about issues related to the digital divide. That most of my work is not verifiable on the internet through sources other than myself isn't self promotion, it was because I was and am the only person who writes about the things I have. Along with this delete, I would like the article 'Taran Rampersad' to NEVER be added to the Wikipedia without my explicit permission. As the subject of the AfD, when I say delete it should be done. So do it. Now. --TaranRampersad 21:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 close, for obvious reasons. El_C 14:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orthodox Halakha

Orthodox Halakha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)
  • NOTE: This is a fruadulent vote, read on... This article was created by User:FrummerThanThou [39] and then within ten minutes he nominates this, his own article, for deletion [40] [41]. So what is he up to? He is upset that his nomination for deletion [42] of the well-established article Conservative Halakha (a label he does not like) is going nowhere, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conservative Halakha (and about which he admits that he lacks intelligent information [43]), so he creates a bogus article about "Orthodox Halakha" (not needed since we already have two articles Orthodox Judaism and Halakha that cover this topic in great depth) and says openly "this page has been created over ambig regards what halacha is in the Conservative Halakha discussion. please help with creating reform halakha, reconstructionist halacha, mesorti halcha zionist halacha!" [44] and to add insult to injury he slaps a {{humor}} template on the talk page [45] (is that his idea of a "joke"? -- when these are serious matters.) The problem is, it's IMPOSSIBLE to know if he is serious or joking because he is acting as a law unto himself at this point, and I for one, have had to correct his disruptive editing in articles relating to Judaism too many times recently (he seems to feel he can change anything at any time any way he wants...), and his antics are now going over the top. He then flies off with the bizarre request at User talk:Crzrussian: "Please block me and my IP for 7 days, i've got some importnt things coming up and I don't trust myself to keep off totaly." [46]. Now this is a very serious matter, it reveals erratic behavior and irresponsible attitude for editing an encyclopedia, and it clear shows that User:FrummerThanThou is not just deliberately in violation of WP:HOAX but he is also in violation of Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point and perhaps it is time to consider blocking him for this pattern of disruptive behavior. Thank you. IZAK 10:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTE 2: Seems that User:FrummerThanThou has now gone totally beserk, see his wild and crazy comments: "DHUH you are jew! ha! how uncool! anyways i just though i would stick that fact in YOUR face!! This template is all about that yeah!!... check out that massive star of david there, yeah!! cool isn't it?! so TOTALY superjewish!!!! oh please dont run away you confused soul! soon you will find your wiki self and i'll show the template i was realy going to welcome you with! Check history, this template used to be normal, untill it was suggested it wasnt." [47] "Hey! where you running off to!??! join our wikiproject.... hey!! come back!! join!!" [48]. This was all in response to him being upset about Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 December 14#Template:Bruchim. He is spinning out of control and must be stopped ASAP. IZAK 11:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Larry V (talk | contribs) 10:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lyle Canceko

Lyle Canceko (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

The subject scores 28 unique Ghits, all of which were "trivial mentions" as part of the nominations of the Gregoire's team. I find nothing substantial among the hits, no articles about him. Ohconfucius 07:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Naconkantari 20:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Idiotarian

Idiotarian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Non-Notable Internet-only Neologism

Please see: Wikipedia:Avoid_neologisms - F.A.A.F.A. 07:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To wit:

Articles on neologisms

Some neologisms and protologisms can be in frequent use and it may be possible to pull together many facts about a particular term and show evidence of its usage on the Internet or even in larger society. It may be natural, then, to feel that Wikipedia should have a page devoted to this new term, but this is not always the case. There are several reasons why articles on (or titled with) neologisms may not be appropriate:

  • The first is that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and so articles simply attempting to define a neologism are inappropriate.
  • The second reason is that articles on neologisms frequently attempt to track the emergence and use of the term as observed in communities of interest or on the internet — without attributing these claims to reliable secondary sources. If the article is not verifiable (see Reliable sources for neologisms, below) then it constitutes analysis, synthesis and original research and consequently cannot be accepted by Wikipedia. This is true even though there may be many examples of the term in use.

Reliable sources for neologisms

Support for article contents, including the use and meaning of neologisms, must come from reliable sources. Wikipedia is a tertiary source that includes material on the basis of verifiability, not truth. To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term — not books and papers that use the term.

Neologisms that are in wide use — but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources — are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia. They may be in time, but not yet. The term does not need to be in Wikipedia in order to be a "true" term, and when secondary sources become available it will be appropriate to create an article on the topic or use the term within other articles.

An editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs and books that use the term) are insufficient to support use of (or articles on) neologisms because this is analysis and synthesis of primary source material (which is explicitly prohibited by the original research policy). - F.A.A.F.A. 23:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'd vote to delete Fitzmas in a New York Second. Go ahead and nominate it. - F.A.A.F.A. 23:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Agreed, Fitzmas needs to go too. As does any other use of Wikipedia to give unwarranted promotion to agenda-pushing neoblogisms whether from the left or right. Dragomiloff 00:02, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable term in widespread use in the community and worth keeping. References to this phrase on Google News Archive [49]

Google Books [50] and Google Scholar [51]. Capitalistroadster 01:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Nominator has asked that this article be deleted, but is defending the much less known "santorum" neologism article. This brings up serious questions about the motivations behind this nomination. Jinxmchue 15:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 01:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lymph node biopsy

Lymph node biopsy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Excessively specific article/title. There seems to be no discernable difference between this and any other type of biopsy, only the target cells. The article could feasably be merged to Biopsy. Ohconfucius 07:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep. Different tests, different indications, different procedures. A lymph node biopsy differs from a bone marrow biopsy, which differs from gastric and colonic and liver biopsies. Not excessive whatsoever -- Samir धर्म 07:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Move to WikiSpace and Delete. Cbrown1023 02:12, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comparative ranks and insignia of Star Trek

Comparative ranks and insignia of Star Trek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

There have recently been several Star Trek rank articles brought up or deletion, most of which were far better sourced and referenced than this one (like this one). This article is pure original research, with broken image links, and little or no sorucing except material taken from private web pages. Should be deleted as unreferenced and unsourced Husnock 07:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. The problem isn't with the ranks. They have a place on the articles concerning each race. The OR problem comes with the comparissons i.e. this rank for species A is equivalent to that rank for species B. That has never been said on the show, and is pure speculation... - WJBscribe (WJB talk) 02:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes damn it. I will rewrite it in such a way it wont be a comparasion chart anymore. It will instead be "other ranks and insignia" as in ranks of klingons and romulans and etc. Just let it rest on my userspace and close this afd. Speed up the process. --Cat out 11:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"*Comment: Coolcat redirected the main article to his user page, breaking the link and now this AfD is actually an orphan. I think Coolcat wanted to establish a project page, but in doing so broke all the links. Can someone repair this? -Husnock 07:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I userified it, what MORE do you want? --Cat out 11:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Move reversed. Coolcat, if the article is deleted, I can provide you with a copy, but please do not move pages in this manner while they are at AFD. Proto::► 11:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I cannot (and will not) work if you delete the history. People who write articles NEED the page history. --Cat out 11:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Who said anything about deleting the history? I'll undelete the entire thing including its entire history, move the entire thing to your userspace, and delete the auto-created redirect from article space. That's what providing you with a copy means. Giving you just the latest copy for you to work on would be a breach of GFDL. However - userfying the article before the AFD is closed means that no community decision would be reached, and you could just move it back if it were deleted, wasting everyone's time and sidestepping the deletion process. This is not acceptable, so it will stay where it is until the consensus is reached. Proto::► 12:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You could have simply said 'I will userify it after the afd is closed'. Rather than complicating it. --Cat out 12:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete - OR or not, this is unencyclopaedic Trekkiecruft. Beam it up, admins! Moreschi 17:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy and Delete per Husnock and Cool Cat above. Eluchil404 07:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sourcing here is quite poor. Sources are only cited for the Klingons and Starfleet ranks. The source for the Starfleet ranks is not adequate, because it cannot have described the cadet insignia, because they did not exist in the real world in 1988. Furthermore, no sources are presented for the Romulans, Cardassians and Bajorans. I think the Bajoran militia ranks in particular were never as firmly established as this, and seem to be speculation based on existing traditional british/us army ranks. Morwen - Talk 13:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Larry V (talk | contribs) 10:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Major Media Scandals

Major Media Scandals (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This article appears to be a disparate collection of items of what may be called fraudulent media reports, although none of the terms have been defined. Delete per WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information. Ohconfucius 08:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Majorly (Talk) 21:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Sultans of Sulu

List of Sultans of Sulu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This is a tough one. While I in principle think a "list of the sultans of Sulu" can be a good subject for an article, this isn't it. SInce its creation in september 2005 (i.e. more than a year ago), it has been tagged for cleanup, and for months it has been tagged for NPOV and lack of sources as well. The article is a mess, and is one big POV list. It seems unsalvageable to me, and none of the editors (over a 100 edits so far) has done a serious try to improve the article (wrt Wikipedia standards and policies). As it stands and has stood for over a year, it is POV, WP:OR, and heavily lacks WP:V sources, and I think it would be better to just erase it completely, and if needed start again from scratch, with a sourced, neutral article (neutral meaning: if there are disputes, show both sides, with their sources, and without taking a stance). Fram 08:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind keeping it, but I do feel that in this case, since there isn't nothing really salvageable in the history, it may be better to just get rid of all the heavily POV history (never mind the terrible layout, just look at the contents) and start from scratch. I think cleanup has had more than its chance (over a year!), so saying that we should keep this because it needs to be cleaned is basically saying that any article, no matter how bad, can be kept indefinitely. I wonder where the benefit is in that, and if we in those cases aren't better of without an article than with a bad one. But anyway, I would be happy if the result of this AfD was a much improved article, then it hasn't been for naught. Fram 20:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 13:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New York minute (abuse)

New York minute (abuse) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This page was split from New York minute (time) more than a year ago, and I'm not sure why it needed a split, or why this info wasn't deleted in the first place. This page, apart from the definition of the term, is pure original research, and I cannot find any verification that this term is commonly used in the way this article claims it is. (I certainly have never heard it used this way. Any New Yorkers care to comment?) Even if this term is widely used in this manner, which I doubt, this page should be nuked anyway for being virtually all original research. Grandmasterka 08:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Larry V (talk | contribs) 10:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GigaFrag

GigaFrag (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Non-notable gaming event - unsourced, Google hits are from some blogs but nothing in the press. Most likely not notable outside its community. 125 people for the event is not a lot. --Wooty Woot? contribs 08:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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


I have considered the AFD discussion below, and decided to redirect the page to AMC Theaters. Regards —Encephalon 12:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cinema Sounds

Cinema Sounds (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

All information in this article is already in AMC Theaters. It adds nothing more, it appears to me as though someone just wanted to make an article, so they lifted the Cinema Sounds section from AMC Theaters and made it its own article. Electricbassguy 09:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yahtzee Takes On The World

Non-notable webcomic which fails WP:WEB. No references to support notability. Andre (talk) 21:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, —Doug Bell talk 09:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Larry V (talk | contribs) 10:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ian james colmer

Ian james colmer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This unreferenced biography of a non-notable person is "By Akane Yoshioka, publicist". Contested prod. MER-C 09:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment: really is artistic crew, but don't change a lot. Cate | Talk 10:50, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 such, I also withdraw my procedural nomination. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 01:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wakulla Volcano

Wakulla Volcano (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)
Was originally prodded by TheRingess (talk · contribs) with reason:

"The article is about a story that is not notable outside of Florida. There are only local sources, not national"

I personally feel that the two "reasons for deletion" listed by the prodder are flawed, and I am listing here as proscribed in the steps for deletion (contest prod means AfD, in most cases). Currently a procedural nomination - there may be some good reasons to delete this, other than those listed (which I have given my opinion for). Cheers, Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 09:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The delete voters seem to agree it'll be OK if it is sourced and cleaned up. Majorly (Talk) 13:04, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consequences of German Nazism

Consequences of German Nazism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Contains a lot of information that is available elsewhere. Title and structure implies a very linear view of history and the article verges on counter-factual in places. In my view, framing the information in this way constitutes original research. This is especially true of the information in this article which doesn't fall under the umbrella of Aftermath of World War II (e.g. the assertion that Nazism reduced racism worldwide). savidan(talk) (e@) 10:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

KDEN TV Tower

KDEN TV Tower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Corridor TV Tower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Trinity Broadcasting Tower Conyers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Emmis TV tower Topeka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Raycom National Tower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Saga Communications Tower Mitchellville (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
KSDK Tower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Young Broadcasting Tower Knoxville (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Omaha Great Empire Broadcasting Tower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
American Towers Tower Dayton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Cowskin Broadcasting Tower Colwich (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Southeastern Media Tower Beech Island (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Cox Radio Tower Newnan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
KDNL TV Tower 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Emmis TV Tower Ledgeview Township (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
SpectraSite Communications tower Glenmore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Clear Channel Broadcasting Tower Colwich (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
KSHB/KMCI Tower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
KTMD-TV Tower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
University of North Carolina Tower Brinkleyville (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
WDAF Tower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
KSMO Candelabra Tower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
University of North Carolina Tower Farmville (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Montgomery Tower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
American Towers Tower Colwich (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Greater Dayton Public TV Tower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Western New York Public Broadcasting Tower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
NYT Tower Figure Five (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
CHCH Television Tower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Pappas Telecasting Tower Lowell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Briarcliff Property Tenants (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Scripps Howard Broadcasting Tower Sand Springs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Cox Radio Tower Security (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Prairie Public Broadcasting Tower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

As cleanup following successful batch deletion of unremarkable masts, I'm nominating a whole bunch of US radio and TV towers that are below than that 360 meters tall. Towers below 400m are relatively common in the USA, and none of the towers that I am nominating are notable in any way whatsoever, as far as I can tell. None of these articles have any substantial additional information other than their name, ___location and height. Ohconfucius 10:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated in the nomination, I had not intended on deletion of non-US masts at this point. Furthermore, the article has been dramatically improved by User:Dl2000 since nomination. I withdraw CHCH Tower from above. Ohconfucius 04:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Larry V (talk | contribs) 10:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bostonians of Boston College

Bostonians of Boston College (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

College a capella group that does not meet the notability criteria of WP:MUSIC. Their only claim to fame is having won two non-notable awards as well as "slowly building into what would become their greatest success in 2006" savidan(talk) (e@) 10:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen no independent sources vouching for the BOCA as a reliable independent "award" or "contest", let alone a "major music competition". As you can see on their website [52], their submission criteria is mainly composed of the submissions not having tuning problems or poor production quality. There is no indication on their website that they reject a significant quantity of the reasonably recorded songs that they recieve, as would be indicative of some kind of competition. In fact, you can hardly call it an award when you have to pay them! You have to buy 50 of their CDs at $5 a piece to get on their CD! It's a glorified self-produced CD. If winning the National Merit Scholarship required you to pay them $200, I doubt anyone would put it on their resume. savidan(talk) (e@) 09:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kungfu Adam (talk) 20:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Triple Bitch Mafia

Triple Bitch Mafia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Bump from speedy. Suggest merge to Playa Fly —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-15 10:27Z

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Larry V (talk | contribs) 10:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 22:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fanmail.biz

  ATTENTION!

If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a ballot, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting heads.

You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!

Note: Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using

{{subst:spa|username|UTC timestamp [optional]}}
Fanmail.biz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Bump from speedy, article and talk page make assertions of notability and large userbase. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-15 10:30Z

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 22:54, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DownTown Mafia

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

Bump from speedy. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-15 10:31Z

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 22:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Coskel University

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

Bump from speedy. Doesn't seem particularly notable but asserts that it is in national newspapers and major fashion magazines. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-15 10:34Z

  • Keep I've just added a link to the article in the Trinidad Guardian. It sounds like other articles could be found. JulesH 11:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definitely keep For Many of us outside the Caribbean Coskel University represents more than just clothing, it’s about representation. There is a certain amount of pride that comes from seeing our culture portrayed in a positive light, this brand entry are as important as anything else on WIKI

--Bassman17 14:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strongly Keep Hi, I am not too sure if I can leave a comment here...I am not a Wikipedia member or anything...but I would like to say something so I came back. Well, recently I actually looked up the word "Coskel University" in Wikipedia and ended up here...please keep the word...Thanks in advance 124.255.171.23 23:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 22:59, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cristina Casati

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

Bump from speedy. Suggest merge to Luisa Casati or keep. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-15 10:37Z

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 23:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tower Hamlets College

Non-notable further education college. Contested prod. JulesH 10:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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_December_15&oldid=94487251"