Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 July 6

< July 5	July 7 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result of the nomination was Keep. See page 10 of Milton Friedman's seminal 1962 work "Capitalism and Freedom" for his use of the term, which is introduces the core subject matter of the book. You can even read it online at a URL given on the talk page of the article. --Tony Sidaway 19:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Economic totalitarianism

Original research Intangible 22:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This was kept on Afd in May- Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Economic_totalitarianism, when it was determined that this is not OR, but a term used by Milton Friedman among others. Nom advances no new arguments. --JJay 22:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It was then determined that the article was deemed a copyright violation, not that it was not OR. Intangible 22:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - See the second comment in the afD. The article also turned out not to be a copyvio, which is why it's still here. --JJay 23:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, but the fact that the article is not neemed a copyvio now, does not mean that back then there was a consensus that the article was not Original Research. Intangible 23:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - The point is the comments from the previous AfD stand. You have made no case or argument for why this is OR. Please explain why "economic totalitarianism" gets all these very consequential hits from serious publications in google books: around 90 hits in Google books. --JJay 23:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. -- Nikodemos 23:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 23:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Article incorrectly listed before this time - the first nom was included in the log for 6 July. Fixed now.GRBerry 01:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Afaict, still copyvio, still unsourced original research, still questionable provenance. If no one adopts this within the coming five days and turns it into a viable article, it has to go. ~ trialsanderrors 02:03, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per Trialsanderrors. --Core des at talk. o.o;; 07:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete original reaserch. 72.139.119.165 20:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above; the talk page makes it clear that the article is original reasearch. --Muchness 20:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The article is not currently referenced, but the claim that it's original research is not supported by prior AfD logs or any comments here. If this was not used rarely in economics, as has been claimed, that should be verifyable. Verifying that is a prerequisite to the restated claim of original research. This nomination is flawed until/unless the OR claim is substantiated. Though it should be properly referenced, lack of references is not a valid reason to delete. Closing admin is recommended to review whether OR claim has been substantiated in the discussion; if not, it should simply be closed with no action when it times out. Georgewilliamherbert 08:24, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The claim of OR is supported by the editor responsible for the article's content (68.19.116.130 (talk • contribs)), who has stated that the definition "was derived BY MYSELF several years ago in response to questions relating to my use of the term in various discussion forums, and in an essay authored by me which may be found at http://www.geocities.com/brittone/eco.html"; in other words, it is sourced to a self-published essay and reflects one editor's coinage and definition of a neologism. If the term exists independently of the editor's usage as a notable, verifiable term, an article can be created to reflect that usage, but as trialsanderrors says, unless someone rewrites this as a viable article, it should be deleted as OR.--Muchness 23:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per JJay - this is NOT OR, it's an economic term that's been in use for decades, the only thing the original editor likely 'derived' by himself is the particular string of words s/he used to explain the concept. (Which is exactly what an editor is supposed to do, as the alternative would be copyvio, no?) See Capitalism and Freedom for example. Arker 01:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the nomination was delete. Mailer Diablo 11:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daire Hickey

Not notable vanity. Coil00 21:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Reads like he's Trinity College's Tracy Flick ~ trialsanderrors 22:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Obviously a promising aspiring young chap, but not notable yet. Everyone is famous for fifteen seconds, erm minutes. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 00:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and ZZuuzz. --Bigtop (tk|cb|em|ea) 03:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it please (oh, per nom) ~Kylu (u|t) 03:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why bother deleting it? It's up now, its acurate and Im sure is useful in some sense. If people are talking about, they are clearly using it.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.226.1.194 (talk • contribs) .

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

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

The result of the nomination was merge and redirect to Brights movement. – Avi 00:25, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Geisert

Notable only as co-director of The Brights Net. Suggest redirecting to The Brights Net, including whatever relevant information about his life that will inform that article. SilkTork 12:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Good idea, but you don't have to bring the article to AfD for that, since no deletion is involved. You can just be bold and redirect it yourself. — Haeleth Talk 13:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)~~ Comment withdrawn now that the situation is clearer. — Haeleth Talk 12:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (or smerge) as suggested. Little notability in and of himself, but a useful search term: it makes sense to lead readers straight to the movement he is known for. — Haeleth Talk 12:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was murdered by popular demand. Kimchi.sg 09:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Melissa Mancini

Complete hoax or non-notable. None of the credits turn up on Google. IMDB doesn't list any of these credits for a "Melissa Mancini" - probably not the same one[1] - any actress playing a "Mrs. Salvatore" is more than likely a bit older than 20. Mad Jack 01:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nod Mad Jack 01:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As Mad Jack said, search IMDb turns up blanks on any of the claims. Evil Monkey - Hello 02:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Also Google News doesn't have any results, which seems strange considering she was "brutally murdered" on both August 21 and July 3. Evil Monkey - Hello 02:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete imdb doesn't list her in the cast] - I'm inclined to beleive it is a hoax or a confusion of 2 different people DavidHumphreys ^{SPEAK TO ME}ABOUT_{THE THINGS I MESSED UP} 02:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Bizarrely the first version of the article puts her murder on August 21st 2006[2]. It then changes to August 21st 2005 in the next version [3] and has only become July 3rd 2006 since the article was listed AfD. Also the article claims she filmed scenes for the last two "Star Wars" movies. But starwars.com hasn't heard of her. Smells very hoaxy. --IslaySolomon 02:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete When I found this article and began to capitalize all the lower-case words that solidbaby had typed. Then, she began to edit under an IP address, changing info...Very fishy... Michael 02:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax, and user involved needs a strong word from an admin. The IP address version of this user (using the same all-lower-case style as used at User:Solidbaby's user page) has basically done nothing but vandalise pages by adding this article's subject to various lists and categories, as can be seen by examining their contributions. Also vandalised Hayden Christensen into, um, this version.--DaveG12345 03:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:HOAX. --Core des at talk. o.o;; 03:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete HOAX.Bridesmill 03:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obvious hoax. Death described as being just after her 19th birthday would really be a month before her 20th. --Icarus 06:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom/hoax.--Andeh 06:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is an interesting hoax, but a hoax nonetheless. Black-Velvet 06:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, hoax. As it turns out, Padme's sister was played by Claudia Karvan. Melissa Mancini doesn't turn up anything. -LtNOWIS 06:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Prodego ^talk 03:23, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's Stevie Thinking?

Seems to be a mix of crystal-ballery and original research. Google only picks up the IMDB, which is a dead zone of reliability when it comes to upcoming projects (the whole cast could've been fan submitted there).[4] Could not find any official confirmation from the studio or anything else online that would verify this. Oh, and TV.com, also linked, is another fan-submitted Wiki. It's sites like that and the IMDB that kill our reliability when we use them as sources.

Delete per nod Mad Jack 01:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete = "unaired television series" + "currently on hiatus" --IslaySolomon 01:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, crystal-balling for seemingly nonexistent TV series. --Core des at talk. o.o;; 03:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Come on back when picked up for real. Ironically, IMDB discussions end up linking back to WP to "prove" it ain't all hokum. --DaveG12345 03:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. What was User:Dtobias thinking? ~ trialsanderrors 04:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only results Google comes up with about this 'show' is IMDB and the Pedia. Black-Velvet 06:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't you hate it when that happens? :) Mad Jack 06:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article itself calls the existence of the series into doubt. --DarkAudit 13:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. --Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 15:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all unaired TV series. Just zis Guy you know? 16:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. --Dom thedude 0 0 1 17:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't deserve an article if it's unaired unless it's part of a series, which this is not. Lack of sources.--Andeh 19:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. -- Alias Flood 21:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Article says "unaired" and "on hiatus." --Bigtop (tk|cb|em|ea) 03:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy circumcised from article space, CSD A3/A1/G1. And BJAODN. Kimchi.sg 09:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Acucullophilia

Dick def. Artw 00:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Respect for best/worst pun ever. --IslaySolomon 00:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, who should now go and stand in the corner. Tevildo 00:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly i have very poor self control when it comes to this kind of thing. :-S Artw 00:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been sitting here trying to come up with a pun to match the nom, but my head is just empty on the subject. Oh, and delete. Opabinia regalis 01:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, at a glans. --DaveG12345 01:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:BOLLOCKS Sorry I just had to join in (on the discussion, that is !!) DavidHumphreys ^{SPEAK TO ME}ABOUT_{THE THINGS I MESSED UP} 01:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and echo Islay. — ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk • E 01:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as complete bollocks. --Core des at talk. o.o;; 03:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
^{Never mind the} WP:BOLLOCKS HERE'S THE WP:BjAoDN ~ trialsanderrors 04:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete. Articles like this should prick the conscience of all true Wikipedians. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 06:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete and BJAODN this AfD. Oh dear. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 06:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think this discussion is heading towards WP:BJAODN itself ! DavidHumphreys ^{SPEAK TO ME}ABOUT_{THE THINGS I MESSED UP} 06:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's.. what I meant, actually. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 06:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This could give people bad ideas. Black-Velvet 06:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All the good jokes have already gone. :( Jakew 08:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the nomination was Delete ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:55, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aussieschoolmates

Spam. Artw 00:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Spam - Australian google hits are very low:[5]. [6]--IslaySolomon 00:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Totally WP:NN and WP:SPAM DavidHumphreys ^{SPEAK TO ME}ABOUT_{WHAT I MESSED UP} 00:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, fails WP:WEB. SM247^{My Talk} 01:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing WP:WEB. Pascal.Tesson 01:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Islay and WP:WEB. — ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk • E 01:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In addition to the Google hits, no reports on this site in the Australian media that I can find so definite problems with WP:WEB. Capitalistroadster 02:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not very significant... Michael 03:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 02:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:WEB. --Core des at talk. o.o;; 03:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It appears to be spam. --Roisterer 04:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, spamish orphan article. —Pengo 09:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. --Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 15:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per advertising and nom. --Dom thedude 0 0 1 17:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per IslaySolomon.--Andeh 19:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Spam - Alias Flood 21:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 06:36, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the nomination was delete ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fundamental Change and Relevance Gap

Follow on from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fundamental Surprise. Author contributes only to these articles, only 414 unique for "Relevance Gap", difficult to meaningfully google a phrase as generic as "Fundamental Change" but I am finding nothing that indicates this concept is anything other that an (old) neologism. Delete unless evidence that these phrases in this context are commonly used.
brenneman ^{L} 00:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn neologusm. As with the last debate a redirect to Cognitive dissonance may be appropriate. Artw 00:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn neologusm. Also either original thought or perhaps copyvio from [7]. (Saddly I don't speak Hebrew) --IslaySolomon 00:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Also note that a search of "relevance+gap"+lanir (Lanir being the author of the cited paper) gets 0 google hits. — ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk • E 02:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In B-school we used to call this buzzword whoring. ~ trialsanderrors
Delete for buzzword whoring (Fails WP:NEO, rather). --Core des at talk. o.o;; 03:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. User has also contributed to the similarly-minded:

Situational Surprise and

Jointness.

All these articles cite the same cache of "white paper" material by one author, that makes me suspect original research. --DaveG12345 04:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I prodded them both. ~ trialsanderrors 07:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep fundamental change, Delete all others, the first/second person writing is a bit off, but "fundamental change" is a valid concept and the article explains it, and the article is rescueable. The others are crud. An "old neologism" that has caught on is not a neologism.—Pengo 09:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Here's an article by someone with a bit more clout but I still want to see that FC is a clearly defined term rather than just a waffly concept invoked by different people to mean different things. ~ trialsanderrors 17:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - neogilism. --Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 15:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Neologism -- Alias Flood 21:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the nomination was keep. The references in the article are conclusive in establishing the term's provenance, currency and usage. --Tony Sidaway 19:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Infoware

Failed 90s neologism. Artw 00:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A google search for Infoware O'Reilly gives 10,200 hits. -- Koffieyahoo 02:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as neologism. I agree with Koffieyahoo there are a reasonable number of Ghits. However, Google should not be the final arbiter of any notability since it can manipulated by mirror sites and simple reprinted press releases or catalog listings; and, certain word particles lend themselves to endless and pointless variations. Witness "e" and "i" as in e-mail, e-business, and a host of widgets brandnamed i-whatevers. I believe "info" is another one of these, and don't think it worthy of inclusion as infobabble. Tychocat 03:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Tychocat. Alphachimp ^talk 13:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. --Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 15:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn neologism -- Alias Flood 21:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep It's a 90s neologism, but I'm not convinced that it's a failed neologism because it seems useful in certain contexts to people in the real world. Here's an IEEE Spectrum article http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/jun06/3655 from last month that uses the term to describe "Web 2.0 database-driven sites." The tone of the article is to mock the terms and their usage, but if published articles are still mocking the term so many years after it was coined, I see that as an indication that it's still being used and still should have an article here. Flying Jazz 08:15, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The term is almost established, anyway, it is way past neologism status. --Ezeu 13:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the nomination was Keep. A bit of web trivia, adequately sourced by the Wired article which cites Gennero, who was there. The copyright status of the image is another matter. --Tony Sidaway 19:42, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First image on the Web

This article seems like a hoax.....for being such a monumental topic, it has one source, that being the website of the guy who uploaded the image. The website claims the uploader knew the guy who invented the internet in 1992. It smells a bit stale to me. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 00:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless published verification surfaces. The claim doesn't seem obviously false, but it does seem far-fetched enough (for reasons given on the talk page) that it needs a lot more verifiability. --Allen 01:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ~~Obvious hoax.~~ The JFIF format wasn't published until September 1992, and it took a good few months before any applications started to use it. Tevildo 01:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment article claims this is the original image, but not that it's the original file. In fact, per the talk page, it can't be. (IIRC it was a GIF.) Opabinia regalis 01:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment "Hoax" may be the wrong word, considering other comments. However, I can still put my hand on my heart and swear that _this_ image couldn't have been on the web, such as it was, in 1992. The first image on the web might have been _similar_ to this one, but, whatever it was, it wasn't _actually_ this one. Tevildo 01:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Weirdly this may actually check out. Artw 01:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some more debate over the veracity or otherwise of this claim at slashdot. Artw 01:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and my vote is Merge and redirect, regardless of veracity it's an interestinmg story but one more properly told on the Les Horribles Cernettes page. Artw 01:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep if sourced~~ I saw Les Horribles Cernettes at CERN a few years ago and this claim was made during the performance, but that's no better of a source than what's already there. I'll look around if I get a chance. Opabinia regalis 01:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Change to merge to Les Horribles Cernettes as a notable internet legend, but I can't find any online sources that don't ultimately trace back to Silvano de Gennaro. (I know Robert Cailliau has mentioned it in talks, but haven't found any transcripts.) Opabinia regalis 03:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've previously heard of the "Cernettes" as having the first band website. Also, Silvano de Gennaro isn't just some guy, he's a Ph.D. in Computer Science at CERN who has been there since 1977. So it is safe to say that he knows something about the early days of the Internet. On the other hand, it may depend on what you mean by "first picture." Here's the discussion about this image that appeared on Slashdot a while back. Crypticfirefly 01:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Les Horribles Cernettes, but do not merge unless the claim is verified (it seems to be in doubt according to Crypticfirefly's post). — ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk • E 02:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or cite. WP:V not met. --Chris (talk) 02:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:V in its current state. I have no problem with merging this to Les Horribles Cernettes, though. --Core des at talk. o.o;; 03:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Les Horribles Cernettes. --DaveG12345 04:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:V cannot be met until mentioned in peer-reviewed reputable venue. -Seidenstud 05:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I actually tried to contact Tim Berners-Lee about this, but he apparently has better things to do than answering to research queries on, ahem, rather minor topics. The article content is pretty much unverifiable, but the topic itself is interesting enough that a Merge and Redirect to les Horribles Cernettes cannot hurt -- Ferkelparade π 11:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Redirect per DaveG12345 --Alphachimp ^talk 13:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V... I knew I'd seen this somewhere before, covered on (and picked apart) slashdot a while back. Redirect if, and only if, it gets sourced.--Isotope23 14:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - except if it can be verified. --Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 15:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless can be verified. If verified, Merge and Redirect --Dom thedude 0 0 1 17:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Without WP:VER it counts for nothing and the onus is on the article's author to provide references. -- Alias Flood 21:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or Merge/Redirect - the claim was published in Wired Magazine in 1999; the link to the article was in the article for Les Horribles Cernettes - See An article in Wired magazine, from 1999, 2nd page. This also was discussed on the talk page.KWH 06:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment to Ikiroid - of course it's a monumental topic/claim with only one source, here's another. ;) KWH 06:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Les Horribles Cernettes, not because the image isn't notable but because there's not really that much to say about it, seriously. (We have articles on notable photographs but this isn't exactly "memorable", unless you count the fact that CERN physicists can pick some awful background colors for supposed promo pics =) =) =) Too bad Wayback Machine wasn't invented yet... --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 18:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Wired article claims that it was one of the first five images published on the Web. Just for the record. Their mp3s are pretty damn good, though. No vote. DS 04:53, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've added a new section to the talk page, I think I 'may' have disproved the claim. However I was never connected to the internet before the web came along, and need to confirm a few points. As there is discussion as the the factual accuracy of this article in the talk pages, i'm sure whoever decides on this one will look there. --JeffUK 00:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As I've said before, there is no reliable way to verify this claim - All we have is one person who claims this is true, and a single news source that parroted it. Merging this to Les Horribles Cernettes will not solve the fact that it's still unverifiable information, regardless of the article in which it resides. ~ Booya ^Bazooka 00:35, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't agree that it cannot be verified. It certainly can't easily be verified by multiple sources, but I believe it's arguable that Gennaro is a reliable source, also that it's possible for TBL to be contacted (although that needs to be done carefully, we don't want to spam the poor guy! Also, the fact that this has been claimed by Gennaro is a verifiable fact, the cernettes article need not say that it is the truth, only that it has been claimed.--JeffUK 00:46, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm also concerned about the copyright status of this image. I'd hate to shoot down such an interesting discussion with a technicality, but i think we need to look into the 'fair use' claim. (do we need to consider Swiss copyright law?) If anyone agrees that this may be a copyvio, can they tag the relevant image, or ask me to do so. --JeffUK 00:46, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - we're clearly in US fair use territory (critical commentary on the image itself). I think the question of complying to Swiss law may be moot; my read of the situation is that someone who wants to bring a case against en.wiki under a provision of foreign copyright law would have a lot of obstacles in asserting jurisdiction in the foreign country. (Possibly excepting Germany, as I understand there is a mirror there?) The applicable part of Swiss Copyright Law [8], according to a rough machine translation, appears to be:
Article 25 - Quotation

1. quotations of published works may be quoted, if the quotation for explanation, when reference serves or for the illustration and is justified by this purpose the range of the quotation.

2. the quotation as such and the source must be designated. One refers in the source to the authority, then this is to be indicated likewise.
- For what it's worth, if a case were brought in a US court in a conflict of laws scenario, I think the court would uphold the fair use as being in line with the public policy intent of both countries copyright laws. Wasn't that a fun exercise? KWH 22:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the nomination was Keep. Eminence in his field of apologetics is established by the references in the article. --Tony Sidaway 19:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Lindsay

Previous nomination at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeff Lindsay

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

NOMINATOR: Please add a specific justification for deletion to this nomination, here at the top of the discussion. AfD is not an (un)popularity contest - you must cite specific justifications for deletion. Georgewilliamherbert 08:29, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Another Rewrite - I attempted another rewrite to remove vanity type stuff, provide additional verified sources for some claims, and shortened the article considerably. I ask participants below to pls review the new page. --Trödel 14:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- And another... David L Rattigan 19:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is still a vanity page. --Jonquière 01:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - "Jeff Lindsay is an amateur..." I think that right there is reason enough to delete this article. --Jonquière 22:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Improvements have been made - more are needed but the page should stay so they can be made --Trödel 01:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is a significant person within Mormon apologists. Several Mormon related pages refer to the article. It is a stub, but not (IMHO) really a vanity page. I rewrote the page, adding more detail than the original. I don't know the person, and have no connection to him. I added the article because I believe he is noteworthy. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 03:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious Delete There haven't really been any changes since the last one that make it worthy of a Wikipedia entry. Most of the links on "web references" aren't even notable enough either to be on a wikipedia page. That's like listing all the webpages that have references to CNN. Hmm...maybe I should reference my own webpage under the CNN website? Also, this was deleted previously. When it went for a deletion review, they decided to keep it deleted. --Riley 03:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There's way to much vanity fluff/website promotion in this article. Also, where is the notability here? Apologies if I am missing something, but isn't this just a chemist who moonlights as a blogger? The guy who writes those Dexter books, on the other hand, he is notable IMO. - DaveG12345 01:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment The above was my original comment on this topic, but it's moved here now for technical reasons, so have reposted it intact. Just to elaborate, the article doesn't, to me, really make clear what this person is notable for. There is a lot of introductory fluff of no relevance to their supposed notability, then the blogging material at the end which seems more like an advert for the website. Just MHO at this stage. --DaveG12345 04:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I read the comments - they were complaining a year ago:
If there is anything of substance here except self-promotion, let us see it. I say this not out of a negative view, but I see little evidence here of value. I shouldn't have to go to his website to know what he is about- and that seems like what the article is seeking to do. It looks more like a personal webpage than an encyclopedia article.

The comment sadly still holds today. --DaveG12345 04:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - give the stub time to fill out. Someone who holds 65 US patents should at least have a stub. He is notable, much moreso than many wikipedia entries. See comments on talk page of article [9]. -Visorstuff 04:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I guess I must be missing a distinction between notable and those who are not and more importantly who determines this issue. Some of the articles that we have on WIKI are truly useless; think of all the articles on small towns of no significance, or those on episodes of TV series, or about people who have done absolutely nothing except play one inning of professional baseball. Now we have a fellow who is very active in the religious sector and he is insignificant??? It makes one wonder. Storm Rider ^(talk) 04:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remove non-notable personal info "Lindsay developed an interest in magic around the age of 11. He continues to enjoy magic, but strictly on an amateur basis. He still performs for small groups, with no high-tech effects." This is not encyclopedic!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Xrblsnggt (talk • contribs)
Rationale changed, see below. Delete Do we have a museum for deleted articles that display exactly what WP is not? This article is just begging to be the centerpiece of the traveling exhibition. ~ trialsanderrors 05:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC) / 18:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's not that hard to get a patent. "We have worse" is not a reason to keep; nominate those and I'll vote to zap them as well. Vanity, definitely my favorite sin. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 06:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Same reasoning as last time. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 07:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bill. I will do what I can to try to improve the article. David L Rattigan 07:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bill. By the way, he's up to 86 patents now (said 92 - corrected) - as a patent attorney, I don't think it is "easy" or common to get 86 patents - I have a few individual inventors among my clients that are higher than that, but that is considered a rare and impressive accomplishment by all involved. That alone makes him notable. I have also, as an exmormon, been familiar with his work as an LDS apologist for years, through a variety of sources - he is widely referred to in discussions of the LDS church, making him doubly notable. I have no connection to him and do not agree with most of what he writes, but he merits a Wikipedia article. * (Correction - I've corrected the number of his patents to 86, after screening out a few alternate Jeff Lindsays) - Reaverdrop (talk/nl/w:s) 08:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Turns out he's listed on 92 patents as co-inventor for products patented by his company, Kimberly-Clark. For a research scientist we're not in extraordinary territory. ~ trialsanderrors 08:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - 35 U.S.C. 102(f) requires that the true inventors, and only the true inventors, of an invention are named as inventors on the patent. If someone is named who is not an inventor, it could invalidate or otherwise limit the enforceability of the patent; if someone who materially contributed to the invention is not named as an inventor, and later found to have been a true co-inventor, they have full independent rights to the patent, including the right to license away to a competitor unfettered joint rights to the patent; which they have been known to do, to very great remuneration. Either way, millions of dollars often ride on naming the inventors accurately; it is a big deal. This is not like a senior professor plugging his name onto his students' research articles. The distinction implied above is without a difference. And for anyone, 86 patents is extraordinary territory. Note also, that he is also named on 107 pending patent applications, at least most of which can be expected to become issued patents in the next few years - and those are only the ones that have been pending at least 18 months. One guy with 200 patents is certainly notable, whether or not his employer is paying for the costs of obtaining the patents - which would be hard for an individual to do in this case, where his 200 patent applications have likely cost somewhere in the neighborhood of two million dollars. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl/w:s) 09:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rejoinder Thank you. I don't see how that addresses my point. It is notoriously easy to get a U.S. patent, with approval rates estimated to be upward of 75%, so with corporate funding I mostly see someone who, as the corporate patent strategist, has his mind set on getting as many patents as possible, for reasons possibly more strategic than scientific. I laud those who trimmed this article down to the essentials, but a list of below-notable accomplishments in various areas still doesn't bestow notability. Besides, if his patents were to bestow notability, should we write about his contributions to wet wipes dispensing technologies, or decorative elements in feminine hygiene? ~ trialsanderrors 17:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re-rejoinder (???) - Hey man, where would civilization be without wet wipes dispensing technologies? :-) While not all patents are on par with inventing laser or warp drive, but looking only at issue rate per application masks the self-limiting layers of in-house counsel, managers, and outside counsel deciding whether or not an engineer's submission for a patent application is likely enough to be passed to be worth the mound of cash and the years of effort to apply. A lot of would-be applicants are counseled - even by their outside attorney (including myself) - that their idea is not likely to get an issued patent. In short, I don't think the arguments for minimizing the accomplishment of a guy with 86 patents and over 100 more in the pipeline hold much water, and I think that in itself satisfies notability. There are a number of astronauts who list a single or a handful of patents on their bios alongside their spaceflight experience. Ray Kurzweil is famous as an inventor, and he holds 15 patents and 37 published pending patent applications. Lindsay is notable. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl/w:s) 19:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re³joinder My point is mostly about the very limited value of patent counts. Patents are a massive long tail story, with only a tiny fraction creating the bulk of value. I'm a bit disinclined to buy the in-house controls argument if the subject himself is in control of the process. I should amend my comment above though by noting that the decorative elements seem to be about the riffles on toilet paper and paper towels rather than feminine hygiene products. If there is a patent among the bunch that received significant outside attention, I'm willing to reconsider. On sheer counts, I'm not. ~ trialsanderrors 19:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re⁴joinder His employer is #135 on the Fortune 500. I guarantee you, he does not have unfettered rights to pour the company's money into a collection of vanity patents for himself. If they are anything like other F500 companies, there is a big department of in-house patent attorneys and managers taking a long, hard look at every thousand dollars being spent and deciding whether the likely benefit to the company of each patent application is worth the expense, with the knowledge that only a tiny fraction of patents are ever useful for litigation. So, again, I don't think it's apt to minimize the notability of one researcher with that many patents. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl/w:s) 19:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rrrrrejoinder. Again, I'm not debating the value of his (co-)inventions to Kimberly-Clark, who might be very happy about his new ways of grooving wiggly lines into toilet paper. I'm debating their encyclopedic value. If he appeared in "Sanitary Products Monthly" for it, we have a different case. R&D is only notable if someone notices it. Only his track record in print media, see below. ~ trialsanderrors 20:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rrrrrrrrrrrr... errr... - I'm very sad to report that a Google search of "Sanitary Products Monthly", in quotes, returns no results. (At least until their bots crawl onto this page.) So, you admit you are denying the vitality of new squiggly line designs on toilet paper to this nation's proud economy? ☺ But seriously, that is not a fair representation of the achievements of his patents. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl/w:s) 20:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

R→∞joinder By no means, decorative elements in toilet paper have turned what was once the drab performance of a bodily function into an expedition into a world of wonders, but as long as Mr. Lindsay continues to toil (no pun intended) in obscurity to enrich our lives, we have to deny him notability, much to my own regret. It's not how WP works – we don't include anyone for being tall, we include them because someone with a press pass looked up and said, "Wow, this guy is tall." ~ trialsanderrors 20:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interjoinder ;) I selected that patent (and the tampoon one) - not for their particular notability as I only read a few of the patents - but to show the diversity of the patents being sought - also Lindsay is the lead inventor on at least one of the patents I reviewed - I would have included a note to that effect if I thought it would have been important. I think the main consideration should be that there is enough noteriety using only the impact DNA research is having on the LDS Church and the professional achievements add depth to this persons article. It is, after all, ~~a stub~~ not a complete article. --Trödel 23:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reflection I didn't even notice the listing (it's probably not encyclopedic to list them by their titles anyway, which reader can tell that "Absorbent article having good body fit under dynamic conditions" refers to maxi pads?) In any case I agree that the issue of notability should center around his activities in LDS research, but I also haven't found anything that gives me disinterested confirmation of his activities. Btw, this article is a stub??? How long is it supposed to be when it's done? ~ trialsanderrors 02:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC) (PS I rearranged the indents to fit the topic under discussion)[reply]

Annotation - I agree - it shouldn't be much longer - the most significant LDS Apologetics is the dna research - DNA research "Jeff Lindsay" gives quite a few hits --Trödel 02:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I left the stub template in the rewritten article because I realized it was a first stab at a new article. Since then, Trödel has greatly improved the article, so it can probably be removed by now, although there is more work to be done (like Criticsm). BTW - the guy is a chemical engineer, specializing in things to do with wood pulp who works for a paper company. Chances are his patents aren't going to be glamorous and exciting to those of us who don't appreciate the wonders of paper.;^) He did have two "best article" awards from a trade magazine, and co-winner of a "Best Technical Paper" from a professional institute, which sounds like professional recognition. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 02:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On DNA Research This is a lengthy article from the LA Times on the discussion of DNA vs. LDS. Lindsay isn't even mentioned once. I still didn't see any encyclopedically usable material on him. ~ trialsanderrors 03:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral??? I just read this article - btw, this is a great example of how traditional news is not neutrally presented - it doesn't quote any apoligists by name - that I could see just people talking about what they say. But being the LA times I'm not surprised --Trödel 01:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Any website that cites it's Wikipedia article on the front page (check out his "official site") does not deserve to be on Wikipedia. We don't need his resume. I'm sure he can host it in his own webspace. Alphachimp ^talk 13:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC) I am changing my vote to keep per recent changes to bring article to Wikipedia quality. Alphachimp ^talk 23:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - David Brin also links to his Wikipedia article on the front page of his website. Does that mean he has suddenly become deserving of deletion? I don't see that in the WP policies. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl/w:s) 16:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - David Brin doesn't have his Resumé listed on his wikipedia page. David Brin is also much more well-known than Jeff Lindsay. David Brin also has an entire series of published books. Jeff Lindsay has a few articles. There's a big difference between the two. --Riley 18:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey look it's Elvis - Those are separate issues from "Any website that cites it's Wikipedia article on the front page (check out his "official site") does not deserve to be on Wikipedia", the rebuttal of which above I take it from your subject-changing you accede to. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl/w:s) 19:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - As this comment is based off of what Alphachimp said, it is on subject. --Riley 20:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - I don't see it in WP policy, but it speaks to the notability of a subject. A lot of NN people and organizations will cite their wikipedia article as a primary source of information about them. When you are famous/important enough, you don't have to cite Wikipedia. There are really no parallels between Brin and Lindsay, except the Wiki citation (I could not find it on Brin's page, btw.) Alphachimp ^talk 23:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is the issue here? It seems there are two issues being discussed: (1) Is the person noteworthy and (2) Did I do a good job writing the article? Question #1 is valid for a discussion of whether or not it is a vanity page, but question #2 would be better for a discussion of whether the article needs a rewrite. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 13:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article has been improved since many of the above comments were made - see this early version for its earlier problems. --DaveG12345 14:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It still lists that he graduated summa cum laude. It's still a resume. Wikipedia is not web hosting. Alphachimp ^talk 23:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to Keep. The article is now much improved, with the vanity fluff, overt advertising and irrelevancies removed. I'm giving the benefit of the doubt on the notability issue. --DaveG12345 14:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per last AFD. --Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 15:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you reviewed the new article - it has changed substantially since the last AFD which only had 4 voters. --Trödel 15:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is obviously a vantiy page. --137.142.17.120 16:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, 113,000 on Google. --Dom thedude 0 0 1 17:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- In the interest of full disclosure, there are several people named Jeff Lindsey - but this 33,000 is probably more accurate "Jeff Lindsay" (mormon OR pulp OR patent) --Trödel 18:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment A Lexis-Nexis search for "Jeff Lindsay"/last ten years/Midwestern regional news creates 9 hits, none of which are about the subject. Western regional news: 21 hits, none about the subject. Major newspapers: 25, zero about the subject. ~ trialsanderrors 19:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vanity page. JChap 18:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vanity page. --68.191.11.249 18:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable in his genre - Mormon apoligists - professional accomplishments add depth Abeo Paliurus 18:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Vanity. Moriori 04:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, vanity Dr Zak 04:32, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It was probably vanity to begin with, but this person has actually made some accomplishments worthy of note. RFerreira 07:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lindsay is famous for polemically dismissing anything not faith-promoting to Mormonism, and his scientific expertise is often touted by his followers in this regard, who represent a fundamentalist faction within Mormonism, unyielding in their literalism. So Wikipedia is touting his scientific expertise for these followers without precedent, thus giving his controversial and unrelated apologetics added weight. Here is the problem explained, from a Mormon researcher: My particular interest is Missouri Mormon History. Of this time ( 1831 - 1838 ), I concentrate on 1838. The 1838 Mormon War in Missouri - This is THE definitive book on the 1838 period, and is a must read for any student to the topic. Please note that Jeff Lindsay has written an unkind rebuttal of this book, and I fully dismiss Lindsay's work here as almost totally inaccurate. For an alternative to LeSueur's work, see Alex Baugh's A Call to Arms: The 1838 Mormon Defense of Northern Missouri. I know both authors personally, and they are two of the best historians in the field. Bro. Lindsay has done a disservice to his church in this area - he would be best advised to read Baugh's book, and follow his example. A full bibliography of the Missouri period can be found at the bottom of this page. For a rather complete chronology of 1838 Missouri, see 1838 Chronology, o this site. http://www.tungate.com/Missouri_1838.htm Anon166 15:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Actually this is an argument that there should be an article so that those seeking information about him can get an neutral perspective. --Trödel 17:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's not an argument for or against as long as it doesn't leave the narrow confines of LDSDNA discussion forums. I'm still waiting for evindence that his work has trickled out into the wider world of disinterested reporting. ~ trialsanderrors 17:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Interestingly - I searched some other ways (non-internet) and the only thing I have found so far relates to his anti block-scheduling for schools crusade Kenney, Linda Chion (2003-10-01). "Back from the block--or not?". School Administrator. American Association of School Administrators.. In my own little world he is so obviously notable - I'll keep looking as I get a chance. --Trödel 18:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - For example, when Concerned Christians banned Mormons from quoting anyone who was not a General Authority (Betts, Bob (2005-11-23). "A New Rule For Mormons". Concerned Christians. Retrieved 2006-07-07. ) the only person named was Jeff Lindsay. --Trödel 19:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trodel, yours is merely an argument for including anything. Whether or not it can be neutral is another question. (I personally don't think so because a belief system is under threat from scientific data.) Furthermore, two shortcomings don't add up to a success. His apologetics is not noteworthy as an entry without his unrelated scientific expertise, which is not noteworthy on its own. Anon166 19:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No only ones that are "famous", are "touted by his followers", and controversial enough to be denounced by "Mormon researchers" - sounds like plenty of verifabile information to be included in an article --Trödel 02:03, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think Lindsay's followers number about 50, all of them from the internet, about ten or so of them seem to be Mormon editors on Wikipedia. I've never met a Mormon in real life who's mentioned him in relation to his apologetics, as there are about a dozen or so names in front of him. Since you quoted me on his fame, you should have the rest of the story. Anon166 03:4, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Can you enlighten us where Lindsay posts/publishes his LDSDNA articles? This is still obscure to outsiders after all this debate. ~ trialsanderrors 04:01, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LDS DNA Articles:

from the official LDS Site (PDF)
from his own web site (HTML)

Again, it isn't necessarily what he is best known for (I personally like his "My Turn" page, but the DNA article is the only one that was published on the official LDS site. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 18:10, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I notice that the resume-esque bullet points have been removed from the article. It's a good start, but everything I'm reading just seems so unremarkable and not NPOV. Allow me to illustrate: It says that he interrupted his time at BYU for a mission thing. That's great, but it's a normal thing for LDS members to do. For instance, the claim that he is a "prolific" inventor wreaks of NPOV issues. Looking at the article, I just find it extremely hard to justify its inclusion in Wikipedia. Alphachimp ^talk 18:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- First the article should decide what it wants to be. As a corporate executive, the subject is wildly non-notable. As a former academic, he seems to fail WP:PROF. As an inventor, he doesn't seem to be anywhere near the top. The way it looks like right now it seems that all the information about his various non-LDS-related activities are brought up to make a false appeal to authority (given that he has no standing as a molecular biologist) to bolster his role in the LDSDNA debates. Which would make this a very POV undertaking which should be deleted with prejudice. I'm still open to hear about his role in the LDSDNA debates, but so far the findings have been very meagre. ~ trialsanderrors 19:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Response I admit I didn't do a good job of the initial rewrite. (I'm better at tweaking than creating), but the discussion should be based on the topic, not the quality of the article.
  - Everyone's milage may vary, but the LDS DNA article isn't (IMHO) the most important thing he did. What makes it unique, is that it is the only paper that the official church web site references. (lds.org usually limits references to articles to top church leaders.) What he is best known for (for good and bad) is a variety of papers in the anti-mormon field. As I mentioned earlier, if you google "anti-mormon", his site shows up on the first page. That should indicate he is notable within Anti-Mormonism. The next question would be "Is anti-mormonism notable?" If the answer is yes, then it seems that Jeff Lindsay is noteable. If the answer is no, then the answer would be no. His page is linked to from Anti-Mormonism, Mormon apologetics, and Criticism of Mormonism, which lends credence to him being known among Mormons. Now, granted, if you aren't a Mormon, a former Mormon, an Anti-Mormon, or a friend of a Mormon, that may not mean much. But does that make it non-notable?
  - I also should point out that David L Rattigan has greatly stripped down the article, so I would encourage people to look at it again. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 22:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have radically revised the article, excising a lot of the irrelevant stuff that was making it look like a vanity article. If the article is going to stay, it is better that it grows organically rather than just rehashing the mass of information from the old article. David L Rattigan 19:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment High praise for David for cutting it down to size and removing the more blatant vanity elements. On the notability of his LDSDNA engagement, the problem is that the LDS webpage has to be seen as a partisan site in the debate, so what really matters is 1. whether the opposing site takes his arguments seriously enough to engage him in a debate, and 2. whether this spills over to a forum where I as an outsider could possibly be informed by it. For instance the LA Times article is good evidence that the debate is of interest to outsiders, but since Lindsay isn't mentioned in it it gives no testimony of his role. WP:NPOV brings up the issue of undue weight, and if it isn't established that he holds a central role in the debate (outside web forums, which are almost never encyclopedic), this article could be seen as a POV fork. ~ trialsanderrors 23:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. I'll second that praise. I've changed my vote to Keep. I'm not entirely convinced of his notability, but the article is borderline enough to save. Alphachimp ^talk 23:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Borderline or not, it's still a vanity bit about a non notable to me. Rense 04:11, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. His name is on enough Wikipedia pages about Mormonism (http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Aen.wikipedia.org+%22jeff+lindsay%22+-%22user+talk%22) to make an actual page about the guy useful. It may need rewriting to get up to Wikipedia standards, but as long as there are so many references to him from other Wikipedia pages, people are going to keep creating the article back again (ignorant of the past, deleted versions of the page). --Dlugar 05:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, absolutely. Patent discussions aside, I agree that Lindsay is notable as an LDS apologist — I've become very familiar with his work both as a Mormon and after leaving the church (and know many others who read him that have nothing to do with Wikipedia, Anon). For the record, I've communicated with him via email in a (suspended) effort to fill this article out some, and he was surprised that it had been written — he did not author any part of it. For those voting delete as vanity, be careful to not equate an unfamiliarity with the subject at hand with identifying it as vanity. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa! 07:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge pertinent facts into Mormon apologetics. With all due deference to those who did a great job of cutting the vanity from this article, it still fails key thresholds in WP policy. Absent reliable outside sources the subject is simply someone who is vocal on his webpage and on discussion groups but with zero news hits (even Utah or Wisconsin local news) simply lacks the outside standing of a Phillip E. Johnson to be the public face of the apologist position in this debate. The litmus test for an entry like this is whether we can include a properly sourced and attributed criticism of his position. If not, we can either include hearsay and run afoul of WP:BLP or we leave it out and make this a POV fork, giving undue weight to one side of the debate. To be clear, the debate is important and should be properly covered, but we cannot bestow notability to a partisan figure who has not received any attention outside the world he is active in. ~ trialsanderrors 18:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I must confess I'm confused about what is needed for retention. For my initial rewrite, I added lots of references, which caused several people to call it a vanity page. Then it got stripped down to mainly apologetics, and now it is too narrow.

So far, we have identified:

Two books that reference his site, one for religion, and one for magic.
Two professional organizations (TAPPI and American Paper Institute - now AF&PA) cited his works for best technical papers
He served as director of AIChE Forest Products Division from 1989 to 1995
If you search for "Anti-Mormon" on google, his web site appears on the first page of hits.
Brittanica.com and USA Today each spotlighted his site as a "Hot Site" and "one of the best on the Internet when reviewed for quality, accuracy of content, presentation and usability" respectively. The site has received various other awards and recognitions.
The educators' magazine, Education Week, ran a story on Oct. 3, 2001 discussing his Block Scheduling site.
BYU Chemical Engineering Dept. designated him as the outstanding alumnus for 2004

It seems to me that the above list indicates he is notable within apologetics (at least for the lds.org article and high ranking by google on "Anti-Mormon"), professionally (best papers, outstanding alumnus, and director of AIChE Forest Products Division, and the number of patents), general public visibility (USA Today and Brittanica.com), and other fields (e.g., Block Scheduling), so I'm not sure that he has not received any recognition outside of the world he is active in.

Can somebody clarify the issues at this point? wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 00:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you go through your own list you'll notice that exactly one of your (non-blog/non-message board) sources is about his LDSDNA activities – the cite in a book that has probably 500 footnotes total. That is extremely meager. Everything else is essentially an appeal to authority, saying because he has done X his opinion on Y must be taken seriously. That's what WP:NPOV calls "undue weight". As I mentioned before, since Lindsay has no standing based on formal training his standing must be established by outside sources. If he has been involved in a public debate on LDSDNA or has been cited by his adversaries, those are ways to establish his role. Magicianship and expertise in block scheduling aren't. ~ trialsanderrors 00:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He doesn't even really have a good background in block scheduling. Most people in the education field who I've talked to regarding him consider his arguments to be pretty soft. --Riley 04:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One of the problems of finding outside sources from adversaries is that one of the characteristics of most anti-mormon literature is to ignore any apologetic material, and frame their arguments to imply that no counter-arguments have ever been expressed to their claims. This was recognized by two christian theologians in: Mosser, Carl and Owen, Paul (1997) in Mormon Apologetic Scholarship and Evangelical Neglect: Losing the Battle and Not Knowing It?.

The fact that his article appears on the official lds.org site is quite significant, indicating recognition from the apologetic side. This is a site that normally has only writings by high level church leaders and maybe faculty from church-sponsored schools and universities. Every article is carefully reviewed and given approval from high authorities before it is added to the web site, so his DNA article being there is a big deal.

As for block scheduling, it sounds like he is known (if not respected) in that field.

Let me be clear: I don't agree with much of his non-apologetic writings. He's a conservative and I'm a bleeding-heart liberal, and I think he is dead wrong on a lot of his opinions. Nevertheless, I have to admit that he is at least known in various circles. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 13:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea whether this is true or not, but this very lack of discussion or outside reporting makes it clear that we have a problem with WP:V and WP:NPOV. But in any case, unless there are other sources forthcoming I think we have discussed this from all sides and have to leave it to the closing administrator to decide whether the article can be kept. ~ trialsanderrors 00:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the article I pointed to, you will see that at least the authors (who were not LDS, and in fact were on the anti-mormon side) believe that is one of the problems with their approach so far. This also illustrates how it is sometimes very difficult to teach people with no familiarity of a subject matter enough to make informed decisions. It reminds me a little of when people complain about not having reliable references for video games. The fact is, there really isn't many books written about video games, but the comments that appear in the articles I monitor do reflect the "general opinion", based on talking to others. If there isn't a clear answer, hopefully people will trust those who are more familiar with the topic.

I still don't understand why, if his web site shows up on the first page of a google search for "anti-mormon", how he can't be notable within that field. Is the problem that anti-mormonism isn't noteable? wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 01:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't read the full article but I noticed that they 1. don't mention Lindsay but 2. mention Hugh Nibley as the "father of apologetic scholarship", i.e. someone who by academic standing has an article in WP. So I hav no idea if your claim is correct, and it isn't really my job to investigate. My job is to check whether we have sufficient reliable outside resources to write an unbiased article based solely on those sources, and my opinion is no, for reasons amply discussed above: no coverage in the media, no publications is reputable academic outlets, no discussion of his claims in those media. In other words, we are asked to give notability to someone who hasn't established notability for himself in the kinds of sources we consider reliable. ~ trialsanderrors 01:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems notable enough - and the controversy reminds me that where there is smoke, look for fire. Lyze 03:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the nomination was delete. Sango 123 17:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ben Matlock's clients

Seems like a really pointless and nonnotable list to me; also only five list entries after 10 months on WP. NawlinWiki 01:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's already a List_of_Matlock_episodes with links to individual episodes. If the individual episodes are to be written-up then this list seems redundant. --IslaySolomon 01:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Islay. If there's any information not already in other Matlock articles, then merge, but I doubt that'll be necessary. — ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk • E 02:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Matlockcruft (this may be the first time that term has ever been used), although I know full well that I risk the wrath of Abraham Simpson. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 02:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Matcruft. Cruftlock? Eh, whatever, it's a fancrufty and pointless list. --Core des at talk. o.o;; 03:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete cruft. --Icarus 06:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete listcruft Alphachimp ^talk 13:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete - listcruft. --Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 15:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unnecessary. 23skidoo 16:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per unnecessary, IsanSolomon and nom. --Dom thedude 0 0 1 18:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Ben Matlock. Green caterpillar 20:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely unnecessary. -- Alias Flood 22:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the above reasons. Carlossuarez46 19:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Merge would be OK too. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib Reverts} 03:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the nomination was delete. Sango 123 17:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Autominer

gamecruft. Artw 01:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Already covered in RuneScape. --IslaySolomon 01:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to RuneScape -- Librarianofages 02:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- comment withdrawn, vote=Delete -- Librarianofages 02:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Merge salvagable info (i.e. that they need not be at the computer). It's basically covered at RuneScape. — ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk • E 02:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, redundant to topic covered in RuneScape. --Core des at talk. o.o;; 03:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think it gets a sentence in the main RuneScape article, but it certainly doesn't deserve it's own article. P.S. (It is RuneScape with a capital S) J.J.Sagnella 06:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thanks. I'll keep that in mind. :P --Core des at talk. o.o;; 09:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. --Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 15:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per redundent. --Dom thedude 0 0 1 18:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and redundant. -- Alias Flood 22:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This info doesn't deserve its own article. --Ted87 23:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete These programs was very popular back when they worked, but quite obsolete these days. I doubt anybody will need an article on this. – Ðra 00:01, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. DS 04:59, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the nomination was delete. Sango 123 17:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Avatar the Last Airbender 2007 calendar

Advert for a calendar that doesn't exist yet, and would probably be considered cruft of some variety if it did. Artw 01:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No context/Advertising/Crystal balling --IslaySolomon 01:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. — ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk • E 02:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Crystal cruft ~ trialsanderrors 03:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, crystallized adcruftisement. --Core des at talk. o.o;; 03:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. Penelope D 05:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above, and most likely below. --Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 15:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now per above including nom. --Dom thedude 0 0 1 18:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As an actual Avatar fan, I highly doubt an entire article can be created about a calendar of this franchise. PCEevee ^talk 18:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NOT -- Alias Flood 22:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, why not speedy??? — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib Reverts} 03:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the nomination was delete. Sango 123 17:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Richie Campbell, Pianist

WP:COPYVIO from here DavidHumphreys ^{SPEAK TO ME}ABOUT_{THE THINGS I MESSED UP} 01:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a copy-vio, I'm surprised no one caught that. Yanksox 01:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Clicking 'random article' is a habit of mine - you do find a lot of tat!! Also this article should be WP:VAIN as well the creating author is User:Campbellsongs DavidHumphreys ^{SPEAK TO ME}ABOUT_{THE THINGS I MESSED UP} 01:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment User:Get-noticed removed the Afd tag, it has been re-attached DavidHumphreys ^{SPEAK TO ME}ABOUT_{THE THINGS I MESSED UP} 02:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:VAIN. Seems to be non-notable. However, it seems to not be a copy-vio. See the page cited by David. The site seems to compile information from the web and lists Wikipedia's "new pages" page as its source. It also lists the full article as being the one at Wikipedia, seemingly sanctioning the page, but it has a copyright tag at the very bottom of the page, which is odd. Either way, delete as vanity and non-notable. — ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk • E 02:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Yanksox Alphachimp ^talk 13:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable. --Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 15:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per copyright and notability. If I saw it in Newpages, I would've put it under db-bio. --Dom thedude 0 0 1
Delete; I have put the {{copyvio}} tag on the page in place of the copyvio content (remember, we should always do that when we detect copyright violation!) You'll have to look in the history for the article content now. Mango juice^talk 04:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the nomination was Keep. - Bobet 18:14, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tronichord

Non notable musical instrument, even the article says It is very rare and even on the internet you won't find much information about it. DavidHumphreys ^{SPEAK TO ME}ABOUT_{THE THINGS I MESSED UP} 01:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Both this and Omnichord seem to be very similar to the infamous Stylophone. Maybe some sort of merge might be in order? --IslaySolomon 01:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep How can a musical instrument be non-notable? thats like saying we shouldn't have curium on wiki because it isn't used much for anything, pls allow for organic expansion! -- Librarianofages 02:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ keep but should definitely be expanded. The article is such a letdown: "this is an instrument that no one knows much about and so this is the end of the article." Pascal.Tesson 02:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on my own comment: I added the expand tag to the article. Pascal.Tesson 02:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep After a Google image search it seems the Tronichord is quite distinct from the Omnichord: [10][11]. However to justify itself this article needs to explain in what way the Tronichord is distinct from, say, a standard electric keyboard. It also needs to explain why "Tronichord" is a distinct intrument and not just a brand name. In light of the Stylophone, I don't doubt that these are both true. --IslaySolomon 02:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment A generic musical instrument cannot be non-notable, however this brand of this particular musical instrument, (i beleive) is non-notable. As a parallel example - washing machines are notable white appliances, however there should not be an article on each and every brand and model of washing machine ever produced ... Wikipedia would end up looking like a Comet catalogue. Anyway, this page is here for discusion and that is what we are doing, so it is working !!! DavidHumphreys ^{SPEAK TO ME}ABOUT_{THE THINGS I MESSED UP} 02:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - comment you phrased it wrong, you should of pointed out that you thought that this was only a brand-name and which would strenghthen the case for deletion greatly. -- Librarianofages 02:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment Fair enough !!! DavidHumphreys ^{SPEAK TO ME}ABOUT_{THE THINGS I MESSED UP} 02:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand per above. --Core des at talk. o.o;; 03:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge anything useful to Omnichord & Redirect. A Tronichord, from what I have been able to learn, was just a forerunner of the Omnichord (and made by the same firm), so effectively different from the Omnichord only in terms of its name and its being a bit primitive. The Omnichord then went on through various models and upgrades, whilst the Tronichord became the obscure ancestor we see before us. Here's a useful site. --DaveG12345 05:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is this somehow notable? Any verifiable reliable sources? I'm looking at the music section of Toys "R" Us and there are all kinds of minor variations of electronic gadgets that go "plunk". Little Tikes Kazoozaphone? My First 18-Key Tabletop Piano? Cindarella Karaoke Player? Weregerbil 12:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Wikify and Expand, per above --Dom thedude 0 0 1 18:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the nomination was delete. Sango 123 17:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gettleman

Non-notable clutter. Wikipedia is not a genealogy site, nor a site for every Tom, Dick, and Harry to slap their last name into in some attempt to feel important. Gnrlotto 01:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteGnrlotto 01:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete genealogy cruft. --Icarus 06:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unencyclopedic. Wikipedia is not a directory of last names. Punkmorten 10:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. --Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 17:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, above and notability. --Dom thedude 0 0 1 18:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (possibly speedy?) per nom -- Steel 23:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the nomination was delete. Sango 123 17:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BMX Backflips

Non-notable flash game - doesn't even give a link! Artw 01:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Egg, beans, chips and spam. Totally NN. --IslaySolomon 02:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:WEB. --Core des at talk. o.o;; 03:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, absolutely fails to assert any notability in accordance with WP:WEB Alphachimp ^talk 13:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. --Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 17:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, if Teagames was deleted... Why would one of its games (in which are less notable than Teagames is) be still there? --Dom thedude 0 0 1

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

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

The result of the nomination was delete. Sango 123 17:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Metromix

Non-notable local TV show -- Koffieyahoo 02:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete So its a TV channel that shows programs and has presenters .... WOW !! Distinctly WP:NN DavidHumphreys ^{SPEAK TO ME}ABOUT_{THE THINGS I MESSED UP} 03:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable local TV show. Reads like an ad. --Core des at talk. o.o;; 03:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Alphachimp ^talk 13:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. --Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 17:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Dom thedude 0 0 1 18:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with or redirect to RedEye, a Chicago Tribune spinoff which has a regular feature of the same name. Some local programs in Chicago are notable, like Svengoolie, but nobody I know really cares about this show. Zagalejo 22:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC) (Chicago native)[reply]

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

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

The result of the nomination was delete. Sango 123 17:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dvr face

Neologism, fails the Google test. Putting up for AfD at author's request after he removed prod. RidG ^Talk/_{Contributions} 02:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As nom says, Google kills this dead with a breathtaking zero relevent results[12]. Besides the phenomenon has been around since the first VCRs and no-one gave it a name back then. --IslaySolomon 02:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NEO. --Core des at talk. o.o;; 03:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. --Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 17:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above and Google. --Dom thedude 0 0 1 18:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedily deleted by Kimchi.sg. --Core des at talk. o.o;; 12:41, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Phytotechnology Laboratories

Seems to be an ad, non-notable --BradBeattie 02:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not meet WP:CORP. No Gnews hits. Ghits are only ads/non-notable mentions. — ERcheck (talk) 03:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, reads like an ad, fails WP:CORP. --Core des at talk. o.o;; 03:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Their product line includes: amino acids, buffers, gelling agents and Vitamins: in other words, SPAM. --die Baumfabrik 05:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:CORP --Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 17:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above and notability. --Dom thedude 0 0 1 18:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per db-bio ~Kylu (u|t) 04:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I found evidence that it's a real company. It's listed as a supplier to the U.S. Department of Agriculture at http://www.ars.usda.gov/Main/docs.htm?docid=9985 and it was an exhibitor at the 2005 annual meeting of the American Society of Plant Biologists at http://www.aspb.org/meetings/pb-2005/currentexhibitors.cfm Perhaps in those contexts it's notable. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 05:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete as nn-bio. JDoorj a m Talk 06:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth C. Torres

Seems to be spam for the company --BradBeattie 02:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Assuming your above nomination for Phytotechnology Laboratories results in deletion (as it should be per nom), this can be simply {{db-bio}}'d. (Actually, I don't see any reason why Phytotechnology Laboratories could not be {{db-bio}}'d as well.) RidG ^Talk/_{Contributions} 03:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - notability does not meet WP:BIO. — ERcheck (talk) 03:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:BIO. --Core des at talk. o.o;; 03:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Phytotechnology must go, so should Torres. I'd delete the article under WP:VAIN too; president with a capital P? That's trouble with a capital T. --die Baumfabrik 05:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. --Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 17:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above including nom.... Seems like the contributor, Maldavian, has one purpose: to advertise. --Dom thedude 0 0 1 18:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per db-bio ~Kylu (u|t) 04:03, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete per CSD A7. Mango juice^talk 04:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zodiac smith

Vanity, not notable B.d.mills 02:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Official website records 261 hits (two of those are me), they launched their first EP last Sunday, you can order it by email, they have a myspace, they used to be called "Alien Vomit", their myspace has had 431 profile views, [insert non-notable band cliché here], [insert non-notable band cliché here]... --IslaySolomon 03:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Although I've recently become very wary of suggesting this, I think this could have been {{db-band}}'d --IslaySolomon 03:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Google search for "Zodiac smith" (including double quotes to search for the exact phrase) returns 19 hits. And to IslaySolomon, I didn't know about the db-band template. Thanks for the information. --B.d.mills 03:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per CSD-A7, no assertion of notability. --Core des at talk. o.o;; 03:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. --Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 17:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Dom thedude 0 0 1 18:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Vary | Talk 22:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete db-band/A7 ~Kylu (u|t) 04:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the nomination was delete. Sango 123 17:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sotones Records

Independent record label that, based on Google search, doesn't seem to exist beyond a few myspace pages. Listed web page for the company is nothing but a banner and a poster for a concert last February. There is no other website content, and no links from that page. Fan-1967 02:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there's no suggestion anywhere that they've been involved in promoting any significant artists or made any money. In fact their myspace profile even describes them as a "company" (their quotation marks). --IslaySolomon 03:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which raises some questions about the band article for Leisure (band). - Fan-1967 04:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:CORP and WP:MUSIC. --Core des at talk. o.o;; 03:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above reasons. If only Myspace and Wikipedia could exist in seperate universes....HumbleGod 08:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We were just trying to write about a label locally important to us (fans here in southampton) - I guess there's a difference between our local area and the wider world. New to wikis, so won't complain if a delete does go ahead.--Comrade jo 11:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. --Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 17:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Dom thedude 0 0 1 18:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the nomination was No consensus to delete, therefore keep. - Bobet 18:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional military organizations

This does not appear to be a suitable topic for an encyclopedia entry. Cheese Sandwich 03:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is perfectly suitable. It falls into the same category as List of fictional United States Presidents and such things like that.--kralahome 03:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. I'm all against useless lists, but this is perfectly fine. RidG ^Talk/_{Contributions} 03:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It seems appropriate and moderately relevant to certain topics. Michael 03:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unmaintainable. What fictional universe doesn't have a military organization (or eight) in it? Nifboy 03:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Good point Nifboy! -Seidenstud 03:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Well, the H.P. Lovecraft universe has no fictional military forces, nor does Flatland, The Space Triolgy, Cordwainer Smith's work, King Kong used the very real US Air Force, Blade Runner or Minotry Report movies mention no militaries, Berstein Bears, various Newpaper Comics, the list goes on and on with fictional universes WITHOUT fictional militaries. The list is maintainable, and the pagehistory has shown that various editors have worked very hard to see that each army is verified and categorized properly. I may also note that this list is also quite helpful in catching anyone who makes vanity material and easier to track down other vanity material on wikipedia and elete it. --Eldarone 04:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. The fact that a couple of fictional universes don't have fictional military organizations speaks only to differences in author creativity, nothing else. I don't think it's entirely relevant to this discussion, as a large majority do. Alphachimp ^talk 13:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Wow, type in "List of fictional" in the search function and you get all kinds of ridiculous lists, like List of fictional apes... Does this stuff really belong in an encyclopedia? Maybe a "Wikilists" or a "Wikifiction" project is in order. Should I add "List of breakfasts eaten by fictional admirals"? ;)--Cheese Sandwich 03:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Slipperly Slope Fallacy. There is a difference between keeping what militaries exist and what an general ate for lunch in the history books. The List of Fictional Miliatries, while fictional, are still relevant enough than say what someone had for breakfast. --Eldarone 04:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unmaintainable. This seems like a useful list, but there's an infinite number of things that could go on it. --Core des at talk. o.o;; 03:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Coredesat and Nifboy. -- Koffieyahoo 03:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Fictional Military Organizations is perfectly relevant to the many science fiction universes, books, RPG's, etc.Etc. It's a quick and easy aid for one to find a group from a stroy and look up the right series. And the ,list is maintable, and has been maintianed well. --Eldarone 04:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - this is perfectly maintainable, useful and interesting. Penelope D 05:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Coredesat and Nifboy. It's only maintainable by "someone else" I'm sure, and I'm glad someone finds it useful and interesting, neither of which I do. I don't think reader-interest ought to be a notability factor, since I suspect that would lead to deleting math and science articles like crazy. Tychocat 06:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Cannot ever be complete, and isn't particularly useful as a navigation aid. It's just a "List of things with a common attribute". - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with Eldarone. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I find these "Lists of fictional..." things useful and entertaining. I don't understand why list deletion advocates often cite that the list must be "complete" when no Wikipedia article will ever be "complete". --Canley 09:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Lists that are so broad that they cannot ever be comprehensive are generally "idiosyncratic non-topics", per the deletion policy. This is just a bunch of things that are all foo, which is an idiosyncratic non-topic. There's no possibility for overview, because there's nothing you can say about all (or even most) of these things besides the fact that they're fictional military organizations. This illustrates no trend or topic, and there cannot ever be an accompanying article nor can this list ever be even half-way comprehensive. No article on Wikipedia is ever properly complete, but proper articles can be comprehensive. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per A Man In Black. Is the list entertaining? Not particularly for me, but I'm sure it is for some, but that's not really material to this discussion. Is the list maintainable? It's certainly not the worst offended I've seen, but, as has been said, it has very little chance of becoming comprehensive. Is the list useful? Not unless you already have prior knowledge of the subject, and if you have said knowledge, the list pretty much fails to augment it. That leads me to believe it's unencyclopaedic and better off gone. Plus, a lot of people would be upset to learn that the British Army is fictional. GassyGuy 09:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment #2: I started a discussion here on the general topic of lists of fictionals. --Cheese Sandwich 12:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete and Categorize~~Delete per Man in Black and Gassy Guy. ~~Despite the poor sorting of a category (alphabetical), it is still a heck of a lot better than having articles like this.~~ Alphachimp ^talk 13:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Nifboy and Coredsat; so incomplete as to be an indiscriminate list. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - looks ok to me. --Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 17:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: List criteria is far too broad. List of fictional United States Presidents on the other hand is a far more targetted list. It's a lot easier to actually compare and contrast characters from different series on that list. But this list is so broad and long that I doubt anyone would it find it useful except to waste time adding more cruft to it. Fails WP:NOT - indiscriminate collection of information. -- Netsnipe ^(Talk) 17:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is a good article, with encyclopedic content, that many people may find very useful. J Milburn 18:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - one of the cruftiest lists I've ever seen. The definition of 'military organizations' is ludicrously broad - essentially meaning 'any fictional group who have engaged in, or are prepared for, organised violence'. As it stands, it contains Starfleet, the Brotherhood of Nod and the A-team. Seeing as organised violence is a common theme in fiction, there is essentially no limit to this list. You might as well have a List of fictional lovers. --Nydas 18:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Starfleet, the A-Team and Nod are still miliary forces. Starfleet was used in the Dominion Wars as the armed forces of the Federation, The A-Team are by diffintion mercenaries: soldiers hired for various actions, and he Brotherhood of Nod is still organized as a military force, although terroist as well. We have strict standards of what is a military force. --Eldarone 20:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - would those strict standards allow the Power Rangers onto this list? I can't see any particular difference between them and the A-team, GI Joe, Star Fox, People's Front of Judea, etc.--Nydas 06:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per above, and Wikify. --Dom thedude 0 0 1 18:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: In my opinion, a good list should have some sort of specific cross-referencing use, IE: An index. Or, a good list can give interesting information on its topics, IE: List of fictional United States Presidents. A good list also has a narrow scope and sticks to it, in this article, the scope is too broad, such as to include government-sponsored militaries, and mercenary corporations which, in some cases, aren't even "military", IE: The A-Team. Not exactly listcruft, but, not exactly useful either. JJJJust 19:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment' - The A-Team is still a mercenary force, a group that gets paid for military activities. The list only includes, and only, military forces. Throughout history there have been many different types of militaries groups, from small Freelancers to Rome's Voleenteer armies to Warrior caste to paramilitary forces. There is such a board variety of fighting forces in real life as well --Eldarone 20:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: While I recognize the A-Team as a mercenary force, I do not recognize them as military and I do not recognize them as an organization and therefore discount their inclusion in the list, and by extension, discount the rationale, scope, and viability of the list. JJJJust 23:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment The A-Team is still a mercenary company, dispite it's small size. It's like saying a Mom and Pop store isn't a bussiness because they don't have 20 stores. Size dosn't matter. If you have a problem with The A-Team being on the list, then go the discussion page and debate it. --Eldarone 02:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's symptomic of this list's problems. What can you say that applies to both Starfleet and the A-Team? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Of course not, the A-team is a small Mercenary force that's sort of like a special ops team for hire. Eventually, the A-Team does become part of a larger military agency in the last season. Starfleet is the Military and exploration arm of the United Federation of Planets built more along the lines of traditional military forces. Starfleet is chartered by the Federation, overseen by polticians, and is diffinately a much largeer organization. But both Starfleet and the A-Team are still trained, professional military forces, regardless of size or wither they get paid or not. What exactly is the problem though? I don't quite understand what the problem is. Do you have a problem with Mercs being classsifed as Military? --Eldarone 04:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - There's no topic, just a shared attribute. There's nothing you can say about these things as a group. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:32, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes there is a topic for this list: "Fictional" as in non real, "Military Organization" is the term chosen becaused there is a variety of Military forces, from regular Armed Forces, to Rebels, Mercenaries, Militia, and even culturaly based warriors. Nothing to say as a group? All these are fictional Military forces. That is the topic. If you have issues with the article , then go to the discussion page and discuss it with the editors there. --Eldarone 04:40, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Again, this is such a broad list that it isn't a topic, just a list of things that have a single shared attribute, like a "List of blue things" or "List of three-word phases." My problem with this list can be resolved by deleting it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        It's not a broad list. Every single unit on that list is a Military Force, by diffition (from Dictionary.com):military- adj 1: of or relating to the study of the principles of warfare. All these orgziation have to deal with WARFARE, they are Fictional, must be a group, and they have to be from a notable source. They do not share a single artbute, they all share several attributes. --Eldarone 04:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Not all of these organizations deal with warfare (I see several exceptions, mostly untested defense groups, mercenaries, and terrorist groups), and nothing in the introduction implies that this is true. All these things seem to have in common is one shared attribute: they're fictional military groups. Just like "things that are blue" and "people with red hair", there's no topic, just a shared attribute. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Shmila 20:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Coredesat. Green caterpillar 20:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Useful information for browsing if maintained. Dpv 21:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per Canley. 12.9.180.18 02:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Indented vote by anon user. --WinHunter ^(talk) 11:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per A Man in Black and Coredesat. I really can't see how this will ever be useful, it's just too broad. BryanG^(talk) 05:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and being unencyclopedic. --WinHunter ^(talk) 11:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep any article with over 500 edits in its history, over a period in excess of 2 years. AndyJones 12:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unmaintainably broad. Anything that includes the A-Team and Starfleet needs to be tightened, and I don't see how that can be done without a rename/reboot. Someone may want to userfy this and start it over with better list criteria. Lists tends to accumulate edits, so AndyJones' reasoning is not persuasive to me. -- nae'blis _(talk) 19:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per precedent. Carlossuarez46 19:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Useful list for authors who wish to create new fictional military organizations. A "cheat sheet" of sorts. Silly but handy. Flying Jazz 01:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the list is useful in crosschecking with existing military units, fictional or real, as well as links to related articles in science fiction, fantasy, military fiction, and literature. The list is also maintainable, as the editors of the page have removed and recategorized hundreds of unrelated, misplaced, or non-existant links and entries over the past 2 years of the articles. I do believe there will now be a much tighter hand on submission to this article, with the addition of small descriptions for each category instead of links to articles related to the category. --YoungFreud 23:02, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and replace with category. Just a list if links. Limited categorization can be duplicated with subcategories. Eluchil404 02:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's all good.--Tomtom9041 19:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - A good and handy article User:Ominae 19:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Interesting and useful. - CNichols 01:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the nomination was delete. Sango 123 17:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan Simonaire

His only claim to fame seems to be that he is a candidate. Article written like an advertisement, not NPOV. No vote from me. Dipics 03:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my comments on the article's talk page. Even if he were elected to the state legislature, he would not deserve an article. As a candidate, he certainly doesn't. And the article looks like it was straight from his campaign literature, complete with the photogenic family. Fan-1967 03:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My belief was that I was following the Wikipedia instructions for "Candidates_and_elections"— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.127.154.12 (talk • contribs)

Comment Per the discussion on Wikipedia:Candidates and elections, I think that it would be more appropriate to write an article on the election itself then perhaps have each candidate redirect to that page. The candidates and elections page is pretty specific that the article on the election itself should come first. Dipics 03:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not a promotional tool. --Core des at talk. o.o;; 03:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it stands now. A significant clean up may change my mind. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 03:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have the sneaking suspicion that this was used as a promtonal tool. I tagged an earlier version as A8. Yank sox 03:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia:Candidates and elections proposed policy - election article first, non-stubby individual articles thereafter. --DaveG12345 04:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above; this sort of stuff has to be nipped in the bud. It's a shame, though; he's a family man and knows what the community wants. So, Bryan, what's your policy on a replacement for Trident? --die Baumfabrik 05:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the state of Maryland is building missiles these days. Fan-1967 05:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A candidate, not an actual politician. Did some professional political organizer's trade magazine put out an article recently about using Wikipedia for campaigns, or what? --Calton | Talk 05:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. (1) Right, let's replace career politicians with amateur politicians, it's worked so well at the White House. (2) My spider sense tells me that once he gets in he'll do anything to hang on forever. (3) Seven kids? Kill the planet, why don't you? (4) That sweater -- uh, no. (5) Oh yeah -- non-notable candidate for a State Senate seat, and not likely to win once voters see that his youngest "daughter" is actually a stuffed doll. Herostratus 06:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. – Ðra 07:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with all possible speed. This is a campaign ad. Wikipedia is not free ad space. And if his opponent had piffle like this as his article, it'd need to be deleted, too. (There are a bunch of political wonks out there posting 'if you delete my boss' ad, you have to delete their opponent's article too!' Not so. We're not here to destroy a good article just because your people posted crap.) --DarkAudit 14:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a candidate in the primary. Per the Washington Post, the favorite for the Republican nomination in this race is Donald H. Dwyer, Jr., who's had an article here since 2004. People may want to look at it. He's a state legislator looking to become a state senator. Fan-1967 14:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. --Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 17:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no question. You know the article is bad when it says '...seven wonderful^{[citation needed]} children...' J Milburn 18:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per above, strongly including Calton. --Dom thedude 0 0 1 18:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It seems that most of the objections thus far are from people that have an axe to grind with either Bryan's politics or prolificacy. If he has broken some rule as defined in Wikipedia's Candidates and elections, I have not seen that cited thus far.

--Nurchster 20:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment One of the first rules listed is that one should only create articles for the candidates after the article for the election. Have you seen such an article? Fan-1967 21:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Reviewing the entries above, I see no comments at all on his politics. The article reads like something straight out of a candidates website. The concerns seem to be about his notability or lack thereof. And, having given it some further thought, I am changing my abstain to the vote listed here. Dipics 21:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article is so lacking in anything substantive that I don't see how anybody could object based on his politics. There's nothing here to tell you what they are. Fan-1967 19:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - promotional/ad. --Bigtop (tk|cb|em|ea) 03:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Fan-1967. Mango juice^talk 04:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete is the only option here. RFerreira 07:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the nomination was delete. Sango 123 17:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Poingi

Possible WP:VAIN, Fails WP:MUSIC the only ghits are for MySpace and other blogs etc DavidHumphreys ^{SPEAK TO ME}ABOUT_{THE THINGS I MESSED UP} 03:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. per nom. -Seidenstud 03:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. when they start citing their own myspace page, it's descended into vanity. Xrblsnggt 04:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom, it is a borderline CSD A7 --Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 17:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Dom thedude 0 0 1 18:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, does not establish notability -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 00:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Deleet per nom--Macarion 17:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted as CSD A7 - totally no assertion of their own notability whatsoever. Kimchi.sg 09:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lock legion

Lacks any sort of notability Seidenstud 03:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Non-notable group. Dipics 03:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "The Lock Legion is a group that was first made on Newgrounds.com and was made as a joke to parody the Clock Crew, which had clocks on the faces of inanimate objects, except the Locks have lock faces or combination knobs." - Quite the most baffling introduction I have ever read. I'm assuming that this article is about the website locklegion.com. If so, then it fails WP:WEB and should be deleted. --IslaySolomon 04:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete references several other unnotable topics resulting in a pile of non-notability that has reached critical mass. Xrblsnggt 05:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable. --Core des at talk. o.o;; 05:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the nomination was delete. – Avi 00:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vermicide

Unsourced speculation and crystal-ballism. Would have prodded but the large amount of vandalism for such a small article suggests the prod wouldn't survive. Opabinia regalis 03:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. ghits imply that it is legit, and Mars Volta is certainly notable enough -Seidenstud 03:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I got a ghit total of 4[13]. This is a crystal ballism. Yank sox 03:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for completeness' sake, I got 921 without "Group" in the search, but that doesn't make any of those hits reliable sources, and it doesn't make an as-yet-unreleased song encyclopedic. Opabinia regalis 03:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Crystal ball. user should resubmit when it becomes real.Bridesmill 03:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mars Volta are definately notable as is there discog. However, this is only "rumored" to be their next single and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --IslaySolomon 03:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no confirmation so therfore it will probably get deleted, but it's almost guaranteed to be the single, and we're most likley going to delete this article only to recreate it a few weeks later. Zopwx2 05:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia can not speculate about what could or could not happen. There is a possibility that the sceanario you listed will happen, there is also the possiblity that it could not happen. Wikipedia is really designed to function in a manner of observation and not speculation. Yank sox 05:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, crystal-ballism. --Core des at talk. o.o;; 05:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ATTENTION: KEEP IT. The Admin of The Comatorium, Theory, who has direct ties to the band, accidentily revealed this song would be the single. A member asked "Can we talk about it once it's released as a single" and Theory replied with "Yes, you can". It's in a thread somewhere. It will be the single. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.55.164 (talk • contribs)
- Comment Two things. First, please don't post your comments at the top of the debate above the nomination. Second, a comment "in a thread somewhere" doesn't cut it - please see WP:RS. --Core des at talk. o.o;; 09:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Dpbsmith (talk) 10:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. WP:RS hasn't been recently revoked, has it? Weregerbil 12:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They aren't going to release a 7 minute long single --Macarion 17:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. It's rumored to be... is not good encyclopedic language. --Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 17:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Dom thedude 0 0 1 18:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's no point in deleting this article. If it is most likely the single then it will need to be made again as it is now a part of the Mars Volta's single discography on wikipedia. War machine09 21:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Wikipedia isn't for speculation. And it really isn't that much trouble to just remake the article when the information is confirmed. --Core des at talk. o.o;; 22:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the nomination was delete. Sango 123 17:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Doiron

This is an unencyclopedic entry with a great many problems. The statements concerning nominations for the "Governor General's Prize" [sic] and the Griffin Poetry Prize are incorrect. A Google search for something called the "Governor General's Peace Prize" receives one hit: this very Wikipedia article. Doiron is a little-known figure whose last two books were issued by a print on demand house. This article goes to great lengths in an attempt to raise his profile; and in doing so reveals its point of view. I'm not convinced that there is no place for an article on Doiron in Wikipedia, however I do feel that the exising article should be deleted. Victoriagirl 03:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A Google search verifies that he is indeed a poet; however, this article is unverifiable on many points, and I personally find the claim of 20,000 poems rather dubious. Zetawoof^(ζ) 09:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. --Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 17:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. --Dom thedude 0 0 1 19:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly a case of fraudulent self-promotion. Geoff NoNick 02:16, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete author request

Mohisen Al-Jamaan

Rather obvious nn hoax. Speedily deleted by Blnguyen, recreated by the original author, and the history restored by me as no CSD was cited. Delete. AmiDaniel (talk) 04:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsourced and unverified. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 04:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete nonsense a1 = hoax.Blnguyen | rant-line 04:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:CSD#A1 "does not include: poor writing, partisan screeds, obscene remarks, vandalism, badly translated material, implausible theories or hoaxes." I'm sorry, but I don't believe this can be speedily deleted. Deleted, sure, but not speedily. What's the rush? AmiDaniel (talk) 04:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (but no grounds for a Speedy) as WP:HOAX according to this he's a Saudi fotballer anyway DavidHumphreys ^{SPEAK TO ME}ABOUT_{THE THINGS I MESSED UP} 04:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoax as above. If this article was previously deleted, would it be possible to speedy it as {{db-repost}}? (This is question, not a suggestion). --IslaySolomon 04:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom TheRingess 04:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, a hoax is not a speedy per WP:CSD. Yank sox 04:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am the creator of this hoax and give permission for speedy deletiontitansfan290 05:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was CSD A6, WP:BOLLOCKS, WP:SNOW, WP:IAR vile shite - CrazyRussian talk/email 19:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rabbi rabbit

Not a "popular series of children's books" as claimed in the article, but a single webcomic site, [14]. Nothing on Amazon and very few Ghits (mainly the WP article and mirrors for "Rabbi rabbit"). Nonnotable. NawlinWiki 04:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete factually inaccurate article for non-notable (and extremely suspect) website --IslaySolomon 04:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable +/- hoax. Ifnord 04:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax (untruthful article) and non-notable. Fails WP:WEB. --Core des at talk. o.o;; 05:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as obvious hoax. There's no way this is a "popular series of children's books". --Icarus 06:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - likely hoax. --Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 17:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per notability. --Dom thedude 0 0 1 19:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the nomination was delete both. Sango 123 17:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Eggins

Vanity article about a non-notable artist. Ghits: [15].

I am also nominating:

Spiralysis

as a protologism created by the same author of the above article. There are a bunch of Ghits on the term, [16], but few that appear to be related to the meaning given in this article. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 04:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Both as a WP:NEO by a WP:NN. --DaveG12345 04:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (both) Xrblsnggt 04:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both, fails WP:NEO, WP:VAIN, and WP:N. --Core des at talk. o.o;; 05:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both absolutely vanity. Danny Lilithborne 08:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both, vanity Fram 10:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - this particular one has been speedied before Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! ^(Whisper...) 16:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - per nom. --Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 17:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per above. --Dom thedude 0 0 1 19:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the nomination was keep. Sango 123 17:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Demeter International

I don't think this stands up to WP:CORP Please discuss below !!! DavidHumphreys ^{SPEAK TO ME}ABOUT_{THE THINGS I MESSED UP} 04:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment They're pretty big in Germany: de:Demeter (Marke). That's all I got. ~ trialsanderrors 04:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Maybe we should mark it up for translation then??? I can't understand a word of German - is it the same company ??? DavidHumphreys ^{SPEAK TO ME}ABOUT_{THE THINGS I MESSED UP} 04:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, by the microcontent we got and by the website. Worth putting up for translation. ~ trialsanderrors 04:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~if translated. Delete the microstub, and leave open to re-creation once the German article is translated.~~ Looks like an at least marginally notable company. --Core des at talk. o.o;; 05:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - and put on the articles for translation log. --Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 17:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Q Do we need to keep this microstub around for a translation request? It seems to me that we should vote it off the island and let the translators do their work. ~ trialsanderrors 17:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if translated per above. --Dom thedude 0 0 1 19:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Demeter is an internationally recognized certification system as anyone with google can find out. As for the article being deleted merely because it is a microstub, well, it isn't a microstub now. --Ezeu 22:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Good enough to Keep ~ trialsanderrors 05:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was daftly deleted as CSD A7 - no assertion of group's notability. Kimchi.sg 09:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DAFTY

Contested speedy. The youth organization for a temple in Dallas. Since just about every house of worship I've ever heard of has such an organization for its teenagers, I can't imagine that each one deserves an article. Fan-1967 04:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable group of people, WP:BIO & WP:ORG refers. (aeropagitica) (talk) 04:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN as above. -- IslaySolomon 04:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as non-notable group. Ifnord 04:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, seems to me it's a local chapter of NFTY, which makes it non-notable as a standalone. --Kinu ^t/_c 04:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, most local chapters of youth organizations are not notable. --Core des at talk. o.o;; 05:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above reasons. HumbleGod 08:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the nomination was delete. Sango 123 17:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Buy4Now

This article is an advertisement. It does not meet wikipedia criteria for corporate notability (i.e. Only around since 2000. Only has 25 customers, is not publicly traded) Xrblsnggt 04:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insert Monty Python Reference Here -- IslaySolomon 04:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete First though - it doesn't say 25 customers it says 25 retailers ie it gives customers acces to them, it also states it is Ireland's largest company of this sort ... I'm not sure if that makes it meet WP:CORP, but it is WP:SPAM DavidHumphreys ^{SPEAK TO ME}ABOUT_{THE THINGS I MESSED UP} 04:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and such. R.E. Freak 05:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: meets CORP, fails SPAM. --die Baumfabrik 05:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, spam spam spam spam... --Core des at talk. o.o;; 05:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete my site has a higher Alexa rank Computerjoe 's talk 14:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above. --Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 17:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn/spam.--Andeh 20:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Del4Now ~ trialsanderrors 22:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the nomination was delete. – Avi 00:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFLAX

Surely this fails WP:CORP, WP:WEB And is most assuredly WP:SPAM DavidHumphreys ^{SPEAK TO ME}ABOUT_{THE THINGS I MESSED UP} 04:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Strong~~ keep - It's a recognised term in the development community, albiet one that's a personally I find a bit weird (Flash can call XML via HTTP without any intervening technologies these days). I wasn't aware that anyone had copyrighted the term, something that IMHO lessens it's usefullness considerably (see the Web 2.0 ruckus), but I don;t see that as a cause for deletion. Artw 05:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it seems I've been using the term wrongly - it is most usually used to refer to a specific library. However it's one with quite a large user base and an area that gets a lot of discussion.

On the negative side the aflax site links to Wikipedia for it's description of the technology... not a usuahe I'm sure should be encouraged. Artw 05:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~BTW, I don't see a deletion notice on the actual page?~~ There it is! Artw 05:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hmmm ... not sure how I missed tagging it, but it isthere now !! The main reason for listing it was WP:SPAM as there are external links to the company website all over it. Maybe, if it is an important article, it can be de-advertised DavidHumphreys ^{SPEAK TO ME}ABOUT_{THE THINGS I MESSED UP} 05:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not a "recognised term" in any sense of the word, just the name of a software library that isn't all that significant in the grander scheme of things. — Haeleth Talk 14:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. --Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 17:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I agree with Artw, this is a term used in the AJAX and Flash development community. Perhaps it could be merged into AJAX Computerjoe 's talk 18:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TBH That might be the same as deleteing it, as links to libraries don;t tend to last long there. Also I beleive prior versions of the AJAX page mentioned AFLAX, and that material hassince been removed. Artw 19:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Software libraries are not generally encylopedic. Vegaswikian 18:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the nomination was delete. Sango 123 17:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Linster OS

NN operating system that some kid came up with. -Bill (who is cool!) 04:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "Under development in Microsoft QuickBASIC 4.5 and currently requires it" - Just a short BASIC program written by an individual for their own amusement. Fails WP:SOFTWARE, obviously. --IslaySolomon 05:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete giggles aside, "here's some junk I'm working on" is not an encyclopedic article. -- Xrblsnggt 05:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It looks as though this could become a good article, but at the current state, I feel it should be deleted. --Riley 05:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Unlikely. This isn't even an operating system - it's a set of BASIC programs that display a rudimentary UI. Zetawoof^(ζ) 09:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:SOFTWARE. Check out the "corporate website", too (I wouldn't buy anything from it...). --Core des at talk. o.o;; 05:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Don't worry, the corporate site fails with a 404 as soon as you click the product link. Shame, I wanted to study their automotive division... --DaveG12345 14:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. --Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 17:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This could become good. Theres better QBasic GUIs at http://gui.jacobpalm.dk --[[User:Fun50083|
Delete - Why is this even here? It's about a small BASIC program written most likely by a kid. It clearly fails WP:SOFTWARE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EternalSausage (talk • contribs)
Delete, just some random hack that few people dare to use. I wrote a shell/email/log thingy for Commodore 64 in Basic, like, wow, three or five people besides me used it; do I get an article too? Good luck with the project, but I guess this just isn't article-worthy unless people are queuing to download it... =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 22:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete per csd a7--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 17:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alex rickett

Article created by The main event9718 (talk · contribs), whose only three edits are in this article. Article has been prod'ed^[17] (No evidence of notability. High school athletes aren't notable, unless they are Lebron James or Greg Oden or someone of that caliber and cleared without comment.^[18] After some Google search (which returned the Wikipedia article for Alex Michael Rickett and less than 100 about Alex Rickett), I believe he fails WP:BIO, as he is only mentioned in a few pages but does not get interviews or features. ReyBrujo 04:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn. A high school soccer player is not to be viewed on Lebron James' level. Once again, Geogre's predictive talents are borne out. Fan-1967 05:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable, per the prod notice. --Core des at talk. o.o;; 05:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nonnotable at this stage of his career. NawlinWiki 12:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete currently not notable as a junior in high-school. DrunkenSmurf 14:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the nomination was Delete, after discounting the 2 votes by anonymous users and the other 2 that were the users' first and only edits, there's a fairly clear consensus to delete. - Bobet 18:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jewdas

This article about a "Radical Jewish Group" seems to fail in the notability area - there are plenty of ghits but apart from the groups own website, the rest seem to be MySpace, blogs and forums - also, there are no internal links to this article DavidHumphreys ^{SPEAK TO ME}ABOUT_{THE THINGS I MESSED UP} 04:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:BIO. There is the Guardian article on it, which gives it a veneer of notability but not enough to meet WP:BIO#3. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 07:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. --Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 17:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. - CrazyRussian talk/email 19:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Nesher 19:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 20:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this phoney baloney. IZAK 10:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:BIO and WP:WEB by definition don't make space for radical groups outside the mainstream, because they depend on some form of mainstream support for their inclusion. Given this, and given that "notability" however defined is not an official requirement, I think less damage will be done by keeping articles of this sort (assuming they have ghits) than by deleting, them, which inevitably politicises WP in certain directions more than continuing to allow their inclusion would. Dogville 07:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Genuinely original organisation within Anglo-Jewry which, although new has a significant following and impact. Deleting would be a political act designed to silence voices of dissent within the jewish community.
keep other articles about jewdas have appeared: on the jewish telegraphic agency http://www.jewishtimes.com/scripts/edition.pl?now=4/16/2006&stay=1&SubSectionID=87&ID=5566

and in Jewish Renaissance Magazine http://www.jewishrenaissance.org.uk/current.htm (you see it in the contents but the article is not available online)

strong keep PREVENT 1984!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Chuckycat 11:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. There is no other organisation like this within Anglo-Jewry at a time when radical voices are so vital to reinvigorate the community. It also does great parties. Jewdas needs the publicity to allow it to grow, so it must be kept here!

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

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

The result of the nomination was Delete. - Bobet 18:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

India Defence

This reads like an advertisement WP:SPAM -- Xrblsnggt 05:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also like to point out the organization has been around barely a year. -- Xrblsnggt 05:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Suggestions: reduce to stub length based on verifiable info from reliable sources, and, for heaven's sake, take it out of Category:Military of India and put it in Category:Weblogs, where it belongs. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 06:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a blog! Computerjoe 's talk 14:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, "web-based newspaper" (however ridiculous that sounds). My point is that it has nothing to do with the military of India and no business being in that category. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 20:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN site Computerjoe 's talk 14:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. --Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 17:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:WEB Dpv 21:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn. utcursch | talk 12:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the nomination was keep. – Avi 00:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

41st Airlift Squadron

Article created on 13 May {{context}} tag added on 24 May nothing done since - article only contains an imageDavidHumphreys ^{SPEAK TO ME}ABOUT_{THE THINGS I MESSED UP} 05:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But a cute one. Quick, does anyone want to turn this into anything? If not, Delete per nom. ~ trialsanderrors 05:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - ...but it IS very cute. Artw 05:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless someone turns this into something fast. --Core des at talk. o.o;; 05:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Extremely Weak Keep but only if expanded. As is, it's an A1 candidate. --DarkAudit 14:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There seems to be a precedent for allowing articles for squadron strength airforce units. [19][20][21]--IslaySolomon 14:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - and expand. --Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 17:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Seems legit, just make it a stub, and somebody write the article. Put it on some To Do lists, if nobody wants to do it. J Milburn 18:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems notable subject.--Runcorn 19:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- And so Stubbed --DarkAudit 19:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. The Global site says that the 41st has been renamed 43rd Airlift Wing. Pope's Web site does not list a 41st. Redirect to Pope or a unit located at Pope. Fg2 00:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A Squadron and a Wing are rather different. If it was 'renamed' then with was the creation of a new unit. Military units have their own history and they have a history of being reactivated in the future so leaving this would seem the right thing. Of course some expansion would help. Vegaswikian 18:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I have included some additional information in the history. This unit was active in WWII so it likely meets the notability requirements from that action alone. I think enough was added to address the issues that were behind the delete votes and they should be reconsidered. Vegaswikian 18:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the nomination was delete. Sango 123 17:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

G0yz

Neologism. Often spelled with a zero, however I get 543 hits at Google^[22]. Only contribution made by G0y (talk · contribs). -- ReyBrujo 05:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I find no reliable sources that this is a generally accepted or oft used term. GassyGuy 05:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable neologism. --Core des at talk. o.o;; 05:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete n0n-n0tabl3 ~ trialsanderrors (who also wonders what the term for a non-Jewish non-gay bi-curious male is, a g0y goy?) 06:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Delete WP:NEO. A Jewish ex-girlfriend once called me her "goy toy," and I'm pretty sure this isn't what she had in mind. HumbleGod 08:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete their base and kill thier d00dz Danny Lilithborne 08:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - huh? --Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 17:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This Y1d says Delete - CrazyRussian talk/email 19:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in russia articles delete you, definition of neologism.--Andeh 20:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. --Ezeu 07:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prostitutors

Neologism, POV, OR, essay. Wikipedia is not for things "coined by a cook at the Derrick Golf and Winter club on the 5th of July, 2006." I couldn't think of any category to speedy it, but this needs to be deleted. Fan-1967 05:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As WP:NEO and made up yesterday DavidHumphreys ^{SPEAK TO ME}ABOUT_{THE THINGS I MESSED UP} 05:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete -- WP:NFT -- MrDolomite 05:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as being even more neo- than most neologisms people try to pass off as articles. --Icarus 05:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, fails WP:NEO and WP:NFT. --Core des at talk. o.o;; 05:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NFT refers. (aeropagitica) (talk) 06:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the nomination was delete. Sango 123 17:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Opendisc

WP:SPAM advertising DavidHumphreys ^{SPEAK TO ME}ABOUT_{THE THINGS I MESSED UP} 05:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No notability stated or implied, certainly nothing on Google to pass WP:CORP from the standpoint of non-trivial articles. Tychocat 07:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. --Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 17:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, advert for a non-notable product. --Ezeu 23:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not only is it obscure, but it's also blatant spam. --ApolloBoy 00:13, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nominations. *~Daniel~* ☎ 00:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ezeu -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 00:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. TigerShark 11:53, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete csd g4--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 17:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nigga know technology

Previously AFDed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nigga know technology, speedied by me as a repost, and contested by another admin. I am re-submitting the article to AFD to get consensus. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-07-06 05:51Z

Delete again as nn. Discussion on an earlier article's talk page, Talk:Nigga Know Technology (different capitalization), laid out all the arguments. Alexa rank out of sight, no recognition from any notable sources. It's a really, really, really minor blog. Fan-1967 05:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete as a non-notable blog that fails WP:WEB by a mile. --Core des at talk. o.o;; 06:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per discussion yesterday DavidHumphreys ^{SPEAK TO ME}ABOUT_{THE THINGS I MESSED UP} 06:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like a Delete per not meeting WP:WEB, I'd say... it has generated a little buzz, but 62 Google hits on the string doesn't seem like enough buzz... let them do their own promotion and not use Wikipedia for that. Herostratus 06:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not even close to meeting WP:WEB. Alexa rank 1,037,616. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 07:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. To quote myself from last time, "nn blog, fails WP:WEB, and is a repeat offender. No reason for us to have to keep doing this." Sadly, all this still applies. HumbleGod 07:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per HumbleGod, no assertion of notability. RGTraynor 09:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- My apologies to all for asking to reopen this debate, and my gratitude to Quarl. I feel we need consensus to delete here. Consensus will enable us to G4 it in the future when it's reposted. I have posted an expansive prior deleted version on the AfD talk page for all to review. I am also trying to track down a popularity ranking for this blog. - CrazyRussian talk/email 10:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this does not meet WP:WEB and page protect it this time.--Isotope23 14:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the nomination was keep. Sango 123 17:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kiyohara Tama

De-prodded w/ no explanation. No claim of notability is presented in article. Only 11 unique google hits. Icarus 05:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, pending verification: Searching by her adopted name gives 88k google hits[23]. w:ja:ラグーザ (曖昧さ回避) lists her as a dablink, though the article itself isn't there (yet). If the late Edo period Japanese govt. did indeed invite her to teach western art, then that makes her plenty notable for an encyclopedia entry. I'll try to look it up in the library later today. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 06:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I didn't search on her adopted name. But now that the AfD has been listed, I'd like to see how it plays out. Note that it wasn't she who was extended an invitation, it was her husband. That appears to be the explanation of how they were in the same country and were thus able to meet. The only claim made about her own abilities is that she "was herself a painter of great skill." --Icarus 06:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, right you are! So much for hasty reading. A lot of the links from the Google search above seem to be in Italian, which I don't speak a word of, sadly. Maybe someone else will find some good evidence for her notability. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 06:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WBIS Online gives ~~five~~ four [I counted the summary paragraph by mistake] different reference works where she is mentioned. up+land 06:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does it give any information on what context she's mentioned in? That is, would all wives of notable husbands (and vice versa) be listed in WBIS Online because of brief mentions in sources about their famous spouses? --Icarus 07:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It just gives the references, but as they seem to be about Japanes art(ists), I doubt that would be the case:

Index of Japanese painters: compiled by the Society of Friends of Eastern Art. - Rutland [et al.]: Tuttle, [1959]
Roberts, Laurance P.: A dictionary of Japanese artists: painting, sculpture, ceramics, prints, lacquer. - 1st ed. - Tokyo [et al.]: Weatherhill, 1976
Frédéric, Louis: Encyclopaedia of Asian civilizations. - Paris: Frédéric [et al.], 1977-1984; 1987. - 10 vols. + Suppl
Takamure, Itsue: Dai Nihon josei jimmei jisho. - Tokyo: Koseikaku, 1942

up+land 07:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the further info, Uppland! --Icarus 20:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- TheFarix (Talk) 16:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - but expand. --Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 17:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable outside of her hubby. Article needs expansion... and I thought that name sounded Sicilian. Crappy bfish translation:

"The extraordinary Commissioner, Prof. Serious Guglielmo, the Gallery of Modern Art has visited this morning, “and. Restivo”, meeting a group of Japanese journalists presents to Palermo, in these days, in order to visit the city. The foreign delegation, accompanied from the Serious Commissioner, has admired the work present in knows it Pompeiana and the sculptures of the palermitano artist Vincenzo Ragusa between which that from he created in terracotta and dedicated to the own one consorte, the artist Kiokara O'Tama, (Eleonora Ragusa), of Japanese origin and to a burlap that the pittrice, instead, has realized having represented a landscape of the own places of birth. The Commissioner, in the course of its visit, has manifested appreciation for the present collection in the Gallery, “that he testifies the immense profuse cultural wealth between l'800 and the 900, which indelebile patrimony of our earth and ringraziato the delegation of Japanese for the shown attention today with their presence”. Serious he has then met the director of the Gallery of Modern Art, Dr.ssa Antonella Purpura, manifesting them a plauso for the value of the present collections in knows them espositive. The director has donated to His Excellency a copy of the catalogue of the works that are found near the Gallery." [24]

I assume that this is a book of her work.[25]

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

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

The result of the nomination was delete. Mackensen (talk) 00:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carol Gay

Yet Another US Congressional candidate, otherwise unremarkable. A candidate, I stress, not an actual politician. Did some professional political organizer's trade magazine put out an article recently about using Wikipedia for campaigns, or what? Calton | Talk 06:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete She used to be a union rep, and now she's running for congress. Neither makes her notable. Come back if elected. Wikipedia is not a voters guide. Fan-1967 06:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Fan-1967. --Icarus 06:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete yup, win or go home, per Fan-1967 above, sorry -- MrDolomite 06:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, peddle your wares at Campaigns Wikia. HumbleGod 07:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my previous comments in other AfDs. I still feel that major party nominees (not every primary candidate, though) for national legislatures merit inclusion. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 13:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just another candidate. Major party Congressional candidates are not notable merely on the basis of being the nominee. Wikipedia is not here to give them free ad space. --DarkAudit 14:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not a campaign platform --Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 17:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:BIO. Come back if you win. --Core des at talk. o.o;; 18:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia:Candidates and elections proposed policy - election article first, non-stubby individual articles thereafter. --DaveG12345 22:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - If we impose this criteria on this article, we will then have to, in fairness, delete a very large number of other articles of major party Congressional candidates that do not meet this criteria. (100 articles? 200 articles? I do not know how many of them have "minimal" resumes. We, theoretically, could have 468 article deletion debates.) It would be best to have articles for all the major party Congressional candidates (even if they are only stubs). Besides, once in a great while something unexpected happens and one of these little known candidates actualy wins. Just like a pro-life activist/sporting goods businessman did back in 1980..Congressman Chris Smith (Carol Gay's opponent). 72.82.175.4 04:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...we will then have to...delete a very large number of other articles of major party Congressional candidates that do not meet this criteria. Good. Have any in mind? Click here: you bring the kindling and I'll bring the matches. --Calton | Talk 05:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Besides, once in a great while something unexpected happens and one of these little known candidates actualy wins. Yep: and that's when they qualify for an article. Before? Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Calton | Talk 05:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Agree with the opinion above, this is a major party candidate for congress. If you delete this one, its only right to delete all the "candidates." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.242.118.133 (talk • contribs) 13:10, 10 July 2006.

Good. Have any in mind? Click here: you bring the kindling and I'll bring the matches. Or were you under the impression that that was some sort of argument against? --Calton | Talk 00:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: some clarity of language might improve the discussion. She is the Democratic Party nominee for the November 2006 general election for a seat in the House of Representatives. [26] Using the term candidate makes it seem like she could be be someone competing against a bunch of others to win a primary, which is not the case. John Broughton 21:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, pointless word games: tinker with the language a bit and you can suddenly change the facts. But whether she's a nominee, a candidate, a favorite son, a dark horse, a lame duck, a floor cleaner or a dessert topping, the fact remains that, when you strip out the fact she's running in a election, she fails the basic encyclopedic notability test. What has she done -- aside from becoming a nominee -- that merits her being the subject of an encyclopedia article? Which is what counts, since this isn't Congresspedia or Who's Who in New Jersey Elections. --Calton | Talk 00:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Youngamerican. —chair lunch dinner™ ^talk 04:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the nomination was delete. Sango 123 17:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Umedama Nabu

Can't see how this guy has any claim to notability Poss WP:VAIN as the only link is to his own (foreign language) website DavidHumphreys ^{SPEAK TO ME}ABOUT_{THE THINGS I MESSED UP} 06:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nonnotable manga artist. NawlinWiki 12:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete founder of a doujin group which itself has no article. Doujinshi are roughly the equivalent of fanzines, notability-wise, and while some notable artists got their start with doujinshi, involvement with them is not in itself a form of notability. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak delete; in addition to his dojin work, he does have some published hentai manga that's stocked by places like Amazon, but I'm not sure it's going to have a wide enough circulation to qualify under WP:BIO. Neither he nor his circle have articles on the Japanese wikipedia, which is generally a bad sign for notability.
Maybe if he steps up his anti-Bush political activism he'll qualify one day... — Haeleth Talk 14:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- TheFarix (Talk) 16:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. --Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 17:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even though I do read manga and doujinshi, this artist isn't notable on his own (per WP:BIO). --Core des at talk. o.o;; 18:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An article on Tsurikichi Doumei would be a Keep (their work is wildly popular), but not articles on the individuals involved. - Wickning1 06:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete as author request. Kimchi.sg 09:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hope Marie

Speedy contested by the author. Aspiring actress who doesn't seem to have actually done anything, but has high hopes. Fan-1967 06:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Smells like vanity to me, probably deserved the speedy. tmopkisn ^tlka 06:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I would like to say, that I wanted to make this page for Hope Marie because I honestly feel in my opinion that she supports a lot of good and moral stuff. Her music is powerful and helps people understand that life is short, you only live once and don't dwell on things. She is also a active member of the Army and likes to help people...I honestly feel that in the next year a lot more people are going to be hearing and seeing a lot of great things from Hope Marie. She is a role model to a lot of females and repersents good will and being strong for yourself in a positive way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Firewhiskeyangel (talk • contribs)

Comment I'm sure she's a very nice girl, but that doesn't change the fact that, up to this point, it appears her career hasn't even started yet. There are tens of thousands of people who want to be successful performers someday. We have articles about the people who have already done so. Fan-1967 06:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That is true, but what about the people that you don't hear about everyday, the one's who do more work than "well known" famous people. I understand what you are saying but still. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Firewhiskeyangel (talk • contribs)

I have restored the db-bio tag, although the author keeps blanking it. There has been no assertion of notability. Speedy Delete. Fan-1967 07:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just delete it...whatever I guess we will have to wait for Hope Marie to become superfamous before we can see her page here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Firewhiskeyangel (talk • contribs)

Speedy Delete, technically the page's author has now supported deleting. HumbleGod 07:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per Fan 1967. And to answer Firewhiskeyangel, no, Hope Marie doesn't need to become "superfamous" to merit an article. Notable will do. I hope you understand that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia with certain standards for inclusion; sites like Myspace and Livejournal are suitable for the people you don't hear about everyday. RGTraynor 09:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the nomination was keep. Sango 123 17:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Bush

Surely, surely this is WP:NFT!!!! DavidHumphreys ^{SPEAK TO ME}ABOUT_{THE THINGS I MESSED UP} 06:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete (CSD G1) and transwiki to Uncyclopedia. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 06:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep: the above vote was cast when I was heavily sleep deprived and didn't read the article carefully. It read like nonsense because of the talk of locked rooms, divorces, and George Bush (who is, after all, commonly compared to monkeys for comedic purposes). Major apologies. This man clearly meets WP:BIO, as several people below have remarked. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 23:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It doesn't qualify for patent nonsense but it is nonsense DavidHumphreys ^{SPEAK TO ME}ABOUT_{THE THINGS I MESSED UP} 06:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep—This is not really nonsense at all. Interestingly enough, Joe Bush may meet WP:BIO due to his coverage in major publications. Ardric47 06:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~ - He might just barely squeak by WP:BIO - apparently reviewed by several media organizations, though original articles aren't available. By definition, can an individual organ grinder qualify as a notable person? If so, this guy's taken his act pretty far and would seemingly qualify as one of the most notable in his field. If not, delete. HumbleGod 06:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It needs to be cleaned and checked for NPOV, but, as unlikely as it seems after reading the article, he may just make it per WP:BIO. Has been featured in such articles as [27] and [28] and [29]. "Joe Bush" "organ grinder" gets a fair number of Google hits (684). I say keep it. GassyGuy 07:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think you've got the wrong Joe Bush - There are no ghits under his "stagename" and none (that I can see) relating to Joe Bush, the organ grinder who entertained Ronald Regan and laterly George Bush (who incidentaly, the article claimed he was locked in a cupboard with leading to Joe's divorce) DavidHumphreys ^{SPEAK TO ME}ABOUT_{THE THINGS I MESSED UP} 07:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You think the articles are about other organ grinders coincidentally named Joe Bush? And the article says he was locked in his room with George, the name of his monkey, not George Bush. I agree that unverifiable facts need to be weeded out of the article, but if you read the articles to which I linked, a lot of these facts are corroborated. Update I should note that those articles are actually the same one article printed in a number of different newspapers. I'm not sure if that counts as multiple sources or not. GassyGuy 07:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Narrowing it down helps, but still lots of duplicates and not a lot of hits, fwiw. Though this page apparently has an audio clip of a radio interview. Couple that with the recent newspaper treatment listed in the article, and I'm leaning closer to "weak keep" per WP:BIO Still not close enough, though. HumbleGod 07:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah !!! I read it as being he was in the cupboard with George (Bush) not George (the monkey) ... I only saw your links after I'd posted (edit conflict) - it's defo not WP:NFT and I suspect he'll get through WP:BIO DavidHumphreys ^{SPEAK TO ME}ABOUT_{THE THINGS I MESSED UP} 07:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC) <<< who is now tired & going to bed !![reply]

Changing my vote to weak keep. The LATimes article is cited, and I was able to find two radio pieces, including one on NPR (a discussion with Craig Ferguson, but subject is a central part of the interview, strangely). This wouldn't necessarily qualify one for notability, but he squeaks by WP:BIO with a few publicized pieces and the fact that he's the biggest name in his (admittedly dying) field. Lord, I didn't wake up this morning thinking I'd defend an article on an organ grinder, and I doubt I'd ever defend another, but I think this one's a keeper. HumbleGod 07:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm no wiki expert. But I say keep. I heard him on a radio show. His story was fascinating and he really knows the organ grinding business. While this page obviously benefits him, the story is that of old time America. Keep it. --SafeLibraries 08:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The newspaper article is an adequate source. The article could use a little work, but it seems to meet all the applicable policies. This looks more like a candidate for WP:DYK than for WP:NFT. — Haeleth Talk 15:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is difficult to give the Google test much weight these days, but it should be noted that "Joe Bush" +monkey returns 13,300 hits, most of which are relevant. I suspect that is a decent number for an organ gringer and his monkey. In any case, this is legit, not made up in school one day, and is interesting enough to be notable. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 16:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nonsense, what is an "organ grinder"? --Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 17:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Are you joking or are you serious? I thought organ grinders were a commonly known thing. Either way, if you WERE serious, it'd be a prime example of laziness, when the info is on this very site. Parsssseltongue 22:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Are you kidding me with the "what is an organ grinder" comment? People shouldn't delete things just because they don't know about or understand them. BTW, I heard the segment on NPR about this subject, too. Parsssseltongue 18:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, just that type of information people will look for at Wikipedia. bbx 22:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, weak notability... but still enough to warrant inclusion under WP:BIO. ALKIVAR™ 00:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable individual (stablished by media references above - LA Times and radio shows) in a dying profession. Should be kept, as we may never see another notable organ grinder again, if Wikipedia is to be the repository of all knowledge, we need a few organ grinder articles and biographies. Build this up by all means. I don't think I've ever gotten a better laugh out of deciding what to say in an AFD before. GRBerry 02:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - trivial but fun and 'good enough' considering he's the last of the race. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib Reverts} 02:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete by Moriori. Kimchi.sg 09:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

En fuego magazine

A magazine launched two months ago isn't notable - it's advertising Rklawton 06:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was about to prod it myself. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 06:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no ads please. HumbleGod 06:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the nomination was keep. – Avi 00:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bernardo Giner de los Rios

Less than 200 google hits and many of them are not about the subject. I can't seem to find any notable sources on this one. אמר Steve Caruso _(poll) 16:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:BIO. Keep, is indeed notable. --Coredesat talk 22:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete unless it is properly sourced. Eluchil404 18:39, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, lack of sources. OSU80 00:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the article itself describes his notability - much of which in itself appears minor, though is not insignificant, and the cumulative effect of which is to build up the body of an interesting man. A lot of his activity took place in the years before the internet, and in Spain, so finding a lot of sources is perhaps asking too much. However - he directed Boletín de la Institución Libre de Enseñanza for 9 years - and a search for that publication returns 25,700 ghits. The books mentioned do exist and are for sale. He was "Minister of Communications, Transport and Public Works" during the Spanish Civil War. He was "General Secretary of the Presidency of the Republic". He seems exactly the sort of person a modern and expansive and liberal encyclopedia like Wiki should be picking up and writing articles on. Added to which, the article is damn well written. SilkTork 14:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Ezeu 06:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think this is a bit of a WP:NN - he designed some schools and other buildings - isn't that what architects do ??? If none of his designs were particularly notable, then neither is he DavidHumphreys ^{SPEAK TO ME}ABOUT_{THE THINGS I MESSED UP} 06:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The article makes clear that his notability is for his writings more than his buildings. This man wasn't just an architect, he was also responsible for Boletín de la Institución Libre de Enseñanza for nearly 10 years - an influential and important publication. He wrote 50 Años de Arquitectura Española. He was also a part of the Repblic government during the Spanish civil war. SilkTork 09:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete, I don't like to see well-written articles deleted. That said, it needs sources to prove notability, because right now Ghits aren't turning up much. I think an article on him may be of more use on Spanish WP than this site, but if someone can turn up sources for all this--even a print source from your local library--I'd feel okay with keeping it. HumbleGod 07:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC) Keep per trialsanderrors 08:52 HumbleGod 10:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment From Wikipedia:Notability: The recent fundraising page says, "Imagine a world in which every person has free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing." We are not doing that if we are deleting articles solely due to their obscurity. "Detailed obscure topics hurt no-one because it's pretty hard to find them by accident, and Wikipedia isn't paper" (from Wikipedia:Importance). The man is verifiable. A search shows that he has done the things the article says he has done. The things he has done lift him above the ordinary, and while they do not make him famous they certainly show his life has coloured and enriched the lives of others. His contributions form part of the fabric of the history of Spain and in particular of the debate surrounding Spanish architecture. Ghits is a controversial test anyway and in this case is inappropriate given that this is a Spaniard (a country with a small interest presence) who was mainly active in the days before the internet and in a field which doesn't tend to attract the interest of internet geeks. My feeling is that the article itself (the contents of which are verifiable) gives a good explanation of how notable the man is. SilkTork 09:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - For the reasons given above in my previous comments. SilkTork 09:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Architect of schools, don't see it. No article in Spanish WP. | Keep after finding his book in the UC library. ~ trialsanderrors 08:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Wouldn't adding information about his book to the article help both the article and the deletion process? -- Mikeblas 13:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I posted all I could find on the talk page. ~ trialsanderrors 16:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This article meets notability criteria. Dajhorn 13:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, several print sources can be found with Google Book Search, and he seems to meet WP:BIO as a politician during a significant period of his national history. The article needs those sources adding, and it needs more information on his political activity. It does not, however, need deleting. — Haeleth Talk 15:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep among other things was a Government Minister during the Civil War. Dlyons493 Talk 17:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Appears to meet notability requirements --Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 17:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the nomination was delete. Sango 123 17:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Total Football Forum

Advertisement for non-notable web forum with only 138 members. PROD tag applied by Fan-1967, removed by only editor. Core des at talk. o.o;; 06:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Good luck and enjoy, but not big enough for an article. Tyrenius 07:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per nom, typical spam/vanity for nn site.--Andeh 07:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Oldelpaso 09:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:WEB miserably DavidHumphreys ^{SPEAK TO ME}ABOUT_{THE THINGS I MESSED UP} 12:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. --Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 17:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Alias Flood 18:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 01:01, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clear vanity. Vickser 02:41, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the nomination was delete. Sango 123 17:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Widows' revenge

Non-notable and very short-lived webcomic. 14 unique Google hits when searching for "Widows' revenge" "comic". Originally PROD'ed, PROD tag removed by only editor. --Core des at talk. o.o;; 07:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Computerjoe 's talk 07:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, was going to list this myself but didn't get round to it.--Andeh 07:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 11:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC) [reply]
Delete Cute webcomic, but only 21 episodes. NawlinWiki 12:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another one that fails WP:WEB DavidHumphreys ^{SPEAK TO ME}ABOUT_{THE THINGS I MESSED UP} 12:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom -- Steel 23:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A version is available on Comixpedia: Widows' Revenge. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 11:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Aeon 06:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the nomination was delete. – Avi 00:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gerhard Anna Concic-Kaucic

WP:NN and WP:VAIN Universitytruth 07:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy Keep~~ per what appear to be a series of bad faith noms. Nominator has targeted several German authors as "WP:NN and WP:VAIN" despite the fact that all get thousands of google hits, and none show any indication of having been self-authored. Some sort of WP:POINT going on here? Fan-1967 07:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing my vote, based on arguments below. Fan-1967 20:44, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Bad faith? I thought we weren't supposed to assume that. My concern is indeed that some of these sites are self-authored (and vain). Perhaps reworking some of them is the better way to go, perhaps not. That's why I called for this discussion. (None show any indication of having been self-authored? Really?) I would urge further editors to look at the sites. I'm not invested in these articles being deleted, I just am calling for discussion. Don't appreciate being characterized as someone 'targeting' authors. Universitytruth 08:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Amazon.de Verkaufsrang: #1,851,506 in Bücher. (Do I need to translate this?) Not a bad faith nomination, but both UT and F67 might want to do a little more research. Most of the G-hits I saw were WP mirrors. ~ trialsanderrors 08:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Equivalent article was deleted by de: in January 2005 (discussion) Oldelpaso 09:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a WP:NN translator / author DavidHumphreys ^{SPEAK TO ME}ABOUT_{THE THINGS I MESSED UP} 13:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Strong keep~~ Neutral as per further research by Universitytruth Has apparently been the subject of published work - I've added a References section. Dlyons493 Talk 17:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment/Question I checked out the links but failed to see that he's been the subject of published work. Where are you finding that? Universitytruth 18:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I believe the 3 entries in the References section are about him - that said, I don't have access to the printed works to double-check. Dlyons493 Talk
    - Further research shows that this author is WP:NN but has one big fan. See [30], where she posted not only her original (now deleted) German wikipedia article, but also on the same page the German wikipedia discussion, which leaned towards and resulted in delete. Note also that her sources include "the author's homepage" and "telephone conversation with the author." That is WP:OR and smells of WP:VAIN, no? Also, I still find no indication of anything having been written about GACK. I can tell you that Passagen Verlag is also not the most prestigious press... It has done some good work (translating texts of deconstruction into German), but also has a lot of weak pieces as well. It seems to me, with all good will, that GACK is a case-in-point: a deconstructivist wannabe who's gotten some dubious work published in this one press, but has failed to engage the rest of Austria, much less the German-speaking world, much less the English-speaking world. Hope this helps. Universitytruth 20:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per the German Wikipedia discussion --Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 17:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not a bad-faith nom. Non-notable author, not notable per the German Wikipedia discussion. --Core des at talk. o.o;; 18:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The German discussion is mostly about vanity and the behaviour of the article's main editor. I think it would have survived if notability had been the only issue. There have been no such problems that I'm aware of with the en.wiki article. Dlyons493 Talk 20:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I know I should be taking a wikibreak, but look at this sentence in the article: "He self-identifies as a deconstructive novelist." It's the self-identification bit that is emblematic here. I can't find a single source of anyone else identifying him as any kind of novelist, much less a deconstructive one, much less a notable one. The only sources I find are on his own webpage, that of his good friend, who edited the German article, and the sales page of Passagen Verlag, which lists several of his works on their backlist. Is the bar for notability really this low? Universitytruth 20:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was early closure and delete as hoax. — Deckill e r 12:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Dunn

pure hoax, users first page, registered today, photo is trying to link to a myspace image, couldn't find a thing on google related to him Andeh 07:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment his name is on United States men's national soccer team, the article says he plays for Arsenal F.C., but there's nothing on him there.--Andeh 07:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete hoax Computerjoe 's talk 07:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with extreme prejudice.TheRingess 07:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. DarthVad e r 09:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Blatant hoax. Oldelpaso 09:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete complete and total hoax. Qwghlm 12:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the user uploaded this image but didn't manage to get it in the article. :s Closing admin may want to delete it.--Andeh 12:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (and so tagged) as patent nonsense because of obvious hoax. Bio info largely cut and pasted from Eddie Pope, who is on the US national team; name "Pope" is still in the article at one point. NawlinWiki 12:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate wasSpeedy keep per the nominator's withdrawal.--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 17:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sibylle Berg

WP:NN and WP:VAIN Universitytruth 07:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per reasons in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gerhard Anna Concic-Kaucic. - Fan-1967 07:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Copied from article mentioned:
  - ... per what appear to be a series of bad faith noms. Nominator has targeted several German authors as "WP:NN and WP:VAIN" despite the fact that all get thousands of google hits, and none show any indication of having been self-authored. Some sort of WP:POINT going on here? Fan-1967 07:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Bad faith? I thought we weren't supposed to assume that. My concern is indeed that some of these sites are self-authored (and vain). Perhaps reworking some of them is the better way to go, perhaps not. That's why I called for this discussion. (None show any indication of having been self-authored? Really?) I would urge further editors to look at the sites. I'm not invested in these articles being deleted, I just am calling for discussion. Don't appreciate being characterized as someone 'targeting' authors. Universitytruth 08:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Published by the top names in German literature. Can you two dish it out on your respective talk pages? ~ trialsanderrors 08:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nearly six hundred unique G-hits on German Google, decent sales on Amazon.de. Once again, I'm quite interested in hearing nom's evidence for his assertions. RGTraynor 09:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would think that an interested person would be able to somewhat expand the article and she does appear to be noteworthy Comment Some people can see merit or worthiness in an article were as others can't - If Universitytruth thinks a subject is WP:NN then that is fine and let everyone discuss it - that is why this page exists DavidHumphreys ^{SPEAK TO ME}ABOUT_{THE THINGS I MESSED UP} 13:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retract nom per t&e, RGT, DH: I think the article needs work, and will be glad to improve it myself as expiation for having initiated an AfD. It's precisely this input I wanted from other editors. Thanks for all of your comments. Universitytruth 15:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep That's the spirit! An improved article is the best result possible. Dlyons493 Talk 17:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the nomination was delete. Sango 123 17:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Giesbrecht

Non notable artist: no entry on allmusic.com, no Google hits for artist name in connection with any of his three records Fram 07:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Computerjoe 's talk 07:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. HumbleGod 07:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. --Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 17:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:MUSIC. --Core des at talk. o.o;; 18:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the nomination was No consensus. – Avi 00:46, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

STORYFix

Non-notable TV show Computerjoe 's talk 07:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, I'm not sure a BBC News 24 satirical program fails notability. But then, I don't live in the UK either. HumbleGod 07:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Only 31 unique hits on Google UK; you'd think a significant BBC show would attract more attention in two months. RGTraynor 09:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think a weekly 5 minute section (out of 10080 minutes of broadcast each week) warrants it's own article. It is already mentioned in the main BBC News 24 article DavidHumphreys ^{SPEAK TO ME}ABOUT_{THE THINGS I MESSED UP} 13:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It isn't even the case that every BBC 1 programme is automatically notable, and it certainly isn't the case for the digital/satellite channels, which have a considerably smaller audience. — Haeleth Talk 15:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per HumbleGod (I don't live in the UK either) --Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 17:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with BBC News 24, if there is anything in the article not already in that one. I live in the UK, and have never heard of this. Admittedly, I watch very little TV, and do not have BBC News 24. This doesn't seem overly notable in itself. J Milburn 18:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have watched BBC News 24 (it's pretty much BBC World for Brits, and not many Brits sit and watch this channel, let me assure you) - this show is mentioned over at the main article ("but as yet there seems to be no fixed broadcast time"), and I think that's an accurate reflection re current notability in this case. --DaveG12345 21:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it is being broadcasted by BBC (though I am not living in UK either). --WinHunter ^(talk) 14:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not inherited. Computerjoe 's talk 15:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have watched this show once, on BBCi! That is not really notable... Computerjoe 's talk 15:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep It is actually a great deal more noteworthy than many of the more popularised comedy shows on Wikipedia.--87.80.234.203 17:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sourced, verifiable stub on a programme broadcast by a notable channel. --Muchness 22:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Not just because I wrote the article! It's a notable show for departing from the rolling news idea and the BBC's general impartiality and actually breaking away from the typical format and expectation, more like Have I Got News For You and has shown some boldness by the corporation. Also prominently featured on the BBC news website each Friday and available over the weekend on interactive digital TV. --GoAround 13:54, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy keep. Nominator retracted.--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 18:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thea Dorn

WP:NN and WP:VAIN Universitytruth 07:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per reasons in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gerhard Anna Concic-Kaucic. - Fan-1967 07:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Copied from article mentioned:
  - ... per what appear to be a series of bad faith noms. Nominator has targeted several German authors as "WP:NN and WP:VAIN" despite the fact that all get thousands of google hits, and none show any indication of having been self-authored. Some sort of WP:POINT going on here? Fan-1967 07:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Bad faith? I thought we weren't supposed to assume that. My concern is indeed that some of these sites are self-authored (and vain). Perhaps reworking some of them is the better way to go, perhaps not. That's why I called for this discussion. (None show any indication of having been self-authored? Really?) I would urge further editors to look at the sites. I'm not invested in these articles being deleted, I just am calling for discussion. Don't appreciate being characterized as someone 'targeting' authors. Universitytruth 08:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - What is your reasoning behind calling them self-authored, then? In this particular case, the article's creator has several hundred edits and has created a number of articles (quite aside from giving his name, which is not "Thea Dorn"). I stop short of calling the nominations bad faith, but if nom's intent is to improve articles, he's misusing the AfD process to do it. Chalk me up as a Keep until nom has some genuine evidence. RGTraynor 09:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - The article's creator is actually the article's translator, but my search of the German site indicates that the article also had several editors there, so seems legitimate after all. Will be glad to improve the article myself at this point. Sorry if I shot the AfD gun too quickly. I think I was confusing (1) whether an article should exist in wikipedia and (2) whether any published German writer should belong on a list of German 'authors'. That is, my concern to distinguish between the Herman Melvilles and the Dan Browns of German lit led me astray. (This is not to say that I would not include Dan Brown, just that that might be an issue internal to the talk page of the relevant list, rather than an AfD. I see that now.) Universitytruth 14:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Amazon.de sales rank in the 80'000s, no translations, best Amazon.com sales rank: none. No call on this one. ~ trialsanderrors 08:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has won the German Crime Prize, an established award notable enough for Amazon.de to have a special feature on it. Oldelpaso 09:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She has a reasonable entry at imdb DavidHumphreys ^{SPEAK TO ME}ABOUT_{THE THINGS I MESSED UP} 13:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retract nom per evidence listed above. Universitytruth 14:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy keep. Nominator retracted.--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 18:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Ebbertz

WP:NN and WP:VAIN Universitytruth 07:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retract nom. On second thought, I see that he does have publications. I think the article could use some reworking of tone, etc., but I don't mind the article's existence. Sorry I didn't reflect on this before initiating the proceeding. I hereby retract my nomination and move for Speedy Keep. Universitytruth 07:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete First hit on amazon.de has a sales rank in the 160,000's. Barely notable in Germany from what it seems. Not translated into English, wtp? ~ trialsanderrors 08:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Too late now, heh. An obscure German author of children's books? Nuke it. - Merzbow 08:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per original nom (may not be WP:VAIN) but smells of WP:NN DavidHumphreys ^{SPEAK TO ME}ABOUT_{THE THINGS I MESSED UP} 14:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They're perfectly happy with it over at de.wiki. He won children's book of the month in January 1999 and has seven published works in the German National Library (I've added that link to the article). Dlyons493 Talk 17:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the nomination was delete. Sango 123 17:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Panda (band)

Does not seem to meet WP:BAND. Reads like a fan magazine article. Strong Delete. If anyone can show notability, then Keep and clean up. Would have speedied but article has been around a couple of months, and would have prod'ed, but am pretty sure the prod would be contested. TheRingess 07:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I praise your careful approach to the article by not speeding it right away, Ringess, but this band is completely non notable - Gsearch results for "Panda+Flannes" only give 1 hit, and that's the band's webpage. Phædriel ♥ tell me - 08:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. HumbleGod 08:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Not quite notable enough. DarthVad e r 09:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "...their up and coming LP" = fails WP:MUSIC. --IslaySolomon 14:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. --Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 18:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:BAND. --Core des at talk. o.o;; 18:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 01:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the nomination was delete. Sango 123 17:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marilyn Majeski

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (people). Seems to be a vanity page from the edit history. Only Google hits of any note are a small NYT blurb from 5 years ago about an obscure zoning dispute and some pretty minor play production mentions. Fails WP:NOR, WP:RS and seems to have become a magnet for trolling, personal attacks, and disruption (see this ANI entry). - Merzbow 07:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also bundling an article about this person's supposed theatre company, Grove Street Playhouse, for deletion. It's also been a magnet for the same sort of stuff and appears to fail Wikipedia:Notability (companies_and_corporations) as well as WP:NOR and WP:RS. No notable Google hits. - Merzbow 08:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom--Jusjih 09:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have unbundled the Grove Street Playhouse nomination. It can be discussed separately in its own AfD section. Lbbzman 11:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. --Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 18:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteCreator has admitted to being Marilyn Majeski, and contnues to edit it with socks. pschemp | talk 22:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Vanity, sock supported. --InShaneee 22:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Supporting historical documentation added on Grove Street Playhouse page. - —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.143.167.9 (talk • contribs) 2006-07-06 16:51:04 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 02:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The fact that the creator and her sockpuppets vehemently protect this article from any edits other than her own, even when documentation for those changes exists, support the article as self promotion and vanitly.--NYTheaterHistorian 06:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and comments directly above. RFerreira 07:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with all prejudice worthless article about a non-notable person, put this one out of its misery, quickly. Batman2005 03:05, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge anything relevant with Grove Street Playhouse. Tyrenius 06:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy keep. Nominator retracted.--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 18:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wolfgang Hohlbein

WP:NN and especially WP:VAIN Universitytruth 07:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Another Big in Germany entry. Seems very notable in his home country, not sure how that translates. ~ trialsanderrors 08:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If he is notable in Germany, he is notable for us. Punkmorten 10:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This says he has sold millions of books and reached Der Spiegel's bestseller list (though someone had better confirm that, my German is pretty rusty). Might be worth requesting a translation of the de: version though. Oldelpaso 09:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep; sheesh, this guy has half a million hits on the German Google, over five hundred listings on the German-language Amazon.com site, and the German sales ranks for several of his books that I checked were between five and eight hundred, which is huge. I would be extremely interested in hearing nom's reasoning behind his assertions, because that's just the result of sixty seconds casual search. RGTraynor 09:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above Travelbird 14:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and do a translation as per Oldelpaso DavidHumphreys ^{SPEAK TO ME}ABOUT_{THE THINGS I MESSED UP} 14:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retract nom, as he has pubs. Pulp fiction fantasy airport material, all of it, it seems. How do others (in English, French, Spanish, etc.) deal with lists of 'authors' vs. 'writers', BTW? I'm sure this writer should be on a list of German writers, but am unsure whether he should be on a list of German authors. Will add something to the list's talk page about this, and welcome your input. Universitytruth 14:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Precedent here ~ trialsanderrors 16:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think that WP:NN has been addressed sufficiently. The WP:VAIN issues (does anyone care what name he uses when he plays Eldar against friends???) can be taken care of with some pruning shears. Universitytruth 14:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the nomination was delete. Sango 123 17:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ProZ

advertisement and fails WP:CORP hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 08:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 08:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Travelbird 14:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone - even if the blatent advertising was removed, it would still fail WP:CORP DavidHumphreys ^{SPEAK TO ME}ABOUT_{THE THINGS I MESSED UP} 14:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:CORP --Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 18:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:CORP. --Core des at talk. o.o;; 18:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It has alexa rating of 4,142[31]. I think it's the most used / most notable site which deals with freelance translators. The article needs some cleanup though. --Zoz (t) 13:16, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the nomination was delete. Sango 123 17:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leisure (band)

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sotones Records. Fails multiple Google tests [32] [33] [34]. User's only contributions have been related to this group, their "record label" also up for AfD, and evolutionary theory. All of these may need to be examined. HumbleGod 08:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually the more I think about it, this may qualify for speedy delete per WP:VAIN and db-bio, etc. HumbleGod 08:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nope; "Only those articles where there is no remotely plausible assertion of notability should be considered for speedy deletion." You can have a regular Delete from me, though! RGTraynor 09:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. DarthVad e r 09:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You guys all know a lot more about wikis than us; sorry for the confusion (same goes for the discussion on Sotones stuff as explained there.)--Comrade jo 11:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' as non-notable band Travelbird 14:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. --Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 18:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Hope this doesn't set the 'Southampton avant-punk scene' back too far though. --Coil00 23:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the nomination was delete. – Avi 00:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nickdisk Forums

Created by owner of current version, none-notible, advertisement.-- 9cds^(talk) 09:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Delete per nom. Not notable. DarthVad e r 09:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Despite the claimed vicissitudes of the site, I have a very hard time swallowing that a forum with only 147 registered members is "one of the most popular Nickelodeon fan boards," unless a lot fewer people give a damn about Nickelodeon than the Nielsen ratings would suggest. RGTraynor 09:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per RGTraynor.--Andeh 09:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. --Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 19:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete The board was once very popular with over 750 active members posting at times until problems had with the adminstrator slowed the board down. The old board is gone and you'll never be able to see the screenshots again. Keep the article as a stub. Spongefan 16:04, July 7 2006 (EST)
Keep It's a popular website and it needs to be kept --Stimpy101 03:09, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Above user's first edit. That aside, Wikipedia is not a memorial, even of websites. Plainly it is not currently a popular site, and 750 active members wouldn't really pass muster as a popular fan site for a TV network either. No doubt some fan of the old board can host a webblog with those screenshots, but it isn't Wikipedia's purpose to do so. RGTraynor 04:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the nomination was delete. Sango 123 17:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mental High

Article fails WP:VERIFY Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources. and The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it., and doesn't pass WP:WEB. The website the article links to is also unavailable as it has "reached it's daily bandwidth limit". I would say speedy delete as nonsense, however am going to say Delete because the site is unavailable. —TheJC (Talk • Contribs • Count) 09:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. nn. Can't judge by web comics website, but this site lists only 535 hits and four fans. Tychocat 11:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Not notable. DarthVad e r 12:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 14:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC) [reply]
Delete fails WP:WEB DavidHumphreys ^{SPEAK TO ME}ABOUT_{THE THINGS I MESSED UP} 14:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above. --Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 19:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Dragonfiend 17:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above. KarenAnn 17:36, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:WEB. Aeon 06:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the nomination was delete. Sango 123 17:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Middle School 180

Article's contents are not sourced, and doesn't pass WP:VERIFY. Only claim to notability is In 2005, M. S. 180 was ranked number 1 school in the district due to high grades on the standardized examinations. but doesn't cite a reliable source. Delete. —TheJC (Talk • Contribs • Count) 09:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unsourced. Also, this is a middle school. Colleges are notable, some high schools are notable, but unless they did something remarkable on a more-than-local scale, middle schools aren't notable. --Core des at talk. o.o;; 19:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. --Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 19:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unremarkable, not a high school - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn school. Schoolcruft. Carlossuarez46 19:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the nomination was delete. Mackensen (talk) 00:13, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

American Airlines flight 1740

I nominated this for PROD a few weeks ago, but the notice was removed, and per the agreement on the talk page, I agreed to not nominate it for AfD until the preliminary NTSB report was released. That has now happened, but the report, in the words of one of the article's defenders, "not very interesting". Basically, this is a non-event. Aircraft have minor technical failings leading to emergency landings all the time. No-one was injured or killed in this accident, and it does not look like much is going to come of this. I am not convinced this is notable enough; this year alone, there have been 748 aviation incidents that the NTSB has reported on (did a search on their website). Unless you are proposing articles for them all, we need to be selective about which ones we keep, and, in my opinion, this is not one of them. Batmanand | Talk 10:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For at least a little while because it is similar to JetBlue Airways Flight 292. Thank you batmanand to invite me to this discussion. Jam01 00:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete good work on the nom. This isn't a notable event, as "airplane in minor prang" isn't sufficiently notable. At most, this sounds like part of a statistic for minor airplane incidents. MLA 10:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Also WP is not a newspaper. Tychocat 11:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. DarthVad e r 12:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I am the quoted "defender of the article". I'd like to thank Batmanand for holding off on bringing this to AfD until the NTSB preliminary report is out. However, I'd like to clarify that my remarks about "not very interesting" was in regards to the NTSB report specifically, not the entire event. It is still just a preliminary report. I find the event to be interesting, well documented, and notable. I don't claim it is a hugely important event, but I do think it is notable enough to be included here. This incident is very similar to JetBlue Airways Flight 292 which did survive AfD. I don't suggest that we should have an article on every incident that generates an NTSB report - some of those reports are even less serious than an emergency landing - such as someone getting injured in the air because they tripped going to the bathroom. However, emergency landings of commercial airliners are not common, and when they generate coverage in the reputable media, as this one has, then they are legitimate topics for articles. Johntex\^talk 13:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The JetBlue 292 article only survived AfD because it was nominated the day after the incident and a whole crowd of people failed to grasp that it would be forgotten within months. As it indeed was. Nine-odd months down the line, I am not so sure it would survive a second AfD now that people have had a better chance to put the event into perspective. — Haeleth Talk 15:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The event was worthy enough to make national news and it's not a common occurrence, so I say keep it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goatwarrior (talk • contribs)

Note that this is the user's sixth registered contribution. Batmanand | Talk 13:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia:Recentism. If this had happened thirty years ago no one would have made an article about it today. BoojiBoy 13:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BoojiBoy. If someone still remembers this incident in a year and adds this again I may reconsider. Travelbird 14:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a WP:NN aircraft incident DavidHumphreys ^{SPEAK TO ME}ABOUT_{THE THINGS I MESSED UP} 14:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BoojiBoy. Possibly transwiki to WikiNews if contributors agree to dual-license edits on the article under the Creative Commons license used on wikinews. —TheJC (Talk • Contribs • Count) 14:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unlikely to be significant. Can always be recreated if it turns out to be more than a footnote to a footnote in aviation history. — Haeleth Talk 15:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Redirect to American Airlines --Macarion 17:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BoojiBoy. --Core des at talk. o.o;; 19:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - to somewhere in the American Airlines page. --Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 19:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at other articles in Accidents and incidents on commercial airliners in the United States, it seems like the other noteworthy articles in that category either involved fatalities or extensive injuries, or at least substantial news coverage. Also, the other accidents and incidents in that category usually have some lessons learned and implications for future safety improvements. I don't think those criteria are true for this article (unless the final NTSB investigation shows that there's an issue with airworthiness or maintenance), so in that case, I'd recommend a delete. Not strongly, though. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 19:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not of encyclopaedic level of significance. Stephen B Streater 21:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a Reuters archive. Unimportant incident. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge. Think hard, where could this be merged to? That is, what is the underlying topic/meaning/facts? If we're only talking about the event, then it's worthless. (And thanks for the mention above of Wikipedia:Recentism) Shenme 04:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. There are some instances where a non-fatal aviation incident is notable. A few weeks ago I wrote G-TIGK North Sea ditching because it was featured in an episode of Air Crash Investigation, and the investigation had ramifications for the design ofhelipcopter blades. Some other non-fatal incidents such as Hapag-Lloyd Flight 3378, Air Transat Flight 236 and British Airways Flight 5390 had a sufficiently dramatic series of events (fuel exhaustion and the captain being sucked out of the window and surviving) that they are definite encyclopedic topics. In this case we have a nose gear failure and collapse on the runway, but an ultimately successful emergency landing. To me, the incident looks like a thing which will be fairly quickly forgotten. The NTSB makes it report, and takes such incidents very seriously as it should do. However, I fear articles on such minor incidents without any ramifications beyond the incident itself, are likely to clog up the aviation incidents category. If the report produced some findings which for instance led to the grounding of all MD-80 planes for fix-ups of the landing gear, I would reconsider. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nn incident. --WinHunter ^(talk) 11:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a list of everything that made the nightly news. -- GWO
Keep - like the JetBlue incident. We have a Category:Accidents and incidents on commercial airliners in the United States if we are going to exclude incidents and merely tally bodycounts, let's revise the category and delete all the "incidents" like JetBlue. Carlossuarez46 19:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I intend to nominate the JetBlue article if this AfD ends in a delete. Batmanand | Talk 18:56, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: 150 dead. Stephen B Streater 06:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
9 July 2006 Irkutsk S7 Airlines crash
Delete There's nothing particularly special about this incident. Kudos to the nominator and keep voters above who were so civil and reasonable prior to the AfD.--Chaser T 06:30, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not appear to have been notable beyond the participants. Eluchil404 02:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is not the policy of Wikipedia to delete articles due to non-notability (go check for yourself) and therefore the nom itself is bunk. To delete this article per nom, first change WP policy. Since past attempts to change that policy failed, consider that also the consensus of the WP community. Deleting this would be sneaking around policy at best or violating it at worst. --Ephilei 21:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then we can delete it because wikipedia is not news reports. That's policy.--Chaser T 22:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well it is certainly not a news report. It cites multiple reports, including a government report on the incident. Johntex\^talk 11:40, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is a news report of no "historical significance" (quoting the above policy) that links to a government report that is "not very interesting" (quoting yourself). It belongs at wikinews. In any case, I mostly responded b/c of Ephilei's comment above, which annoyingly suggested we were evading policy, while "there is no official policy on notability" (quoting WP:N). Things get deleted as non-notable all the time, even when there's not a clearly applicable consensual guideline, which there is obviously not for airplane crashes.--Chaser T 12:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the nomination was Nomination withdrawn. – Avi 00:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Bobby

Article contains nothing encyclopedic, doesn't establish why it should be included so fails WP:VERIFY, and is a possible copyvio as it contains lyrics to a possibly copyrighted song. —TheJC (Talk • Contribs • Count) 10:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. —TheJC (Talk • Contribs • Count) 11:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. DarthVad e r 12:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Question I've come across quite a few newly created articles listing nothing more than the lyrics of a particular song. Is there a policy on this ? Travelbird 14:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There are several policies (as well as guidelines) that would effect inclusion of an article containing lyrics. Possible the easiest to understand would be Wikipedia:Copyrights#Contributors.27_rights_and_obligations and the sub-section Wikipedia:Copyrights#Using_copyrighted_work_from_others. There is also Wikipedia:Verifiability and the currently proposed guideline/policy at Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/Notability and Songs. As the Copyrights policy states If you use part of a copyrighted work under "fair use", or if you obtain special permission to use a copyrighted work from the copyright holder under the terms of our license, you must make a note of that fact (along with names and dates). An example of a song that is still under copyright which we can't include the full lyrics to is Happy Birthday to You. —TheJC (Talk • Contribs • Count) 15:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lyrics belong on lyricwiki.org DavidHumphreys ^{SPEAK TO ME}ABOUT_{THE THINGS I MESSED UP} 14:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, potential copyvio, fails WP:V. --Core des at talk. o.o;; 19:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question I agree that articles that are simply a song's lyrics are of no use, but aren't singles by notable artists usually kept? Admittedly, I am only familiar with the songs off Manu Chao's Clandestino album, and this is from a later album, so while I can't say much about it, I am leaning toward keep/expand/remove copyvio lyrics, as seems to be the general consensus at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Right_Thurr. GassyGuy 19:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. --Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 19:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I attempted to set up a workable stub here. If anyone here has access to charts from Spain, I believe this was a sizable hit there, so an actual peak would be nice. Also, if this survives, I suggest a move to Mr. Bobby. GassyGuy 20:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination. GassyGuy's changes to the article, as well as his comments above have resolved the problems the article had when I nominated it, and therefore the reasons for the nomination are no longer valid. —TheJC (Talk • Contribs • Count) 20:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the nomination was No consensus. – Avi 00:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michel Bakhoum

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

"Keep"....It is an honor to state that the great professor Dr. Michel Bakhoum is a world renowned leader that had great and unlimited influence on the lives of a significant number of engineering students, professional engineers, professors, and researchers. His successful students are all over the world. His books, publications, and landmark designed projects are the testimony of the great achievements this great man had all over the country of Egypt. It is a great honor to state that I am one of thousands of his students. [N. Grace, Professor and Chairman, Civil Engineering Department, Director, Center for Innovative Materials Research, Lawrence Tech University, USA]

Keep Such an accomplished and international figure warrants an article submission on Wikipedia. Many students of Structural Engineering would benefit from an entry like this in a free resource. Consider the revisions made recently to the text.

Delete as a resume for an engineer who passed away in 1981. No substantial assertion of notability or encyclopedic content. {{prod}} tag removed by anonymous user without comment. --Bugwit Speak / Spoken 10:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC) Changing vote to Keep due to revisions made to article...the notability of the subject was less an issue than the fact that it was written as a CV (for me, anyway). The article still needs significant cleanup, but its salvageable now. --Bugwit Speak / Spoken 13:56, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Sounds like a very experienced engineer, but unfortunately doesn't appear to be notable. DarthVad e r 12:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Accroding to the article he was a long time professor at Cairo University and has recieved numerous prizes Travelbird 14:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article. He was really an outstanding person. He had a significant impact on Structural Engineering in Egypt and the Middle East. To give an example, Please read the last paragraph of the article, what some of his colleagues thought of him.

Prof. Dr. Michel Bakhoum, a prominent star who shone in the sky of the 20th Century. He was an able Professor, a profound researcher, and an outstanding Structural Engineer… He had a surpassing capacity for perseverance to work and for distinctive output. His works are a great evidence for his superiority during his life and will remain as an everlasting memory— Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.135.100.52 (talk • contribs)

Weak Delete per nom, but this is subject to revision. WP:PROF is the appropriate guideline here. If verifiable sources exist to show that he meets these criteria, if the article is reformatted to Wikipedia standards, if the peacock words of the last paragraph and the Arabic text (except for Dr Bakhoum's name) are removed, it might become an acceptable article; as it stands, it isn't. Tevildo 14:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a total of about 20 [35] [36] ghits under both versions of his surname helps him fail WP:BIO DavidHumphreys ^{SPEAK TO ME}ABOUT_{THE THINGS I MESSED UP} 14:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. —Tapir Terrific 15:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC) Abstain, now that there has been a major overhaul of the article. -Tapir Terrific 22:43, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - we don't put resumes here (delete per nom) --Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 20:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — although it would be good to have an article on Michel Bakhoum, we cannot have this kind of article. The article began as copyvio, but the article's creator kept trying to remove the tags. What we have now is a boring CV. If someone can create an article about Bakhoum that hasn't been copied from somewhere and consists of full sentences of good biographical information, we can keep the article. Otherwise, delete. — Gareth Hughes 19:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Copyvio of the late professor's apparently reasonably popular english language textbook, including listing his major professional society memberships. The original copyvio article establishes that Bakhoum meets WP:PROF notability, under several categories. The current article does not, but there is a difference between "Doesn't meet" and "Article doesn't currently show how they meet". Subject just has to be notable. Is the current article a CV, or just weak? It does not appear to contain the earlier CV quotes from the book. What are unresolved nomination criteria for this deletion? Georgewilliamherbert 08:51, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Keep the article:~~ Please refer to the revised article. User:Dr. Mourad Michel Bakhoum8 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry...you are only allowed one keep or delete "vote" in the discussion. --Bugwit Speak / Spoken 14:09, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Dr. Prof. Michel Bakhoum was one of the best structural engineers in Egypt who enriched Egypt with numerous major and important buildings and bridges. A whole generation of engineers were taught by him and value the importance of the article to be kept on wikipedia.

I see the article as a very interesting article and it has imporoved a lot and should be kept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.114.58.8 (talk • contribs)

~~*Keep~~:Although Egypt has a very long and ancient history of great architecture, its present has very few scientists and engineers. Dr. Prof. Michel Bakhoum was one of the few present engineers who highly contributed to the current Egyptian engineering. He was not only a great and genius engineer but also a great Professor, who taught as mentioned in the article more than ten thousand civil engineers. His designs and teachings has greatly affected the urban development of the city of Cairo and many other cities in Egypt. I believe the article should be kept to inform young students all over the world about his great achievements that are an incentive to each and everyone to achieve more in his/her career. I as a young Egyptian female engineer do not rely on what our ancient Egyptians did but value their mind and their great architecture as much as I value Dr. Michel Bakhoum, the teacher and model of thousands. People like him, who achieve and serve for all their lives are for all of us, young researchers, great examples. Therefore I, and my fellow young scientists and engineers, believe the article must be kept because Dr. Michel Bakhoum is not a forgotten history but a living influence. User:Dina Bakhoum

You are only allowed one keep or delete "vote" for the AfD discussion. (User:62.114.58.8 = User:Dina Bakhoum) --Bugwit Speak / Spoken 15:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While I have changed my vote due to the revision of the article, I cannot help but be concerned about the contributions to the discussion and the article by what appear to be relatives of the subject (User:Dr. Mourad Michel Bakhoum/User:62.135.100.52 and User:Dina Bakhoum/User:62.114.58.8 in the AfD discussion, for example.) I do not disagree that Dr. Bakhoum is notable enough to warrant an article, but it seems that these two contributors, being relatives, present the possibility of not adhering to WP:NPOV and WP:AUTO. I am not reverting my change of heart regarding my "vote", just voicing a concern. --Bugwit Speak / Spoken 15:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I do understand and appreciate your concern about our votes being relatives to the subject but I want to assure you that the reason for our votes is not because we are related to Michel Bakhoum, but because we believe he was an important Egyptian figure with great achievements. Michel Bakhoum is listed in wikipedia in the list of famous Egyptian people among other Egyptian architects. His contributions to Egyptian engineering are no less important than those of the recent architect Hassan Fathy or the ancient Egyptian architect Imhotep. As engineers and as Egyptians (not as relatives) we would like our votes to be considered as we believe that he is, as mentioned before, a living influence and not a forgotten history. Dina Bakhoum

Keep: Please, keep this article. It helps preserve the legacy of a great person who contributed a lot to the development of modern Egypt. I grew up in Cairo, Egypt and went to the school of engineering in Cairo University. Many of us regard him as the greatest civil engineer and one of the best professors of civil engineering in the 20th century in the middle east. I believe people who know about him can contribute to this article and eventually turn it into a first class biography. George Jonaris

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

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

The result of the nomination was delete. – Avi 00:56, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"An Animal Movie"

Not notable vanity. (Contested prod.) Zoz (t) 10:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Vanity. Viridae ^Talk 12:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Weregerbil 12:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Completely not notable. The user that created this article has a cool nickname though ;-) DarthVad e r 12:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"It is currently on You Tube, as it is yet to rise into popularity." That says Delete to me. Fan-1967 13:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Comes close to a CSD (nonsense) Travelbird 14:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and about as notable as my toothbrush Fails WP:WEB (the page that is, not the site) DavidHumphreys ^{SPEAK TO ME}ABOUT_{THE THINGS I MESSED UP} 14:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:WEB and WP:NFT. --Core des at talk. o.o;; 19:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. --Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 20:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the nomination was delete. – Avi 00:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Dieffenbach

Delete because this article was tagged with {{not verified}} two months ago, and article still hasn't been improved, still failing WP:VERIFY and therefore WP:BIO. —TheJC (Talk • Contribs • Count) 10:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Local news reporters do not by default merit inclusion, and nothing in this article indicates that this subject is an exception. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 13:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notability.--Peta 04:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the nomination was Keep and Cleanup. – Avi 00:58, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Art and Antiques Magazine

Page doesn't contain useful information, essentially an advert for this magazine Damburger 10:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rewrite - If the circulation figure is correct, this magazine is perfectly notable. --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 14:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Just looks like a page needing expansion to me. Dsreyn 14:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I'm not sure if the statement is one of the largest of its kind in the world would pass it. Also with a readership in excess of 110,000 needs verifying. DavidHumphreys ^{SPEAK TO ME}ABOUT_{THE THINGS I MESSED UP} 14:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The circulation report from [37] (see the spreadsheet Circulation for All ABC Magazines) says that the 2005 total paid circulation was 119,680. Dsreyn 16:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 16:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert D. Parks

No notability - vanity page about a school committee member fbb_fan 10:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He has an impressive resume that shows he is not just involved in a local school committee.[38] He is a Director of a centre for Florida Atlantic university and has previously held Professor and Associate Professor positions at different universities. Ansell 10:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Delete. None of that seems to satisfy WP:BIO. Holding professor positions at different universities is hardly notable, and the center at Florida Atlantic (essentially an extension of his school board position [39]) doesn't appear to make him worthy of an entry either. If he has additional academic notability, it needs to be added to the article. Dsreyn 12:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- As a community leader I think he has notability. How is holding professor positions at different universities and being the director of a research centre "hardly notable". Why does this person specifically not deserve and article via their contribution to their community? Note that WP:BIO is not meant to be a final guideline, so why define your opinion about the article by his not fitting it. Ansell 01:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment. Like it or not, there is a lot of precedence for using WP:BIO as a litmus test. And what is at all notable about having held professorships at different universities? In plain English, all that means is that he's a college professor who has changed jobs. Are you suggesting that anyone who has done that is worthy of a Wikipedia entry? fbb_fan 01:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Correction, in plain American English, that may be correct, however, the rest of the world doesn't use the term that liberally. He has held chairs, no? Are they not higher than the typical lecturer? Like it or not, the test is still not definitive, even with its attempt at objectivity. Ansell 02:03, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment. Since Parks works in the US, "American English" is the relevant interpretation. And there is absolutely nothing notable about being an Associate Professor or Professor in the United States. Are those the "chairs" you were referring to? If so, you should have a look at the article on professors, in particular, the section on the North American system. Associate Professor and Professor are not "chairs" in North America (see "named chairs" in the article). fbb_fan 02:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Dsreyn. --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 14:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dsreyn. Well said. Ifnord 14:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not merely a school committe member. Longest serving member of one of the largest school districts in the US, the largest by one measure. Leader in education policy both locally, statewide and nationally, as evidenced by references provided. Key figure in local politics (in Florida's second largest county) for decades. I agree with the premise that some school board members might not be notable. For example, the average American school board oversees a district with a couple of thousand students and maybe three sschools. Very large school districts, such as Broward, with its more than 250,000 students and well over 200 schools and other facilities are simply in a different league and are themselves notable entities in American education. As such, such a notable leader of such a district (and leader in other contexts) it notable. Captaintruth 15:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The references in the article are links to the web sites for the Broward School Board (of which Parks is a member) and the center at Florida Atlantic (which Parks directs). Given Parks' direct involvement with both entities, I don't see how these references can be used to demonstrate his status as a leader in education. Is there a source independent of Parks that can establish this? fbb_fan 21:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ Keep. This article seems to meet the criteria for notability, as any elected school board official in Broward County tends to get significant local press coverage by virtue of being on a frequently controversial school board. Bastique▼^parler _voir 23:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Can you provide an example of such coverage that demonstrates that Parks himself has notability, independent of the school board? Otherwise, it sounds like the board is notable and perhaps worthy of an entry (though this isn't entirely clear either), but individual members are not. fbb_fan 00:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Notability requirements do not necessitate his independance of the school board. His notability is quite prominently tied to his membership on the school board. Furthermore, he is well known locally, which also meets wikipedia's notability standards. In other words... just because you haven't heard of him doesn't mean he's nobody. I also believe that taken together, the school board and the university prominence should edge him over the "notability threshhold". Please bear in mind, my "keep" is weak. Bastique▼^parler _voir 02:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Sun-Sentinel has 658 archived stories on "Bob Parks" which date back to 1986 (the year of his first board race). The Miami Herald has at least 300... I consider that worthwhile. Remember, local notability counts toward notability. Bastique▼^parler _voir 02:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that I neither know Bob Parks nor either of the other contributors to his article. I don't even remember if I voted for him or not in the last election. I do know of him. I also know that our school board, being elected county-wide, is heavily covered in the news, and its members more often than not tend to be local celebrities who often move on to other elected positions. Furthermore, I am a longtime contributor to Wikipedia and know something about our notability requirements. Let me quote:

Major local political figures who receive significant press coverage.

In that respect, I've changed my "weak keep" to a solid "Keep." Bastique▼^parler _voir 03:03, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. My objection was not "he's not notable because I haven't heard of him". Since you claim to be knowledgeable about notability, I'm sure you know that the burden of proof of notability is on the editors; it's not the reader's responsibility to track down the appropriate references to establish it. The article was nominated because as written, it did not come close to establishing any significant notability. fbb_fan 03:13, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I disagree with the comment that "as written, it did not come close to establishing any significant notability". Although I freely acknowledge that I did not write the perfect article here, I did provide a link in the form of the school board web page about him (and somehow questioning the factual accuracy of a governmental webpage about one of its officials sems a little bit over skeptical) that discussed his numerous roles in the educational community and the community at large. Although perhaps more sources would have been useful, enough evidence of local notability was present that, though a clean-up or add sources tag may have made sense, an AFD nomination was overkill. Captaintruth 03:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If the "governmental webpage" you're referring to is the Broward Schools site, I think the bigger issue is whether that establishes notability (though I still claim that they might not be totally objective - they certainly aren't going to post something negative about their own board member). Listing his degrees, work experience, and community activities doesn't meet the Wikipedia standard for notability, in my opinion. I agree that it establishes that he's active in the community, but every community has people like that, and most of them are not notable by Wikipedia standards. fbb_fan 22:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment First, I agree with your "every community has perople like that" point to an extent. The problem is that this is not any community. This is one of the five or six largest school districts in the country (and the largest by one measure). Beyond the school district, Broward County (in which he plays a prominent role, as evidenced by the sources provided), is the 15th most heavily populated county in the US [40] and number 2 in Florida [41]. You are correct that the school district website may be biaed in favor of including positive information, but it is unclear why he would be any less notable if negative information were also included. In fact, negative information (eg some kind of controversy, though as far as I know he has never been involved in one) would actually make him more notable. Finally, although I admit that this is not official wikipedia policy, several dedicated, long-term wikipedia users have worked diligently to improve wikipedia coverage of Florida in general and Broward County in particular. One of these users, who is also an administrator (user:Bastique, above) has weighed in with further evidence of Parks' notability. If there is ambiguity in this situation, wouldn't it just be more collegial of you to defer to those of us who have worked so hard to improve this corner of wikipedia? Interestingstuffadder 00:13, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm not sure that your final point is valid. Editors of a page or a set of pages are likely to be biased (for obvious reasons) in favor of keeping pages they have worked on, or that are part of a project they work on (realistically, do you think anyone would vote "delete" on their own work?). Also, I have never seen any evidence that people "take the editor's word for it" that an entry is notable. In any case, I still remain unconvinced that Parks personally deserves a page. I think good arguments have certainly been made in favor of an entry on the Broward School Board - but not necessarily the individuals that comprise it. fbb_fan 01:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I understand and respect your point. Either way, there doesn't exactly appear to be a consensus for deletion at this point. Captaintruth 01:10, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep...well referenced local notability (plus i live in sofla and this guy is always in the media, easily the highest-profile school board member for a long time). sources, though they are not perfect, seem to pass the threshold for inclusion. Yourebustedyo 02:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was Delete - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Vass

Fails to meet the criteria for notability

Delete - as nominator --Colin E. 11:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not notable. DarthVad e r 12:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable. --Mikeblas 13:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no mention of notability Travelbird 14:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO and a possible WP:VAIN DavidHumphreys ^{SPEAK TO ME}ABOUT_{THE THINGS I MESSED UP} 14:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 00:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mr dubious

Article was requested to be speedied on 9th February. Article author removed the tag and said on the talk page (s)he needs some time to improve the article. Article is still very similar five months later and still doesn't establish why the person the article is about is notable. I'm going to say Strong Delete as this article has seen no improvement after the authors request on the talk page for "a little more time". As a comparison, see Darius from the UK's Pop Idol. —TheJC (Talk • Contribs • Count) 11:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not notable enough. DarthVad e r 12:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nonnotable musician. NawlinWiki 12:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Travelbird 14:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete I can't see a Mr dubious or a Dave (crazy or otherwise) in the list of finalists for any season of Pop Idol, so either he didn't make it past the auditions so fails WP:NNor is a WP:HOAX DavidHumphreys ^{SPEAK TO ME}ABOUT_{THE THINGS I MESSED UP} 15:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, vanispam touting nn music products, hence "please leave on WP" comment. He came, he saw, he flew across the stage... he's outta here. --(Non-crazy)DaveG12345 15:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Dave above. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 00:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no real information in the article about him and none of the page links add any. KarenAnn 12:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with extreme prejudice --Brad101 13:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the nomination was delete ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Immaculate Order of the Falling Sky

another "quasi-religious group devoted to bringing a mass extinction event to Earth".... Travelbird 11:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unfunny hoax. MLA 12:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not serious, not funny, not wanted here. (the founder apparently.) Viridae ^Talk 12:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. DarthVad e r 12:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Who cares? --Michael Johnson 12:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax, unless someone considers it an attack on Caitlin R. Kiernan, in which case a speedy might be valid. Seb Patrick 13:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. "Caitlìn has also declared a fatwa against Bruce Willis and Ben Affleck." - still they're not all bad. --IslaySolomon 14:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Destroy all hoaxes. --Core des at talk. o.o;; 19:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Smite unfunny religioncruft. Danny Lilithborne 22:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If yer gonna make up a religion, "cult-fiends", have a point. --DaveG12345 23:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Coredesat -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 00:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the nomination was delete ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Longitude 131

Advertisement for non notable resort Fram 11:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. DarthVad e r 12:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete google pulls up 69000 pages of advertising/promotion. Not notable. Viridae ^Talk 12:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete spam. --Michael Johnson 12:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as advert Travelbird 14:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. DJ Clayworth 14:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete CSD A7 - no assertion of notability. Kimchi.sg 15:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pippet Chaos

non-notable "upcoming scen queen", no Google hits except myspace and a school page Travelbird 11:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable/possible hoax, this is a boderline speedy. Yank sox 11:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. DarthVad e r 12:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete No sources or indicators of notability whatsoever. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'd speedy this, it's non-notable vanity of the highest order. "Upcoming scen queen" is not even an assertion of notability. Seb Patrick 12:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as A7, or just delete as nn. Teenage vanity. Fan-1967 13:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy added {{db-bio}}]] tag DavidHumphreys ^{SPEAK TO ME}ABOUT_{THE THINGS I MESSED UP} 15:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. The abundance of 'reviews' added has been adequately addressed by Merzbow, and I find it especially damning that no articles link to this one. This theatre is not of any particular note. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 23:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grove Street Playhouse

I was the original nominator... this is a vanity page (original author is a Majeski sock) that fails Wikipedia:Notability (companies_and_corporations) as well as WP:NOR and WP:RS. No notable Google hits. - Merzbow 16:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No vote. Nomination previously bundled with Marilyn Majeski; separating because they deserve two different discussions. Lbbzman 11:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - created my marilyn majeski for the purpose of vanity. pschemp | talk 22:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability. --InShaneee 22:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A company that shut it's doors when the internet was still in its infancy cannot be judged on google hits. Thirteen New York Times articles have been added as references. All can be easily found on the NY Times website, simply sign up for a free website membership and search Grove Street Playhouse. More evidence of notability to follow. - —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.143.167.9 (talk • contribs) 2006-07-06 16:47:42 (UTC)

Production reviews from any theater's local paper (and in this case the NYT is the local paper) are a dime a dozen. What awards has this theater won? I still don't see evidence of notability. (And please sign your comments and register a vote). - Merzbow 00:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, but The NY Times is NOT in the same category as a small town local newspaper. They have very high standards because there are a much higher number of theatre companies competing for reviews. Only noteworthy productions are generally covered. - —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.143.167.9 (talk • contribs) 2006-07-06 17:16:55 (UTC)

Even among the set of all theaters that have had productions reviewed in their major hometown paper, notability must be established. I still see nothing that indicates that this particular theater stands outside the crowd. - Merzbow 00:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The New York Times may not be in the same category as a small town local newspaper, but it is STILL a local newspaper when it comes to covering its own town. And as for A company that shut it's [sic] doors when the internet was still in its infancy cannot be judged on google hits -- well, I can't imagine anyone who would call 2002 a year when the Internet was in its infancy -- but even that's immaterial, as as the massive numbers of Google hits for "Joseph Papp" (excluding hits for some nutcase inventor of the same name) and "Federal Theatre Project" would show, given both predate Google entirely. --Calton | Talk 00:40, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A Local theatre that happens to be local to New York City. No sign of particular notability or influence on the arts. --Calton | Talk 00:40, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup. There are enough verifiable references from a reliable source to establish some notability for mine. Capitalistroadster 02:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 02:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. per nom. Although there has been much dispute, which I have been involved in, over this article, the added references are regarding shows that took place at the theater, mostly by other production companies who rented the space. There are still no references for numerous points in the article which the creator and her sockpuppets are not allowing others to edit, even when there have been references (including the New York Times, which the creator now agrees is a reputable source). Based on these actions of the creator, it remains a vanity article.--NYTheaterHistorian 06:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP IT and clean it up.

Grove Street Playhouse, originally the Courtyard Playhouse, is VERY NOTABLE for being one of the very FIRST and longest surviving Off-Off Broadway theatres. the "small NYT blurb from 5 yrs ago about an obscure zoning dispute" which Merzbow cites on the Marilyn Majeski project page, is actually a full 1/2 page article on page 3 of the NY Times, complete with photo of Ms. Majeski, which details a much longer and richer history of this theatre, which dates back to the days of Cino's Cafe. ("Making It Work: Serial Drama at Grove Street Playhouse", Corey Kilganon, NY Times, 01/24/99). I also found an article on Backstage.com ("Miss Majesty's Licked: Grove Street Shudders) which also chronicles the 49 year history of this theatre. Perhaps for vanity reasons, Majeski has limited the editorials exclusively to the period after 1994 when she changed the company's name.

I trust the NY Times fact checkers, according to Wikipedia's standards this is considered a highly reliable source. Likewise, Backstage is equally reliable as the #1 trade publication for theatre. Grove Street Playhouse is an important part of theatrical history and should not be deleted, but kept and cleaned up.

I think that NYTheatreHistorian should be blocked from editing this page, because clearly he has some sort of personal vendetta against this woman. The edit history shows a clear pattern of vandalism on his part. Most disturbing aren his repeated attempts to reveals her current place of employment. My understanding is that divulging personal information is strictly against Wikipedia policy. Although, I disagree with Ms. Majeski's use of socks, if she is being "stalked" as she claims, perhaps she is doing this out of fear. Irregardless, the history of this organization should not be deleted because of it's former artistic director's bad behavior.

Anyone who has voted to Delete should check out these articles - you may want to change your minds. ≈--Casual Observer 20:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Above comments made by another sock. pschemp | talk 20:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am NOT a "sock" for this woman! If you will check the IP address I made my remarks from, you will find that it reverts back to my hotel room. Do you really think this woman is renting a hotel room to edit Wikipedia under an assumed identity? It seems like you are blocking people based solely on their point of view. I wonder how many other people you've falsely accused. Please, unblock me. Casual Observer

Interesting that the IP address 63.164.145.85 for the unsigned comment above is registered to Kinko's, Inc. through SprintLink with an address in Reston, VA just outside of Washington, DC. I was not aware that Kinko's had branched out to provide service internet to hotels these days. --NYTheaterHistorian 06:42, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Minor editing and multiple references added including Entertainment Tonight, Access Hollywood, and People Magazine article featuring Marilyn Majeski. Also a quote from the ever quotable Quentin Crisp has been added. In an interview with the Off-Off Broadway Review's Marshall Yaeger he said: "I'm not famous - I'm notorious. If I, who am nothing, can get to the Grove Street Theatre, then anyone can achieve anything!" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.167.9 (talk • contribs) <-another sock IP pschemp | talk 00:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but clean-up needed. The New York Times is perfectly acceptable as a source and has an international status, regardless of its city franchise. 1,000 word NYT article on its threatened/imminent closure is of note.[42] Tyrenius 05:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, NYTheatreHistorian has deliberately introduced false information into this article. The primary reference material which is cited as the source for his most recent edit, Playbill October 1, 1998 is readily available on line at http://www.playbill.com/news/article/41186.html and makes no mention of the statements included in NYTheatreHistorian's most recent contribution to this article. In fact, the article gives a very different reason for the litigation. NYTheatreHistorian has continued to use Wikipedia as a vehicle for stalking and harrasssment as defined by the law. This indidvidual's activities extend beyond the pages of Wikipedia into the real world. Wikipedia's Administrators have provided no assistance to the victim in this matter. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 164.82.84.3 (talk • contribs) .

(This user has been warned for making these personal attacks. Tyrenius 18:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)) Clarification - 164.82.84.3 has been warned for making personal attacks in the passage immediately above. Tyrenius 19:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected referrence from http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117481186?categoryid=15&cs=1 , which validates entry noted above as factual and not a personal attack, nor stalking or harrassment. -- 151.202.72.206 18:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)--NYTheaterHistorian 18:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC) hmmm pschemp | talk 20:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:25, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A History of Political Theory, Ch. 13-16

Delete per concerns outlined on talk page by User:Dugwiki, briefly "Article is literally a huge unabridged outline of part of this book; not encyclopedic in nature". ::Supergolden:: 12:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unencyclopedic. I propose an addition to WP:NOT: Wikipedia is not a repository for chapter summaries. Viridae ^Talk 12:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not the place for chapter outlines.--Isotope23 16:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, chapter outline is potential copyvio, as there is no critical content. Unsuitable for WP--Leflyman^Talk 18:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carol Hiller

Seems to be a non-notable biography. At first I thought she might be thinking Sky Radio was related to the British broadcast company, but it's not (it's a radio station about airlines).

Most of the results of the Google test aren't her. I don't see a result about her until the 2nd page. Additionally, the author of the article is User:Caroldiego so vanity is possibly an issue (she produced a radio show in San Diego, so that may explain the diego in the user name). Metros232 12:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sky Radio Network is not a radio station about airlines, it is a radio and television production company whose content is available to airline passengers. This content includes short travel films and audio interviews with newsworthy persons. The interview programs are produced and hosted by various individuals, including Carol Hiller. I would think that as a Future Business Leader of America, you'd find interviews with current business leaders of America edifying, and certainly a valuable resource.

Delete She fails WP:BIO and is a candidate for WP:VAINDavidHumphreys ^{SPEAK TO ME}ABOUT_{THE THINGS I MESSED UP} 15:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, subject does not meet WP:BIO and this appears to be a possible WP:AUTO violation as well. Could offer a userfy...--Isotope23 16:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You're correct - I am Carol Hiller. Since I have seen other performers and newspersons in whom I was interested listed, I decided to make this entry for those who might be interested in the person behind my voice. I got the idea to do this when I saw a fellow alumnus of my high school was listed as notable because he/she was elected Mayor of Newark, NJ. Thought I would add to the glory of the school. Delete me if you must, but please don't say I fail the test for inclusion of Porn actors. That just hurts.

Comment er, I was refering to WP:BIO, which is the guideline for biographical articles about living persons, and WP:AUTO, the guideline pertaining to autobiographical articles. I didn't see anyone mention WP:PORN BIO, the proposed guidelines for pornographic personalities. Actually, I'd think you'd want to fail that one...--Isotope23 22:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CommentPoint well taken. "All great truths begin as blasphemies," however ;)

Delete, fails WP:BIO -- Alias Flood 20:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DON'T Delete --GaelMac 00:24, 8 July 2006 (UTC) -- I first caught a sample of Ms. Hiller's work on a United Airlines flight -- an interview with Ben Stein that was possibly one of the finest interviews I've ever heard. Evidently the other posters don't travel much -- or don't listen to the broadcasts available to them inflight. The shows Ms. Hiller produces for Sky Radio have included interviews with such notables as Pres. Jimmy Carter, Madeleine Albright, Johnnie Cochran, Donald Trump, Steve Wynn, George Maloof & Eli Broad -- to name just a handful. I'd say that's a pretty impressive roster -- not to mention her interview with the late Caspar Weinberger -- and that's only the tip of the iceberg of the interviews she has either conducted, written and/or produced. The targeted listeners are top-of-the-line CEOs, Chairmen and Presidents of major companies/corporations, and Ms. Hiller is often a behind-the-scenes person, so perhaps that is why the posters here are not aware of the quality AND quantity of her work. I guarantee, however, that the folks mentioned above know Ms. Hiller and her work and would consider her "notable" enough for inclusion in Wikipedia's database.[reply]

Oh, yes... and a note to Isotope23... I believe Ms. Hiller's remark about the porn bio was with tongue firmly planted in cheek... as in facetious...

(from someone "notable" enough to have worked on 40+ films/TV shows, have music in about a dozen and appeared in a handful)

- Comment It's so damn hard to tell sarcasm in written form without the context of knowing the author.--Isotope23 03:27, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Well, you could look me up in Wikipedia. OR you could look up Takeru Kobayashi in Wikipedia, whose accomplishments certainly are notable. Or you could just read this piece of classic prose.

Comment GaelMac 01:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC) -- from Wikipedia's own guidelines: "...Lack of fame is not the same as vanity..." so while Ms. Hiller might not be famous, she certainly doesn't merit a "vanity" claim. After all, when was the last time any of the above detractors sat down for a chat with any famous folks? Ms. Hiller certainly has been an integral part of many interviews with major policy-makers and corporate leaders who HAVE changed society (for better or worse, depending on one's point of view) -- the content and effects of which will likely last far beyond any of our lifetimes (which IS a criteria noted in the BIO guidelines, along with: "...widely recognized contribution..." -- and I'd say that millions of listeners -- including Presidents, Congresspersons, Secretaries of State and major, worldwide corporate CEOs -- constitutes a "widely recognized contribution" despite Ms. Hiller's lack of out-of-the-industry "fame"). Ms. Hiller's work is WHY millions of people get to hear what these current and former leaders have to say. That seems pretty "notable" to me.[reply]

Delete Unless expanded and notability explained. Kidbrother 01:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was not particularly amusing hoax. DS 13:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sea football

Wikipedia is not for something made up in school (or on the beach) one day. Seb Patrick 12:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "sport" made up on the beach in one day (July 3, 2006, per article). NawlinWiki 12:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom —Mets501 (talk) 12:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

wikipedia does however reflect small scale growing sports, as all of the major sports had their origins in small groups of people. as such this article must be allowed as it gives good publicity to a sport we are seeking to publicise. already there is a tournament held for anyone next weekend at bournemouth beach.

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. There are no binding decisions on Wikipedia, much less binding precedents, so the argument that Hi Hi should have articles on every episode because other TV series do does not stand up. 'Merge and delete' is not possible per the GFDL, and even if it was, List of Hi Hi Puffy AmiYumi episodes is just a list, and does not allow for episode guides at present. Though that list is apprently undergoing rewriting, and I will retrieve the deleted content of this article on request if it is needed for that purpose. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 23:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dis-Harmony / Collect All 5! / Ninjcompoop

We do not need a Wikipedia article for each episode. It is totally unnecessary. Wiki is for the general concept of stuff. DarkAdonis255 21:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. (Liberatore, 2006). 12:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Hi Hi Puffy AmiYumi episodes then Delete. Not a notable enough TV show to warrant dozens of entries detailing every episode. --DaveG12345 22:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep TV show episodes. The TV show is very notable. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge then Delete as nom. Jeff huh? Individual episodes of TV shows such as this get individual encyclopedia entries? --Amists 12:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- In many cases, yes, and we've been woefully inconsistent about it. --12:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
- To be fair, in many cases also no, and there's no "consistency" because there is no policy on this whatsoever, each case stands or falls on its own merits. As it should be. :-) --DaveG12345 17:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, the lack of a policy adds to the lack of consistency, but when people are calling this show "not notable enough," I'm not sure merits are what's governing the decision. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, the lack of a policy could have been mentioned in your first comment, but it was not. I was merely ensuring no one went away with the wrong impression re policy. --DaveG12345 00:11, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless there's a way to cleanly add the info to the list. There's no real justification for individual episode articles of this. Surely there must be a wiki that deals with animated minutiae? GassyGuy 20:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy keep as a result of withdrawal of nomination with no support.

Capitalistroadster 02:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Torbett

Jim Torbett doesn't have good Google results to warrant an entry here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cola4 (talk • contribs) 20:33, 5 July 2006

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. (Liberatore, 2006). 12:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notability is clearly asserted by article and verified by reputable sources. Seb Patrick 12:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable and readily verifiable. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, even without doing a google search the BBC and Guardian articles are enough. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 14:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yeah - the external links make him pas WP:BIO DavidHumphreys ^{SPEAK TO ME}ABOUT_{THE THINGS I MESSED UP} 15:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems notable enough per BBC and Guardian articles. --Core des at talk. o.o;; 19:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've decided that the result should be keep as no one wants it to go.

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

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

The result of the nomination was kept consensus to keep Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 01:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Hi Hi Puffy AmiYumi episodes

We need not a page for each episode. DarkAdonis255 21:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. (Liberatore, 2006). 12:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - "List of...episodes" articles are perfectly acceptable. --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 13:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the main "List of" page, delete individual episode pages I think every show is entitled to an episode summary article, but HHPA is in no way important enough for each episode to have its own article. The main page should give a one- or two-sentence synopsis of each episode, and that's it. -- Kicking222 14:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Standing policy says articles for episodes of TV shows are acceptable (although merging them into a single page might be a good idea). Penelope D 16:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this list, but the individual episode articles really aren't necessary. --Core des at talk. o.o;; 19:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep nominated list but support the deletion of the episodes themselves. GassyGuy 19:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Bibliomaniac15 20:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the main "List of" page, delete individual episode pages per Kicking222. BTW, there is no "standing policy" on keeping individual episodes of anything. That is simply untrue. --DaveG12345 22:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: "Policy" may have been the wrong word to use - I didn't mean to imply that it was a formal rule - but it certainly is the precedent: see the discussion currently going on at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Abandoned (DS9 episode). Penelope D 22:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. Hołek ҉ 15:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:31, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Palindrome hannah

I have listed this article for deletion as it seems to me to be a vanity piece on a non-notable, self-published book. The creator and almost exclusive contributor to the article is 'sirmyk' who is the author, Michael Bailey. John Self 08:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. (Liberatore, 2006). 12:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Liberatore. Thanks for fixing it. John Self 19:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete This is the author's only book and it is printed by Unlimited Publishing who are vanity publishers, so WP:VAIN & WP:ADS DavidHumphreys ^{SPEAK TO ME}ABOUT_{THE THINGS I MESSED UP} 15:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete David has said it all. -- Alias Flood 20:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy "Cut!" CSD A7 - simply saying a person is an actor is not an assertion of notability. Kimchi.sg 15:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Guthrie

this page does not fit within the standard Wikipedia guidelines. Not notable actor, no encyclopedic value yet.

Keep Ryan is a fantastic actor! there is definate encyclopedic value! Maybe someone could post about the battle he lead to get Tina Arena back on radio a few years ago. Numerous articles about that--Feelinsoryan 04:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note the above post is by the author of the article, presumably Ryan himself. NawlinWiki 15:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. (Liberatore, 2006). 12:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Now, I'm not saying that having an IMDb page automatically makes one notable enough for Wikipedia (I've got one, and I know I'm not)... but I'd say it's a fairly safe bet that not having one shows that one almost certainly isn't. Note that none of the works - either filmic or theatrical - actually have working Wikilinks, as the non-red ones all link to generic terms. Seb Patrick 12:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unable to even verify the existence of any of these film projects. Google does show a Ryan Guthrie with a Tina Arena fansite, but that's hardly sufficient for notability. Fan-1967 13:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. michaelCurtis ^talk+_{contributions} 13:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete, and don't forget to take Image:Ryan Guthrie.jpg. --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 13:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, arguably speediable. NawlinWiki 15:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as everyone above - WP:VAIN DavidHumphreys ^{SPEAK TO ME}ABOUT_{THE THINGS I MESSED UP} 15:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete, reasoning is more or less identical to that of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dis-Harmony / Collect All 5! / Ninjcompoop. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 23:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talent Suckers / Ole! / Mini-Puffs

We do not need articles for each episode. DarkAdonis255 21:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. (Liberatore, 2006). 12:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Normally I would say merge and redirect with List of Hi Hi Puffy AmiYumi episodes, but that article would need a major formatting change to accept the additional info. So if that doesn't change, I say delete. --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 13:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Hi Hi Puffy AmiYumi episodes then Delete. Not a notable enough TV show to warrant dozens of entries detailing every episode. --DaveG12345 22:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per DaveG12345, but with the note that a redirect is needed to preserve the history under the GFDL. BryanG^(talk) 05:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as before, the TV show is notable and episode articles are A-okay. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:01, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless there's a clean way to add the info to the episode list per same reasoning on the other episode. GassyGuy 21:01, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The essentials

After half a month, the article's creator failed to show notability. Now, this band is NOT The Essentials at http://www.essentialsmusic.com/ . It's a different, more local, band. Targetter 02:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. (Liberatore, 2006). 12:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nn band just working on their debut album, so a bit of crystal-balling and WP:MUSIC failing for starters. --DaveG12345 22:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of established notability. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 00:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete of mistakenly placed page by request of creator and sole editor. Uncle G 14:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

United States Marine Corps Marine expeditionary units

I created this page and meant for it to be a category. I messed up as I was making it. Category has since been created and this page should be deleted.--Looper5920 11:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. (Liberatore, 2006). 12:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete {{db-empty}} and author reqests deletion —Mets501 (talk) 13:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DiSisms

Delete - set of non-notable neologisms from a relatively obscure web forum. Prod removed without comment Gwernol 13:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom —Mets501 (talk) 13:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Travelbird 14:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. "WOLF POWER!" will retain its exclusivity. Tevildo 15:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom -- Alias Flood 20:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Appears to violate WP:WINAD. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 19:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. -- Guntrip (talk) 16:04, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was Keep Eluchil404 03:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yuko Ikeda

NN-bio, few google hits, mainly about a kidnapping of her daughter, advert ? Optimale ^Gu 13:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep She gets quite a number of google hits, seems to be a favorite of the Japanese tabloid press (ref http://www.gaijinpot.com/read_news.php?id=7406) Travelbird 14:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Described as a "celebrity surgeon". JPD (talk) 15:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- TheFarix (Talk) 16:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. notable plastic surgeon in Tokyo. 195k Ghits on her Japanese name. Neier 04:15, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per discussion, article needs to better explain why she is notable though. - Wickning1 07:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Mossadegh and Hugo Chavez

A charming essay but it can't be described as anything other than original research through and through. David | Talk 13:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete About as OR as OR can be. Fan-1967 13:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not horrible for a high school or 100-level college prompt or essay exam answer, but totally OR and not appropriate for inclusion. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 13:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not great for a college / high school prompt essay, either. - Che Nuevara: ^{Join the Revolution} 13:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Tevildo 15:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's nothing quite like finding your high school "similarities and differences" paper posted on Wikipedia. Alphachimp ^talk 19:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Biplab panda

Non notable person: while the first items are correct (finsihed 16th in a major spelling bee, had a very minor appearance in a movie), the rest seems speculative or at least unverifiable (e.g. "Biplab panda" Foucalut gives no Google hits, and neither does his name with "policy debate"). The boy may have a bright future ahead, but as for know, he doesn't merit his own encyclopedic article yet. If it does somehow not get deleted, it should be moved to the correct capitalization though. Fram 13:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Spelling bees and high school debating, even if verifiable, aren't quite enough. JPD (talk) 15:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. -- Alias Flood 20:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. utcursch | talk 12:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete per CSD:A1. Stifle (talk) 15:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KWLD

The FCC says that KWLD call letters are assigned to a station on 91.5 MHz in Plainview, Texas [43], not 92.3 in San Diego. The www.wild923.com website previously listed in the article is not working. I couldn't find a radio station named "WILD" in San Diego; there is a radio station at 92.5 in San Diego, which suggests that there's no station at 92.5 because of channel spacing. The KBIT station now mentioned mentioned by the article is not found with an FCC search. [[44]] Let's stop the nonsense. Mikeblas 13:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy A1 - no context. Appropriate tag added. If that fails, Strong Delete as hoax thanks to Mikeblas' excellent research. Tevildo 14:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete CSD A7 - no assertion of notability. Kimchi.sg 15:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Order of the Greek Horsemen

non-notable collegiate organization Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. DarthVad e r 14:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy A7. No assertion of notability, meets eligibility criteria. Appropriate tag added. Tevildo 14:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- not notable, source even says passing mention -- MrDolomite 14:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jewlia

This is intended as a testcase. There are added recently many very short stubs about gotras, which are basically clans. This is a typical one. It just says, if I understand it correctly, that this is one of the many clans in this region of India. This seems to be rather useless and an example of WP:NOT. I am not going to list all of them yet, as there are way too many (see List of Jat clans for just one region, and Rajput clans for another), but if this one gets deleted, I would like a proposal as to how I (or anyone) can best procedd to delete all the other ones (of similar content: there are some which are notable (clans of rulers etcetera) and undeletable for other reasons). Fram 14:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article Jewlia is on social group of India. It has been written encyclopedic way. I got it in svenska wikipedia and thought to put on English wikipedia as well. I do not think there is any harm in it. It is going to increase a knowledge base. I searched Jewlia which I found on wiki- svenska and not on eng-wiki. I think it is not violating the policy of wikipedia in any way and hence should not be deleted. burdak 16:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do you hope the article will be like in its final form? I am concerned that it will never be anything more than a one-liner. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete primarily based on the fact that this article is not in any way verifiably sourced, so it does violate that policy. Beyond that, I don't see the purpose of numerous individual articles on gotras that just say "X is a gotra of the Jat Clan". List of Jat clans seems to sum that statement up quite nicely and at least to me makes the individual articles completely unecessary. In the case of particular gotras that have made a significant contribution to society (that can of course be sourced), perhaps an individual article can be created. I don't see any common sense purpose for individual articles right now, though I am willing to consider reasons why this should stay.--Isotope23 16:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete totally per Isotope. - CrazyRussian talk/email 19:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Isotope23. --Core des at talk. o.o;; 19:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I saw a few of these while new page patrolling a couple days ago. This one is typical of those I saw. The whole package can go, either by prod or by a group nom. Exclude from a group nom any that have real content, give those their own nominations. Sometimes a clan/kinship line is noteworthy, or at least partially noteworthy, as this AFD shows, though the eventual result of the AFD was to rewrite the article based on the noteworthy role within the line. GRBerry 02:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ubiquiti Networks

Article was vandalised, and the vandalised version was nominated for deletion. The nomination was malformed and nothing happened. I have unvandalised the article, but am not sure whether the result meets with WP:CORP. Therefore I'm now sending it here for discussion.➨ Я Є DVERS 14:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article is inaccurate -- Joe Benvenuti is not an owner nor affiliated with Ubiquiti Networks (www.ubnt.com).

Please remove this fact or delete the article in its entirety.

AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Petros471 16:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete difficult to decide, it appears to be a succesful company, couldn't find any news related articles on them. Article may be for advertising, can't really tell. I don't believe the article is going to get anywhere anyway.--Andeh 17:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to Delete, 0 news hits.--Andeh 20:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep they seem slightly notable. They also have 17,400 google hits. —Mets501 (talk) 17:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No articles link to this one, its creator created the article and hasn't edited since (implying self-promotion). Company shows no signs of notability. It's just a free high-Google-rank advert, and that's not what we're here for. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Deathphoenix ʕ 14:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Relisting one more time because the votes aren't really that strong either way. --Deathphoenix ʕ 14:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No sources, specific claims of notability. No opposition to keeping if new (cited) information is added to the article. Wickethewok 14:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wickethewok. Ifnord 14:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Opened last year and has 2 WP:NN patents, so where's thenotability ??? DavidHumphreys ^{SPEAK TO ME}ABOUT_{THE THINGS I MESSED UP} 15:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No mentions either on C|Net, Forbes or Fortune. No press mentions in the first five pages of Google for "Ubiquiti", only results are sales pitches or product listings. Initial contributor has disappeared so self-promotion is highly-likely. Fails WP:CORP anyway. -- Netsnipe ^(Talk) 17:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete as a repost (minus stub tag) of article deleted at [[previous AfD. Kimchi.sg 14:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

喆(zhe)

I seem to remember a precedent to delete these; anyway, WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information, and the article title is hard to type and has misplaced parentheses. (Some of this can be fixed, but the article probably isn't worth saving even then.) --ais523 14:09, 6 July 2006 (U T C)

Delete, but how about starting a List of Chinese characters if this continues? - Che Nuevara: ^{Join the Revolution} 14:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per disussion we had a few days ago

(Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/喆. Comes close to a CSD (repost) Travelbird 14:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete as utterly no assertion of notability.

Apologies to Tevildo, but I read the first paragraph twice (which is basically all the content worth reading in the article, the rest being a few lists of performers) and I don't see how being a school version of a Broadway musical performed students in some high school in some part of the United States is an assertion of notability in itself. Thus, closing early. Kimchi.sg 15:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unsinkable Molly Brown 2006

Wiki's now being used to listed performers of a highschool production? What's next, who played the tree in Central Elementary's 2nd grade ensemble? Wildthing61476 14:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I played a tree once, but it was in Pre-K. It's verifiable, too -- I'm pretty sure my sister posted a picture on her photobucket. - Che Nuevara: ^{Join the Revolution} 14:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per nom. _Just_ escapes A1 and A7 territory - entirely non-notable. Tevildo 14:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the amusing nom.--Andeh 14:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete hoax, nonsense. Kimchi.sg 16:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Forsyth (girder bender)

Part original research and part vanity, this article is the sole work of 1 editor, and it was his sole contribution. Alex Forsyth Niger returns 3 hits on Google, Forsyth A Cock and Balls Story returns one, and Forsyth Rifles in Donkeys returns none. He also apparently is able to predict his own death. - Che Nuevara: ^{Join the Revolution} 14:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Alex Forsyth (1986-2026) " I would say delete per Wikipedia:Hoaxes Travelbird 14:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:HOAX. Book "failed to reach Waterstone's top 10", presumably because it has not being written, printed or distributed anywhere at all. That's always a chart stumbling-block. --DaveG12345 14:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As hoax, nonsense, etc... Wickethewok 14:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per above. NawlinWiki 14:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Simply a simple hoax DavidHumphreys ^{SPEAK TO ME}ABOUT_{THE THINGS I MESSED UP} 15:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Kimchi.sg 14:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MessUnit

Strong Delete Non-notable article, appears to fail WP:WEB also badly writen. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 07:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete until assertion of notability is given.--Andeh 07:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable, fails WP:WEB. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 08:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn. Haikupoet 02:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, changed to strong delete as page creator is spamming the link to other articles.--Andeh 09:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Andeh 14:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. And, I must say, the above seems like a consensus to me. Tevildo 14:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:47, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carpathian (band)

No evidence of notability per WP:MUSIC Nv8200p talk 14:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete hoax/nn, made up record labels?--Andeh 14:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- JPD (talk) 15:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. Doesn't appear to be a hoax, but doesn't appear to meet WP:MUSIC, either. JPD (talk) 15:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Resist Records do exist, as do the band, but they don't appear on discogs so it is a fair bet they fail WP:MUSIC DavidHumphreys ^{SPEAK TO ME}ABOUT_{THE THINGS I MESSED UP} 15:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Appear to be an active gigging band with a record contract. However, the only verifiable reference from a reliable source is a mention in the Sydney Morning Herald as playing a gig in Sydney. Capitalistroadster 02:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 06:35, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete As it is the current band of a member of I Killed the Prom Queen, a listed band. That is grounds for it's existance. "Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.239.145.125 (talk • contribs) .
Delete nn.Blnguyen | rant-line 01:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep band is in hardcore punk genre, not the mainstream, and has supported notable bands. It does extensive national touring. Paul foord 21:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete CSD G7 - author's request. Kimchi.sg 16:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cosmic Phoenix Productions

"A new flash cartoon production team working on its first project", out of one member's basement, tried to speedy under WP:BIO but author removed tag w/o explanation. NawlinWiki 14:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the person who wrote this article, and I'm a member of the team, thats why I put it here. - SonicChaosBlaze

Strong Delete per nom. And, Sonic, if you don't want your names to be reviled, it's better not to reveal them in this sort of context. Although we probably are going to re-veil them. Hmm... :) Tevildo 15:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well thanks for telling me about my spelling, but I never said we did want them revealed, we only revealed our first names, thats all - Sonic

I don't really understand why you want to delete my article, I mean since I'm a member of the team its perfectly fine, right? - Sonic
Delete per nom. Not notable enough, and actually you re encouraged not to write articles about yourself. JPD (talk) 15:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well I wrote about, OUR TEAM, because no one else knows about us, so I wanted to put out information on us. Come on I even got permision from my the rest of the team. - Sonic
- If you don't remember anything else on this page, do remember this: Become famous elsewhere, before putting a page about yourself on Wikipedia. If you're not famous elsewhere first, no page for you, sorry. Kimchi.sg 15:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not-notable now and they are "currently working its first project". So any claim to notability would be crystal balling. Sonic, see WP:VAIN, WP:BIO and WP:WEB --IslaySolomon 15:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But it is confirmed that we are working on our first project. Besides I've seen stuff like this all over the place, and there's never been a proposle for deletion for them - Sonic
Strong Delete per nom. Mr. Sonic, whether you had permission from the rest of your team or not, Wikipedia does not exist as a forum for advertising your own projects. When and if you gain notoriety in your field, and are written about in the media, someone will write an article about you for Wikipedia. Until such time, you are not notable enough. ---Charles 15:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sonic, see "Criteria for web content" under WP:WEB. I'm really sorry mate, but your web site just doesn't meet these criteria. --IslaySolomon 15:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

COME ON, I've seen other pages like mine and they don't get deleted, so I got to actually be famous to have my own article about my team, thats not fair, and I'm not trying to promote us, I just want to put out info on us. - Sonic
- You can use MySpace or Geocities to put info about yourself and your group. And it probably won't get deleted so easily. Kimchi.sg 15:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I was planing to keep updating it as time went on, man I wish I could just delete the stupid thing on the article......Oh well I'm going to defend my article.-Sonic

Comment With respect, if you're setting about writing an encyclopedia entry about yourself before you've finished your first animation you've probably got your priorities wrong. Also, wikipedia is a terrible way to get yourself heard about. The Mediawiki software has a very inflexable search engine, the only people who'll be able to find your page will be you. And anyone has heard of you can go to your website. --IslaySolomon 15:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So your telling me it was completly pointless for me to write about this, even though I told my friends about it on my teams fourm- Sonic

Comment Well yes, essentially. The point is you haven't actually done anything of note yet. So what sets you appart from every other group of people in the world? Wikipedia is not a free host, blog, webspace provider or social networking site and it is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --IslaySolomon 15:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess your right....I just really wanted to have one of these for my team mates.
Comment Well if that's the case then the best thing you can do is devote this time to putting as much effort as possible into your animations. If they achieve notability then they may find their own way on to wikipedia. --IslaySolomon 15:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, go ahead and delete it.....- Sonic
Delete as per Sonic DavidHumphreys ^{SPEAK TO ME}ABOUT_{THE THINGS I MESSED UP} 15:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete per WP:SNOW, WP:NFT and, more formally, WP:CSD#A7 (and probably A6); the sole claim of notability, being "the subject of numerous comics and an animated feature series", is easily disproven by a quick web search. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 20:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

El squirto

Claims to be "the subject of numerous comics and an animated feature series". I got two Ghits, both from a blog indicating that this was a comic book made up in school to mock some poor schoolkid. NawlinWiki 15:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above. NN/Probable attack page --IslaySolomon 16:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & IslaySolomon. This is the only WP contribution by the user: Special:Contributions/Mengeloid --DaveG12345 16:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can find no evidence of the notability suggested by this article. DrunkenSmurf 16:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, non-notable, fails WP:NFT. Quite possibly an A6 candidate. --Core des at talk. o.o;; 19:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Forumsvibe

Spamvertising for forum hosting site; author removed prod tag NawlinWiki 15:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not find this as advertising. But if you think it is, what is needed to be done if this topic should remain here on wikipedia?--ChrillDeVille 15:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:WEB and WP:SPAM DavidHumphreys ^{SPEAK TO ME}ABOUT_{THE THINGS I MESSED UP} 15:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have now removed all the links except the one to Forumsvibe, so this cannot be counted as advertising for those special forums ChrillDeVille 16:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom & David Humphreys. For me, "what is needed to be done" might include getting an Alexa ranking well out of the >40,000 range, but unfortunately WP isn't here to help make that happen, sorry. --DaveG12345 16:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:WEB -- Alias Flood 20:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, not an article, an advertisement.--Andeh 20:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Alexa ranking well out of the >40,000 range" What´s that then? ChrillDeVille 19:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sorry, should have linked it. This. Just a rule of thumb that, added to other problems per nom & David Humphreys that I agreed with (see above), convince me that this site lacks required notablity. Hence I said "what is needed to be done might include..." this. --DaveG12345 01:06, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable commercial venture. --Satori Son 16:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was no consensus - default to keep Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 01:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Easterly

Delete non notable individual who fails to meet WP:BIO. Simply serving as a director of a golf association does not make him notable or encyclopedic. Strothra 15:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Millions of ghits (well slightly exagerated, but you know what I mean. DavidHumphreys ^{SPEAK TO ME}ABOUT_{THE THINGS I MESSED UP} 16:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Google hit counts do not establish notability in the article or the notability of the individual in general. When did google become the definition of notability?--Strothra 16:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's not just "a golf association", it's the USGA - governing body for golf in the US and Mexico since 1894. Plenty of web hits on reputable golf sites (e.g., Golf Digest), and Easterly is notable enough that ESPN, CBS Sportsline, and The Boston Globe (among many others) saw fit to publish obituaries on him. Dsreyn 16:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Re query from Strothra -- Here DavidHumphreys ^{SPEAK TO ME}ABOUT_{THE THINGS I MESSED UP} 16:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I'm quite aware of that, but it's not policy and even it doesn't say anything about the use of google to defintively proove notability. --Strothra 17:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. For what it's worth, notability isn't a policy either, even though it is frequently used to justify deletion. Dsreyn 19:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as notable. Those obit links from Dsreyn should ideally be added to the article as references. --DaveG12345 16:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Added the obits as references. Dsreyn 17:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Although I don't think that such a position should qualify automatically for inclusion, I recognise the prominence. Even so, I am unconvinced that such figures have the right degree of notability. It's not whether one holds a position that is relevant, it is how the role is fulfilled. -- Alias Flood 19:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems to have been the equivalent of Commissioner of a major sport which would make him notable ex officio, IMO. Eluchil404 02:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mondegar

Completely non-notable bar. If this stays can I list the numerous bars in and around my neighborhood of Fells Point? Wildthing61476 15:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sounds like the kind of place I must remember to avoid if im in that neck of the woods ... eeek!!! i might get enveloped in music playing from jukebox. Fails WP:BAR DavidHumphreys ^{SPEAK TO ME}ABOUT_{THE THINGS I MESSED UP} 16:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, or every nn cafe-bar in the world will want one. --DaveG12345 16:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom -- Alias Flood 19:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plantagenet Players

nn amateur theatre group, gets 40 hits on google, poorly written, reads as ad Burgwerworldz 16:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Whilst displaying extraordinary detail over the minutiae, this is simply not notable enough for WP. --DaveG12345 16:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per mon ... and ... WP:BORING DavidHumphreys ^{SPEAK TO ME}ABOUT_{THE THINGS I MESSED UP} 16:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Richhoncho 11:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jenn Habel

Delete. Fails notability guidelines for people -- articles does not reflect "multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work" nor does person seem to be part of historical record. (Yes, article reflects one award — not multiple awards — and award itself seems to be non-notable.) — Mike (talk • contribs) 16:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Award was not even won by the subject of the article. --DaveG12345 16:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above -- Alias Flood 19:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I disagree with all of you. Jenn Habel is known within poetry circles as an up-and-coming poet, and she is married to a pretty significant American novelist. I can add to this article if it will help keep her up here. The article is just skant, is all. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Parkerposes (talk • contribs) 03:43, 10 Jul 2006 (UTC)
- Take a look at Wikipedia:Notability (people). Does your knowledge of her indicate that she would meet those guidelines? — Mike (talk • contribs) 03:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - well, speaking as a poet, i'd say contemporary poets form a wide fan base and that her chapbook was very well received. she's a known emerging poet. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Parkerposes (talk • contribs) 04:11, 10 Jul 2006 (UTC)
    - Please sign your posts by including four tildes after your remarks — ~~~~. There are plenty of up-and-coming bands, authors, and so on that simply don't meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines yet. Again, if you've got a decent argument for why she meets Wikipedia's notability standards for people (as provided in my link), please let us know — we're not poets, and thus may not be as familiar with Ms. Habel as you. But also be aware that the simple fact that she's good (in your and/or others' eyes) is not sufficient reason in this debate. — Mike (talk • contribs) 04:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Hello. Well, I will leave it up to you. I guess I would consider her a significant poet and to have a significant following in the world of chapbooks and paper arts, but I don't want to step on anyone's toes. I mean, I've never met her or anything. I know a lot of my colleagues found her book beautiful. She's not as infamous as WS Merwin or Sylvia Plath, but there are so few poetry superstars in the contemporary world...it's not the same as the world of fiction or rock, where there are clear celebrities...I guess, looking at the link you sent me, I consider her to have a fan base. Thanks, I'll leave it to your discretion. Parkerposes 04:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, let me ask you this. One criteria for people's notability is: "Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work." Can you provide references of Ms. Habel having received multiple independent reviews of or awards for her work? (I know that there's the reference to her semifinalist — but that's not an award, just a placement.) — Mike (talk • contribs) 04:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        OK, i tried to delete it, but i guess i'm not supposed to! Parkerposes 04:46, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        No, only administrators can delete articles. — Mike (talk • contribs) 17:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was - with opinion split down the middle and arguments to notability largely unaddressed as to why they are insufficient, no consensus. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 00:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OpenLinkVirtuoso now named Virtuoso Universal Server

Advertisement for a product created by its author, KingsleyIdehen (talk · contribs). Almost an exact copy of Virtuoso Universal Server which is also nominated for deletion. waffle iron ^talk 18:38, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete advertisement, nn product. Tychocat 21:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Should we place the criteria for notability in RDBMS at OracleOracle and Informix? No, certainly not! Wikipedia has a huge hole in coverage on companies and their products. Even major companies, with tens of thousands of employes, are often missing. If the company was merged or went out of business more than five years ago, it certainly will not have an article. We cannot set the limit on notability on the few existing artiles, but must aim for far wider coverage. -- Petri Krohn 00:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So, advertisements about anything are fine by you? I might guess that "aiming for far wider coverage" does have its limits, and a line would have to be drawn somewhere. Tychocat 01:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you feel the text reads like an advertisment, it is critisism of the present form of the article (and should be improved). It has however no bearing on the notability of the subject (the issue under discussion here). Major open source software projects are, in my mind, notable. -- Petri Krohn 12:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If I believe the text reads like an advertisement, it is a reason for deletion under WP:NOT. You are correct it has nothing to do with notability, but then, I also believe the product is not notable - another reason for deletion. Major open source software projects would be notable, but no such documented claims are given here. Tychocat 10:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, or merge with Virtuoso Universal Server -- Petri Krohn 12:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Let me get this straight: Virtuoso Universal Server is nominated for deletion. Less than 24 hours later this article is created (by the author of the product in question) with nearly identical content under a different name? And then Petri Krohn (talk • contribs), who voted keep above, redirects the Virtuoso Universal Server article to this article while both AfDs are still open?!? Have I got all that right? My suggestion: Delete this page; it looks to me like an attempt to interfere with the VUS AfD. Let the VUS article survive or fail on its own merits. If OpenLinkVirtuoso is, in fact, the correct name — to judge by the web site, it isn't, though — then the VUS article can be moved to this name if it survives AfD. --Craig Stuntz 16:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I assume good faith. The duplicate articles seem to me like and attempted page move by an inexperienced editor/self-promoter. The AfD process cannot be a ban on improving the articles. On the contrary, it should encourage people to do their best to save the articles. Copy-paste duplication is the worst fault of this article, and it needs immediate attention.

As to the author, Kingsley Idehen. Google claims to get about 94,600 hits for "Kingsley Idehen". (About ten times as many as my name.) In reality there are 187 "most relevant results". Most of these are in respected web and paper publications. I do not think this guy needs any self-promotion on Wikipedia. He is notable by himself. I believe the same can be said about the software product. -- Petri Krohn 22:16, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment continues... No, I did not come here to promotote some odd piece of software. - (I usually stay away from subjects I have experice on.) - I came across these articles, because my morning paper Helsingin Sanomat writes that Mr. Tapani Erling has just been elected chairman of the Council of the World Customs Organization (a non-notable intergovernmental organization with only 168 member states). It just so happens, that Tapani Erling is the father of Orri Erling, the program manager for Virtuoso at OpenLink Software. I wrote a stub article on Tapani, but was surprised to see that Orri's equally notable work was getting such a beating in Wikipedia. -- Petri Krohn 23:53, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I never asserted that you tried to promote the software. I don't happen to think it's true, although I don't think your redirect was appropriate for an article in AfD. So I am wondering why you redirected the article yet again. Please don't remove AfD notices while they are open. Please note that redirecting the article is effectively removing the AfD. I have no issue with the mergeto, however. --Craig Stuntz 00:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, no scratch that. I didn't notice that you also removed all of the article content. Again, not appropriate for an article up for AfD. --Craig Stuntz 00:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving the boilerplate and placing the #redirect after the text should create a "soft" redirect. The user will see the warning and have the option of following the links. I think I also tested this functionality and found it working. Evidently you did not, before reverting. -- Petri Krohn 00:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. I reverted because you blanked the article while the AfD was open. That's the only revert I did. Please check your facts before making presumptions. --Craig Stuntz 12:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. All this is very confusing with the moves, redirects, blankings, and so forth. I just closed the article on Virtuso Universal Server as a DELETE (discussion here based on the consensus at that AfD. This AfD has not reached a consensus and ought to be relisted. However, if the content of this article is to be retained, it looks like it should go under an article named "Virtuso Universal Server" rather than this article name (OpenLinkVirtuoso), as that appears to be the correct name... so I will now move both the article to that (just-deleted) name, as well as this AfD, and relist this AfD, hoping that that makes the most sense. Herostratus 16:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Virtuoso Universal Server formerly OpenLinkVirtuoso

AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Herostratus 16:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. To clarify - OpenLinkVirtuoso has now been moved to Virtuoso Universal Server, so this AfD is now actually an AfD on the article named Virtuoso Unviersal Server. The previous article named Virtuoso Universal Server has just recently been deleted per consensus at that AfD. It's claimed above that the content of thetwo articles was very similar, for what that is worth. The whole thing looks a ploy to prevent Virtuoso Universal Server (or at any rate the material in the article) from being deleted at its AfD, so in a way this could be seen as a re-creation of a deleted article, but it's not as clear-cut as that, since the article OpenLinkVirtuoso was created before (the original) Virtuoso Universal Server article was deleted. Ploy or no, I don't see that convincing arguments have been made at either AfD, so I think we should look at it again and that the article should stand or fall on its merits. Herostratus 17:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To be precise, OpenLinkVirtuoso was created after Virtuoso Universal Server was AfDed but before that AfD was closed. --Craig Stuntz 18:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've come to have a look and form an opinion. I think matching the article name with the new heading above may help clarify the situation. Stephen B Streater 18:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- OK. Hope I did it correctly. Herostratus 18:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- non-notable/not-significant software, per proposed guideline WP:SOFTWARE.--Leflyman^Talk 18:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: my initial comments were based on the limited number of entries (just 200) when Googling "OpenLinkVirtuoso" -- this appears to be a mis-titling, as "OpenLink Virtuoso" (with a space) produces over 33,000 entries (subtracting out "Wikipedia"). Thus, I am changing to a tentative keep, with a rewrite pointing to verifiable, recent sources for the content, rather than a single press release[45] and a three year old article [46]. I'd like to see the article explain who's using the software; what have reviewers actually said are its benefits, innovations or advances over comparable packages? Right now, it's just promotional. --Leflyman^Talk 00:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Network World seems to have a reasonable review, and it says: This is an enormous product and implies a serious commitment on the part of adopters due to its scope and range of services. The interview podcast refers to two previous stories in InfoWorld here (Virtuoso packs more technology into one product than seems possible.) and here (I can't think of another product that supports as many data pathways — or does so as intelligently — as Virtuoso). These articles, by two different people in two different publications, seem quite in-depth, particularly the last two. So it would appear to meet WP:SOFTWARE criteria 1 and 2. Whether the article needs a cleanup is another issue, which I'll look into later. Stephen B Streater 18:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You might also include criteria 6 (The software has won an independent award or honor, including mention as one of the top ten applications in its class in an independent published list.), as Kingsley Idehen was nominated a 2003 InfoWorld Innovator for "his scientific instincts to build Virtuoso, a wildly innovative virtual database...". (Or should this only be counted forward the creators notability?) -- Petri Krohn 23:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I struck out my delete vote in the original discussion because that vote was based on the duplicate article and the blanking, which appeared to me to be interfering with the AfD. Hopefully that won't happen the second time around and with only one article. No vote from me just yet. --Craig Stuntz 20:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as advertising. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have expanded the article and made it less like simple promotional material. The product itself is notewothy. -- Petri Krohn 07:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- How, exactly, is it noteworthy? Could you cite some sources, please? Something more substantial than "packs more technology into one product than seems possible." Dpbsmith (talk) 11:03, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - What sort of things are you looking for? We have some significant independent press coverage already, as well as loads of Google hits. Stephen B Streater 14:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - softwaremag.com list OpenLink Software, Inc in their Software 500 list of the largest software companies globally [47]. (I did not register, so I did not see the actual figures for 2005.) According to 2002 figures available here OpenLink Software was number 476 with sales of $4.0 and 64 employees. I think being listed in a global list of top 500 makes a company and their main product notable. -- Petri Krohn 09:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment An other claim to notability is related to Wikipedia itself. Wikipedia runs on top a MySQL database. MySQL is usually regarded a Swedish project, but in fact it has its roots in Finland, with both the founder and the current CEO being Finns. With the new section on "History" the article now provides a "noteworthy insight into the history database technology development in Finland." The Kubl RDBMS (now called Virtuoso) was in fact one of a large set of Finnish database start-ups, several of them still playing a major role in the global RDBMS market. This concentration of database developement in the home town of Linus Torvalds and Nokia can be no coincidence. -- Petri Krohn 07:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That is a tenious connection at best. That seems like some sort of original research. --waffle iron ^talk 23:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was} delete. Verifiability is non-negotiable, Wikipedia is not the place for neologisms, and as has been adequately addressed below (in particular by Craig Stuntz), the sources provided do not give confidence either that this article is sufficiently verified as an accepted term as it stands, nor that a consistent universally accepted definition for this term could be given if someone tried to rewrite it. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 00:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Universal server

Apparantly this is related to Virtuoso Universal Server which is currently also at AfD. Both articles were created by User:KingsleyIdehen. The nominator of the AfD for Universal Virtual Server also included the article Universal server in the nomination, but the deletion of that article (the first version, not the current relist) did not entail the deletion of Universal server, per the discussion, in my opinion (I closed that AfD).

The original AfD for Virtuoso Universal Server is here
The current AfD for Virtuoso Universal Server (a relist of the AfD for OpenLinkVirtuoso) is here.

The allegation is that this article (Universal server) is all part of a ploy to get a link to OpenLink into Wikipedia. Be that as it may, the article should stand or fall on its own merits. Herostratus 19:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral as nominator. Herostratus 19:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO. No evidence shown of use of this term outside of product marketing. The products themselves may be notable, but the marketing is not, and the term doesn't appear to have any use outside of that. I agree with Herostratus that this issue should be considered separately from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Virtuoso Universal Server, though. --Craig Stuntz 20:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO and as advertising. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Information technology produces hundreds of "neologisms" for emerging new consepts, WP:NEO is no grounds for deletion. A google search shows that the phrase "universal server" is widely used. -- Petri Krohn 06:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Being a neologism is not a reason for deletion? WP:NEO says it is ("In many cases, articles on neologisms get deleted (either via proposed deletion or Articles for deletion). Articles on protologisms are almost always deleted as these articles are often created in an attempt to use Wikipedia to increase usage of the term."), and many articles are deleted for this reason. Here's one example. The Google search is frankly not informative. The PC Mag dictionary entry would be persuasive if it actually supported the article, but, well, click through and see what it says. --Craig Stuntz 13:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anything published in a IT encyclopedia is old even before it is printed, by the time it is available for free on-line, it is most likely outdated. The dictonary only shows that the term was already used in the 1990s, although its meaning may have evolved since then. -- Petri Krohn 01:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It hasn't "evolved." It's describing something completely different. The so-called "definition" in the article is unsupported by any reference and simply describes the Virtuoso Universal Server product. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the other products mentioned at the end or the definition from PC magazine, which mostly describes those other products and never found common use. These are all brand names, not a product category. --Craig Stuntz 15:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Petri Krohn. Also note that PCMag lists it in their dictionary. While the term is used in product names, there are 3 companies offering the technology. So while Virtuoso Universal Server may be commercial cruft, the generic term seems notable. Dgies 06:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the PC mag article doesn't describe the term as used here (read it). There are, in fact, more than three companies who make a product which they dub a "Universal Server," but they all do different things. Not listed in the article, for example, is RealNetworks's Helix Universal Server, which is a web server with a streaming media feature. Then there's PGP Universal Server, which is a firewall that can supply public keys. There are many other examples, but I'm purposely limiting discussion here to those which are substantially more well-known than the OpenLink product. Oracle Universal Server, while referenced in the article, doesn't meet the "definition" given there. In short, an accurate definition of the term might be, "A server for which the vendor's marketing department has determined that the adjective 'Universal' would maximize revenue." That's all fine and good, but it's not notable in my opinion and it's certainly not what the article says right now. --Craig Stuntz 13:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Change this into a disambiguation page listing the various notable products that are known as "universal servers." Perhaps also include a dictionary definition of the general concept of a "universal server," if needed. 68.50.203.109 09:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

VirtualStorm

Lacks verifiability, notability. No Google hits. —Caesura ^(t) 16:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -Big Smooth 17:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as stated. --insiriusdenial 18:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Alias Flood 19:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. - brenneman ^{L} 04:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elena Baramova

Contested PROD. Does not seem to meet the notability guidelines at WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO. No more notable than thousands of other opera singers around the world. Delete. User:Angr 21:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; international tour meets WP:MUSIC. —EdGl 21:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an "international tour" doesn't make a musician notable. The article reads like a resume. She seems very promising and moderately successful but early in her career and unestablished. No amazon listing at all. 295 google hits most of which are wikipedia or mirrors. Zero eBay results (where you can sometimes find obscure artists.) Zero hits on Gracenote (a very complete database of nearly every CD in existence).--Nick Y. 22:53, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is probably because she is from Bulgaria, a non-English speaking country (the Internet is predominantly English). —EdGl 23:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment most of the non-wikipedia related google hits are not in english. The official State Opera Web Site] only acknowledges her as a soloist among Stoyan Ivanov, Martin Iliev,Ivaylo Dzhurov, Alexander Krunev,Elena Baramova, Larisa Malici, Linka Stoyanova, Petya Dimitrova, Adreana Nikolova, Emilia Ivanova, Silvia Vasileva, Stoyan Daskalov, Sergey Gontovyy, Diman Panchev, Dobri Dobrev, Mila Koleva, Evgeni Dimitrov. She has yet to make List_of_Bulgarians, which may have dubious entries anyway. Orlin Goranov appears to stand out above the rest of the company but he does not have a wikipedia page. There are many opera singers in the world. I have nothing against Bulgarians but the opera which she is associated with is in a town of 164,000 people Stara Zagora. That is why they go on tour. I have non-notable friends that have sung parts in major metopolitan opera houses. --Nick Y. 00:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, so the group she's in is touring, and she's just one in the group. I'll change my vote then. Delete per Nick Y. —EdGl 02:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article needs clean-up but soprano soloists for state opera companies are more notable than plenty of bands that scrape through WP:MUSIC; she's toured, she's won awards, what's nn about that. Eluchil404 12:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The company which she has been a member of for 1 year has toured, as they do every year. Nearly everyone in the company has the chance to solo. The awards she has won seem relatively non-notable. I think the opera company is notable even though it is small and from a small town, it has a long history, a dedicated building (sort of, it's actually multi-use)and the company tours neighboring countries.--Nick Y. 17:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mango juice^talk 16:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Googling for Елена Баръмова throws up a reasonable number of Bulgarian hits (given that there aren't all that many Bulgarian sites to start with). It's not as though we're overwhelmed by articles on Bulgarian singers. Dlyons493 Talk 18:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep has a fairly impressive resume if we compare her with the film and television actors we tend to keep. Would like to see some sources to the award claims, therefore only a weak keep. --eivind ^t ^@^c 20:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - brenneman ^{L} 04:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wednesday White

Promotional vanity piece, claims to have "lay the foundation and tone adopted by today's bloggers" but does not contain anything in the way of references, not even a personal blog link. RFerreira 21:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; boarderline speedy, totally nn. —EdGl 21:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom--Nick Y. 22:55, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The notability line for webcomics should probably be drawn. And in my opinion (though not my vote, since I'm abstaining), that line can't be straddled by Wednesday and Websnark. Either both stay, or both go. -- Grev 17:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mango juice^talk 17:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:VAIN by WP:NN. I found this Google Group post interesting during my research. Maybe that should be popped into this article if it survives - at least it's *a* citation. --DaveG12345 17:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Re Websnark mentioned in the previous discussion by Grev - FWIW, a blog with an Alexa rating of 177,000 can go as well, for me. --DaveG12345 17:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom -- Alias Flood 19:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 20:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC) [reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wychwoodstudios art directory

Non-notable website/directory. Fails WP:WEB and Google test. (Attempted PROD). mtz206 (talk) 17:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORP and WP:WEB loads of ghits but mostly look like directories etc, so may even fail WP:SPAM. Poss WP:VAIN. DavidHumphreys ^{SPEAK TO ME}ABOUT_{THE THINGS I MESSED UP} 17:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete spam. Also, this is practically on my doorstep and I've never heard of it. Just zis Guy you know? 17:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Haakon 18:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom -- Alias Flood 18:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Herb Rubenstein

Contested PROD. Until he actually wins a seat in Congress he does not meet the notability guidelines at WP:BIO. Delete. User:Angr 17:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as vanity article created by User:HerbforCongress. JChap 21:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: same reasons as listed in Bryan Simonaire. But before you go Herb, what's your opinion on licencing Herceptin for NHS hospitals? --die Baumfabrik 23:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as vanity article used for political purposes

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Department of Chemical Engineering and Technology

No indication that this university department has any individual notability or fame, like the Cavendish Laboratory or the Lincoln Laboratory have. Delete, since there is nothing worth merging into the article of the university that it is part of. Dr Zak 17:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:VSCA: nothing but trivia, listcruft and conclusory statements. JChap 19:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge sensible content to Panjab University and Delete. utcursch | talk 12:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was BA-L333333TED!. Mailer Diablo 04:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I LIEK MILK!!!!!!!!

There's absolutely nothing notable about this site. It was some minor net meme many years ago and now seems utterly forgotten. Remember, we're writing an encyclopedia of general knowledge, not a compendium of every little stupid site someone put online. --Cyde↔Weys 17:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:WEB and WP:SPAM and WP:VAIN DavidHumphreys ^{SPEAK TO ME}ABOUT_{THE THINGS I MESSED UP} 17:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, I don't liek unnotable krap (Alexa gives me >3,000,000 for the actual site, the revival does not start here). --DaveG12345 17:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ephemera past its sell-by date. Just zis Guy you know? 17:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails my exclamation-point test. (ESkog)^(Talk) 18:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (Too many exclamation marks are a bad thing!) -- Alias Flood 18:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This article was previously nominated in January and was kept with No Consensus. The previous AfD discussion is here. Herostratus 20:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The previous AfD had quite a few Keep votes. This may have been influence partly by the first commenter in the previous AfD, who noted 19,000 Google hits on the phrase; I get 274 unique hits, so one of us is doing something wrong. It may meet WP:MEMES. Herostratus 20:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - It sounds like he didn't quote the phrase properly in the search. Also, note that WP:MEMES is merely a proposed guideline and it has a significant number of detractors (myself included) who think that it sets the bar for inclusion in the encyclopedia far too low. --Cyde↔Weys 20:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Actually, reviewing WP:MEMES, maybe it's not as bad as I thought. The only guideline for notability is "has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works in reliable sources independent of the meme itself". There's no way in hell this meme meets that guideline. Maybe, maybe, it was written up in a newspaper, but it wouldn't have been anything but a fluff piece, and thus trivial. --Cyde↔Weys 20:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DELEET!!!!!!!!! Non-notable, has already been forgotten, no cultural impact of any sort. GassyGuy 20:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Who the heck would make an article like this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bibliomaniac15 (talk • contribs)
Delete hopelessly unencyclopedic. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Or shall we just renominate any article we dislike for AfD ad infinitum until it finally gets deleted? dryguy 21:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment To be fair, the previous AfD discussion was 5 1/2 months ago. I'm also against re-nominating articles, but not if the previous vote, which occurred a somewhat long time ago, was a "no consensus". -- Kicking222 23:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't see this ever being notable nor meeting WP:MEME. -- Kicking222 23:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable site. --musicpvm 03:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per before. Notable internet meme, etc. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:03, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Who will want to know about this in 10 years? --Planetary

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:13, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mar Iohannes

Not notable --Macarion 17:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability claim seem weak: only 135 Google entries (subtracting wikipedia); no secondary sources to be found; main information comes from two primary source bios: [48] and [49]. --Leflyman^Talk 17:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO - Alias Flood 18:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. -- Steel 23:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:13, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PC Gamer Forums

Consists of nothing more than a badly formed and non-wikified list of administrators on PC Gamer's forum. I don't see how this is encyclopedic or notable. Dvandersluis 17:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:Not worthy of a separate article. If you must, mention them in the PCGamer article, but there really isn't much to say other than they exist. --Hetar 17:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No, don't. We shouldn't be listing a bunch of screen names of non-notable administrators of web forums. Plus, you know how hard that would be to keep up to date? --Cyde↔Weys 18:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, Cyde, I wasn't referring to mentioning the administrators and other minutia, just to a simple phrase saying that their website has forums. --Hetar 19:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non-significant forum, failing WP:WEB --Leflyman^Talk 17:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is just another one of those articles on non-notable web forums. --Cyde↔Weys 18:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom -- Alias Flood 18:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to PC Gamer.--Andeh 19:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with PC Gamer article huntersquid 20:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No need to keep. Bibliomaniac15 20:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete really just a list of users. Typically poor and unenyclopedic forum article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, redirect to PC Gamer; I can't see the point. It would be fine if it were an article about the Community, the nature of discussions, etc (like Slashdot), but a list of users? CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 02:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Poorly formatted, poorly written. delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.143.77.0 (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result of the debate was nomination withdrawn. --Core des at talk. o.o;; 02:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chua's circuit

According to the reference in the talk page, there are over 700 papers about this circuit. So why aren't any of them referenced in the article. ~~I'd suggest speedy (no assertion of notability), but I'm not sure that applies to electrical circuits.~~ See below — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Expand. [50] might be a start. Definitely a notable circuit for the amateur chaos theoretician. Tevildo 18:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's even got a book about it. Dlyons493
- Amazon rank #3,086,346??? How many copies is that? 4? Nonetheless, Withdraw AfD, and Speedy Keep (with an expand tag). — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well yes, but then it's got very little sex, religion or politics in it :-) There's at least two books and over 800 Google Scholar hits so I think it really is notable among electrical circuits. 20:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Keep for the reasons above. --ColourBurst 20:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above - though I'm sure they've been putting these in toasters for years. --DaveG12345 01:40, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shanks, a film by Darren Fisher

Non-notable short film. The award he received for this film doesn't seem to exist as far as I can see. "National Youth Filmmaker Society" gets 9 Google hits, all MySpace links. Okay...actually, looking further...it only exists as an entity on MySpace [51]. 27 unique Google hits for "Darren Fisher" Shanks. Delete as non-notable film. Metros232 17:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, a short myspace film. Right now this does not in any way seem to be notable. DrunkenSmurf 19:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong, strong, Magnus ver Magnusson-strong delete So highly non-notable, it boggles the mind. -- Kicking222 23:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The only reference I could find to "National Youth Filmmaker Society" was a forum linked off that (IMO rather fugly) myspace page. --DaveG12345 01:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost in the Shell (anime film series) and Ghost in the Shell (video game) (disambiguation)

Delete An unused and unneeded disambig page for two other articles. I had originally prod'ed it, but an anon wanted to make it into a redirect. I have no idea why. This is just basic house cleaning. -- Ned Scott 18:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to co-nominate Ghost in the Shell (video game) (disambiguation) for the same reasons as above. -- Ned Scott 18:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I think the main disambiguation page is adequate. --ColourBurst 18:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Both per nom. Not quite a G6 as they're still "live" disambigs, but I agree they're useless. Tevildo 19:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- TheFarix (Talk) 23:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Kunzite 04:06, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Zoz (t) 12:57, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was speedy deleted. Mailer Diablo 04:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Socket (music)

Not notable --Macarion 18:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per A7. Molerat 19:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per Molerat. No assertion of notability. --DaveG12345 19:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete makes no, oh... per Dave. ~Kylu (u|t) 05:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. (ESkog)^(Talk) 20:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MVPMods

Delete. The article has absolutely no legitimate basis for existing within Wikipedia's database, for it was clearly created based on an individual's biased perspective on an internet website. The article contains many unnecessary references to certain individuals and actually derides them within its text. This is absolutely unnecessary and should not be tolerated. Very little factual information is being displayed, for the article is filled with opinionated, idiosyncratic statements with the sole intention of promoting the website. The absence of a neutral point of view throughout it, the inability to verify many of the article's statements, and the fact that it was written from an idiosyncratic perspective with the intention of advertising the webpage on Wikipedia, thus, legitimizes its deletion. Furthermore, one can visit the website's forum itself at www.mvpmods.com and discover that the creation of this page has clearly been an immature advertising campaign in order to arouse amusement amongst its members. Themaroons 18:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- commentIt is the duty of the voters here to change their votes from deletion to keep. The article is cited in the media unlike other forums found on wikipedia. The initial creation of the article, far before this version, was done without the members of the site's knowledge for purposes dealing with information, not advertising. People here hinge their deletion arguments on "dopesn't satify wiki requirements" or "too much pov statements." These have all been deleted and citation has been added. Change your vote, change your reasoning, or admit that you have no interest in sticking to wiki's actual rules and purpose: information for the people. --wikilagata, 7 July 2006
Delete fails WP:WEB, 715 Ghits, Alexa in the 90,000 ballpark. Ahem. --DaveG12345 18:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable website Wildthing61476 18:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Actually, I like a little immaturity. ;-) The site is the kind of thing you like if you like that kind of thing, but an Alexa ranking of 91,836 and no assertion in the article of anything that would meet the WP:WEB criteria means this one is going, going, gone. JChap 19:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Alexa scores and Ghits are not listed in WP:WEB, The site has been mentioned in a few computer games magazines including Computer Games magazine June 2005 on pg 77. Krawhitham 19:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment against vote From what I understand your vote should not even be counted since you are very clearly a major contributor to the article. This is, in fact, according to wikipedia's policy Razum2000 21:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for vote That doesn't subtract from its legitimacy.
Comment against vote Same reason as Razum's. Seems that those who support MVP Mods are either contributors or their friends. While I think the site should get a mention in the article for the game that it's based on, this attempt to create an article is simply for promoting the site. Also, there's seems to be implication that those who are for keeping the articles are somehow "management" or "bosses" of Wikipedia who are holding the good guys down. I sense immaturity is running rampant here. -- CRiyl 01:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Comment against comment against vote So, those who are interested in Subject X are unsurprisingly interested in Subject X in Wikipedia. And People who participate in Subject X outside wikipedia should be ignored as they are biased. Gotcha. Only those entirely ignorant of the world of sports-videogaming should judge.Corinh 02:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If by "Subject X" you mean MVP Baseball, then yes as it is a well-known franchise that has (p)reviewed by many in the video game media and was a subject (or victim, depending on your POV) of the sports game licensing wars. If you mean modifying video games in general then there's already an article for it. I don't see anything wrong with contributing to either MVP Baseball or game mods article to illustrate how places like MVP Mods extend the game experience given those contributions conform to policy. Nobody's judging; stay cool. -- CRiyl 03:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Keep It is a legitimate website, for a legitimate community, for a legitimate videogame. Websites and much smaller geeky star trek forums have wiki entries. MVPmods was on page 77 of the June 2005 Computer Games magazine. It is the largest community of its kind, it has a quality entry which has the community's history, it is definitely a keeper.wikilagata 16:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:WEB notes that "the article itself must provide proof that its subject meets one of these criteria (i.e., the WP:WEB criteria) via inlined links or a 'Reference' or 'External link' section". I see no such proof, so it fails WP:WEB. The other statistics constitute additional relevant information. --DaveG12345 19:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment WP:WEB requires that the site have been "the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." [emphasis added.] A mention in one mag does not establish sufficient notability. JChap 20:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment WP:WEBThe content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine Krawhitham 20:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment Notice that he stressed the words "subject" and "multiple". Can you prove that the web site was the SUBJECT of MULTIPLE articles? Razum2000 20:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment you are confusing #1 with #3

The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster

VS

The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. Krawhitham 20:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sorry, have just seen this bit of the discussion above - is it being claimed above that the content of this website (i.e., its actual mod files in this case) have been "distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster"? Is that what is being claimed here (because that's what WP:WEB3 is referring to)? Please provide some evidence if this type of distribution of the site's content has taken place. Thanks. --DaveG12345 00:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is all of this proved in the article, as WP:WEB insists? If not, it fails WP:WEB.--DaveG12345 21:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The links section contains two Computer Games articles, only one of which mentions (but does not feature) MVPmods. Please note that I have been trying to help you here by telling you what you have to include in the article so that it meets Wikipedia standards. JChap 21:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have to agree with JChap. I have been contributing to this web site for quite some time and just cannot see how this article can be included in its encyclopedia database. Yes, certain web sites that are NOTEWORTHY (IGN, Yahoo, Google) should certainly be the subjects of articles. I have never heard of MVPMods, however, prior to locating its page today. Failure to cite its significance further justifies its deletion. Themaroons 21:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ok, well if YOU have never heard of it, it must not be worthy of inclusion. I personally don't think there should be any entires about modding and mods for any games in the wiki but there are. There's loads of entries about mods and sites for first person shooters [52]but because the best selling baseball game of all-time is not popular among Wikipedians it becomes not worthy of inclusion (example - it is not even listed as a 'Notable release' here [53]. MVP 2005 is a popular game amongst the general public, many of whom are not as internet-savvy as those in the first person shooter communities. The PS2 version alone was the 7th highest selling game in the US last year[54], (The mvpmods site is a site devoted to PS2, Xbox and PC versions of the game) I have yet to see anyone 'expert' in the world of sports video-gaming disagree with the notion that mvpmods is the most popular site for video game baseball modding. Also there are no big ign or gamespy awards for mods and sites like there are for first person shooters. And it is also difficult for major sites like ESPN and others to refer to the site because of a concern about being seen to tacitly endorse possible licencing violations with various 'unlicenced' players (Barry Bonds) and things like beer advertisments being included in some of the mods. Corinh 22:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If the ARTICLE does not prove that it passes WP:WEB, it fails WP:WEB. This has nothing to do with popularity among Wikipedians. This has to do with proving notability as per agreed guidelines as they stand at this time. The burden of proof is on the article to demonstrate it is a notable subject, not on Wikipedians to prove it isn't. If the activities of the website are such that they potentially break game licenses and cause potential legal issues for reliable reporting sources (as seems to be claimed here), then why on earth should Wikipedia be left open to those same potential legal problems by including an article about the site on here? Wikipedia insists on reliable third party sources exactly because it wants verifiability, which guards against any potential legal issues. This is not a blog hosting site for mavericks and avant-garde niche artistes who are otherwise put down by The Man and his awkward insistence on the Law, this is an encyclopedia, beholden to applicable laws itself. Might I also suggest another reason for a lack of reporting in those reliable third-party sources? Perhaps the site is, in fact, not notable enough? --DaveG12345 23:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It does, a piece has been provided from Computer Games Magazine ABOUT the site. You say the article is not about the site, but it is, if you actually read it. Wikipedia has no legal problems refering to the site because wikipedia does not have a commercial relationship with Major League Baseball. The burden of proof seems to be much lower for games with a large following amongst the 'hardcore' internet community. It seems a mention in a magazine is all they need.Corinh 23:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment With respect it does not. "1. The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself". Multiple = more than one. And, BTW, "I" have said nothing about the article, and "I" have read it. There's no point commenting on the article because it's still only one, isn't it? --DaveG12345 00:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete what purpose do the comments listed below serve? this article is just filled with these types of opinionated statements. I hardly see this article as "encyclopedic".

his uniform updates are unmatched
many accuse and believe Krawhitham and Hory to be the same person. While Krawhitham embraces this accusation, Hory finds it insulting
Only the administrators of MVPmods know the truth
Since he continued to claim he did not do it (and continues to this day), he was banned permanently. Razum2000 20:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment All of that was removed before your post Krawhitham 20:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment apparently the changes were made following the entry. And no, not all of it has been removed actually. Razum2000 20:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- - Comment the changes to all but one "his uniform updates are unmatched" were made a 19:05 your message was at 20:11 apparently the most of the changes were made before your entry Krawhitham 20:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can assure you that those changes had not been made when I read the article and noted those comments. The submission of my entry was done at that time yet they must have been removed prior to it. Razum2000 20:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That's an argument for cleaning up the article, not deleting the article entirely.Corinh 20:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment numerous entire sections are rife with these types of statements. references are being made to "sigs" without even addressing what this is. this article is really nothing more than a billboard for the web page. Razum2000 20:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Site has over 31,000 registered users, and is widely acknowleged in the sports-gaming community as the #1 site for baseball video gaming. According to Alexa, is the most popular non-commercial baseball video-gaming website. The site seems to exceed the lower standards allowed for modgroup/site entries for 'geekier' games such as HL2 & BF2. But yes, references are needed in the article.Corinh 20:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this is exactly where the problem with this article is. You cannot claim that it is the "#1 web site for baseball gaming" because this type of statement is unverifiable for this particular web page. the site has not won any formal awards, has not been elaborated on in any piece of formal writing, nor has it become well known through any magazine or newspaper. for these reasons, it does not meet the guidelines set by WP:WEB. Razum2000 20:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is not an unverifable claim, it is the #1 site for baseball video gaming, look at the alexa rankings, name a non-commercial baseball video game site that has a higher ranking. It is referred to on nearly every sports-gaming website that has anything to do with baseball, e.g Operation Sports, Simcentral, IGN forums, etc etc.Corinh 20:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as I understand, those are not legit references. Operation Sports and IGN Forums are simply sites that allow all members to discuss the game. How exactly can you cite this article with internet forum websites? Razum2000 20:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So the Alexa ranking is not a legit reference now?Corinh 20:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I did notice that a search of "mvpmods" conducted through Google yielded only 710 results. 710?? And most of those were entries made in various internet forums. Razum2000 21:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment"MVPmods was on page 77 of the June 2005 Computer Games magazine." Does this mean anything to you? wikilagata

Comment However a search for "mvp mods" (which the site is also commonly referred to as) reveals 3,610 Ghits Corinh 21:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 66 unique Ghits for "mvp mods" actually, several on the front page relating to dead forum topics. --DaveG12345 21:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment '"mvp mods" baseball' yields about 3,000, though I don't know how many are unique. But as has been said, the article needs to prove that it passes WP:WEB. Citations need to be made regarding its status in the online baseball world, etc. HumbleGod 23:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 56 are unique. They are a subset of my previous search, after all. I agree with your other points 100%. --DaveG12345 00:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep if cleaned up POV writing does not require deletion of an article; it can be cleaned up. The case for deletion in this case then seems to be about notability. Above is correct that you can't say it is the #1 site without citing that claim to an outside source. If it really is that popular, however, its popularity (even if not #1-ness) should be verifiable. That it isn't done so far doesn't mean it can't be done, and if it really is mentioned in published magazines as said above, it could be done. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 20:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I feel I should stress (again) that if the article does not itself prove that it passes WP:WEB, then it fails WP:WEB. There is no "maybe keep and clean-up" provided for by WP:WEB. --DaveG12345 21:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If its in the magazine like wikilagata says it is then i believe it should be kept. -TheCyrus

Weak Delete While MVPMods has relevance in the subgenre of PC sports gaming, but I'd like to see more NPOV, especially after reading this thread. I looked over the article and it seems like a showcase/catalog of what the site features. - CRiyl 03:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Delete WP:WEB. Wikipedia is not a list of everything ever mentioned in print. -- GWO

Keep Although this is an entry of a website and it's mods, there is no way this can be deleted without considering there being near 50 entries of Half-Life mods. --Kccitystar 15:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Should you even be voting given your being a contributor on the site would bring bias? Why bring up the quantity of mods of Half-Life? Not trying to be snobbish, just asking. - CRiyl 16:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  - Comment Actually being a contributor to the site does not cloud my judgement, and it was I who first started the article initially, however others had edited after me. The first version of the entry did not contain any form of bias toward MVPMods.com, and it was molded very similar to Maddenmania.--Kccitystar 16:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not being funny or anything like that, but Maddenmania is currently in AfD too. FWIW. --DaveG12345 01:29, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To be fair Maddenmania was not marked for deletion until it was mentioned here and JChap response was to add it to the deletion list Krawhitham 02:06, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think this should be kept and cleaned up especially because of the mention in the video gaming magazine. --Kriegz 12:1, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment A suggestion: maybe MVPMods should get a short subsection in either the MVP 2005 or the MVP Baseball article if the 2005 one gets merged. - CRiyl 16:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Strong delete as article fails to satisfy the inclusin criteria per WP:WEB. The fact it has been reviewed in one magazine does not satisfy The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. I buy Computer Shopper monthly, which reviews hundreds of hardware, software, and websites every month. Because they were reviewed in the March issue, should we have articles on DVDit, Sony Vegas Movie Studio, Linux Standard, Alk, Sketch recognition, or Scratch-Less Disc Industries? No, because Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and articles must meet the inclusion criteria per WP:VERIFY - e.g. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources. - or WP:WEB if about a website. Should we have articles on Windows Messenger, MSN Messenger, Google Talk, ICQ, Skype, GAIM, Crucial, Kingston, Lexar, PNY, Sandisk, Navicore, Tomtom, Mio, and Garmin? Yes, and all these products/companies are included because the content of the articles can be verified by several non-trivial published works or have been published by reputable sources. —TheJC (Talk • Contribs • Count) 05:49, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcasterKrawhitham 18:09, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment then you need to delete most of the sites in the Computer and video game websites category Krawhitham 18:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It meets the guidelines more than many of the sites listed in that category. Unlike the First Person shooter fan-sites, due to MLB licencing restrictions 'modding' for this game is not endorsed let alone even acknowleged by the game's manufacturer (The original game itself can no longer be sold by EA Sports). The licencing issue and the legal grey area mods for licenced sports-games occupy contributes to the lack of 'official' (read-corporate owned) references. It should be noted that the one reference in the entry is from the only independently owned videogames magazine in the United States.Corinh 02:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Given the relatively spare discussion here, I'm relying on the precedent of June 16 (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Francesca Ortolani). Mackensen (talk) 23:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Viking (musician)

Previously deleted as Francesca Ortolani on June 16; author was warned against recreating article and did it anyway. Also nominating the following related articles:

NawlinWiki 18:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All Some shocking vanity on offer here folks. But no notability. --DaveG12345 19:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Shouldn't we assume good faith? We can't assume the creator of the article is the subject or close associate/relative/etc. of the subject. Parsssseltongue 19:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Of course I am assuming good faith - not everybody editing WP knows what bad ideas for an article are, for example. I am not criticising the author(s) in any way, so this seems a somewhat straw-man argument. What I am doing, is reporting the evidence before my very own eyes, that the article(s) IMHO read as vanity, replacing encyclopedic requirements with quoted gush from the subject of the article themselves. Whether it's the principal writing it themselves, or their bestest biggest fan, the result is the same. --DaveG12345 20:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Understood. Whenever people say "vanity," I assume they're talking about the official policy, and just wanted to clarify what you meant. Parsssseltongue 21:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Based on this story alone[55], Ortolani seems like a very notable musician. Maybe editors could do some work on cleaning the article up, citing more sources (1,000 ~~Google~~ Yahoo hits, by the way), but deletion seems inappropriate. The only reason, I think, it didn't pass AfD last time was because not enough people cared enough to do vote on it, let alone research it. Parsssseltongue 19:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It should go without saying that a vote for "keep" or for "delete" is not an endorsement or condemnation of the artist's political views (but I'm going to go ahead and say it anyway). Parsssseltongue 19:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Another comment The article mentioned above is from some Italian nationalist/fascist website. Has she gotten any mainstream coverage? I didn't see any. NawlinWiki 19:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I didn't wade through all 620 Google hits to find out. Nor do I know enough about Europena press outlets to deem what is "mainstream" or not there. But she seems to be a notable artist in her notable style, regardless of anyone's opinion of her politics (or maybe BECAUSE of her politics). My vote here is not based on love of the artist, simply that it seems obvious to me that she's notable. Parsssseltongue 19:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That particular article proves, to me, absolutely nothing as regards notability.--DaveG12345 19:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, well I don't make a habit of reading Italian nationalist/fascist websites, but I don't claim to be an authority on Italian musicians, either. Seems like the artist's obscurity in America is the reason for citing her as "non-notable." Again, this isn't about the artist's politics, it's about her notability. Not trying to prove a point, just trying to judge objectively on the merits of the article. Parsssseltongue 19:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No points being made by me here either, no worries, and politics are no issue (neither I nor anyone else here has mentioned politics, only you). Objectively viewing the article myself, personally, I find nothing but vanity from stem to stern. The website (as the previous AfD pointed out) ranks not a blip at Alexa - that is an exceptionally unnotable web presence by any estimation. There are actually 98 unique Ghits, not >600. I'm sorry, but objectively trying to judge this article on its merits, I see nothing but vanity by a nn. --DaveG12345 19:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The original article was deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Francesca Ortolani. I can't tell if this new article is the same content as the deleted article, but if it is, then it's a speedy delete under WP:CSD G4. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 19:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no way of knowing, but I assume it's the same content. Still, I think we should hammer out whether or not the subject is notable rather than stick to the CSD G4 provision. A look at the old AfD reveals that not much discussion really happened. Parsssseltongue 19:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DaveG12345 --Macarion 19:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's beyond vanity and into the realm of personal webspace. I see attempts at grasps of notability, but not notability itself. -Markusbradley 07:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A couple delete votes and a keep vote don't seem like much of a consensus. PT ^(s-s-s-s) 05:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For full disclosure, the Keep vote was yours, Mr. "PT". :-) --DaveG12345 21:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- LOL. True. I'm predicting this will be a no consensus decision. It's been five days, right? (though I've never answered to Mr. or Ms., regular gender non-specific "PT" is fine with me) PT ^(s-s-s-s) 22:08, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies Parsssseltongue-of-non-specific-gender-here. :-) FWIW, I predict a delete or (at the very least) a re-list to garner more interest. All obfuscation aside, you based your keep on a source that was not - shall we say - reliable third-party stuff per WP:V, didn't you? Let me know if you think this assessment is incorrect. --DaveG12345 22:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say the specific source I pulled is definitely not third party, nor anyone I would endorse, but I don't know enough about fascist publications to say which ones are notable or non-notable. I just feel that the problem here is none of us know enough about her notability in Italy to make judgement, so we should err on the side on inclusion. But that's just my philosophy.PT ^(s-s-s-s) 22:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:V explicitly does not "err on the side of inclusion". Why should we? --DaveG12345 22:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Viking Francesca Ortolani is NO POLITICAL SINGER! She has been (is?) a fascist supporter, but would you delete any article about fascism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.140.16.182 (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. The existence of the article is premature, as most commentors have observed. A mention in the Derbyshire article might be worthwhile, but no merge is required. Mackensen (talk) 22:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hypothesis of Collective Imprudence

Prodded, htom disagreed. This hypothesis was first formulated yesterday ([56]) by columnist John Derbyshire on the weblog of the National Review. The lack of notability seems obvious to me. David Sneek 19:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is it the yesterdayness, that it was proposed by John Derbyshire, that it was published on a weblog, or by the National Review that you think makes it unnotable? (None of those reasons, btw, seem to be a reason for deletion.) That it is obvious to you that the idea lacks notability does not mean that others will find it so. --htom 19:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Being original research is one of our primary reasons for deletion, as per our deletion policy. Uncle G 18:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's a valid topic, but could perhaps be made more abstract; codify the theory in a few short sentences - make it about the idea, rather than the fact that it's an idea by a particular person. CAWP — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.150.81 (talk • contribs)
Delete The yesterdayness and the article not asserting any mention other than by the theory's creator do it for me. JChap 20:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not (yet) notable. Add it to the John Derbyshire page if it is significant to his oeuvre. Dpv 22:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per JChap & Dpv (WP:NEO). "Nothing will get done until something awful happens. Then some neologism will get coined." I have heard the same theory since I was a child, in terms of "if no one fixes that loose tile/dodgy brake/nuclear reactor, someone will get killed..." I just wasn't smart enough to give it a flashy-sounding name, I guess. --DaveG12345 23:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete - The argument that supposes that this should be deleted because it is too new seems absurd. Einstein's Theory of Relativity was published on a certain day—say, Tuesday. Does it hold that it shouldn't have been written about on Wednesday? Would the Wikipedia community have deleted an entry for "The Theory of Relativity" because it was too new? Simply put, the argument for deletion has nothing to do with the content of the article. If it goes down, it should go down on its own merits. Further, others in the Wikipedia community have now sourced other materials that speak to the same phenomenon. To my mind, this only bolsters the case for not deleting it. If my arguments remain unpersuasive, however, I am certainly open to the idea of moving this to a subsection of Derbyshire’s biographical page. --BeingClever 08:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Would the Wikipedia community have deleted an entry for "The Theory of Relativity" because it was too new? — Yes. This is an encyclopaedia. Things don't belong here until they have been first published elsewhere, gone through a process of peer review, and gained acceptance in the world at large. See our Wikipedia:No original research policy. Uncle G 18:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Einstein was already a Nobel Prize winner, and his paper was peer reviewed, so he gets the benefit of the doubt that hacks for the NRO don't get. -- GWO
Notability doesn't enter into it. This is original research, the promulgation of a single person's proposed adage that has yet to gain traction in the world at large. The citations in the article that mention people talking about "collective imprudence" as a general concept, and not the proposed adage that is the subject of this article, do not alter that in any way. Delete. Uncle G 18:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, sounds interesting but is still a neologism. HumbleGod 22:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not for things made up on The Corner one day. -Joshuapaquin 02:24, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete. Move, Instead.. Careful now. When you call someone a “hack” because of where he works, you’re giving us insight into your political bias—and some possible motivations for wanting this entry deleted. It did go a long way toward proving my point: that the argument is still barely (if at all) about the Hypothesis itself. Engaging in libel for the purposes of getting your way? For shame. Further, HCI has apparently begun to branch out to the world at large. See this for a (very) small example. I am ultimately convinced, however, that this argument is all but over. It would likely be best (and most appropriate) for this to be moved into the Wikipedia entry for John Derbyshire, awaiting further citations from the world at large. Can we agree on that, at least? -BeingClever 11:35, 8 July 2006
Comment Please do not delete the contributions others make to this discussion. ([57]) David Sneek 17:17, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please also leave only one of your delete/keep summaries in bold format (have un-bolded your first one)--DaveG12345 17:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete. I like the idea of moving it into the Derbyshire page. It would remain but would be more appropriately filed. Also, the political flavor coming from some posts really doesn't bear on the conversation. --Rtrev 13:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Move It fits well within the Derbyshire page.
Move, I suppose, with a link from here, would be better than delete. As a newcomer to wiki-ness, I'm a bit confused by the use of the word "move" in this context; I would think that it would be "merge", "move" being a change of the article title while retaining the article. If this is joined to the Derbyshire page, what happens to this talk page (lest someone else come along and start the article again?) -- htom 15:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete - Blanked by author. --light darkness^(talk) 21:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers and gears

Page was originally prod'ed, prod removed by author, page now currently blank. Checking history, this appeared to be a non-notable web forum. Suggested deletion and protection for recreation due to author behavior.Wildthing61476 19:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment trying for speedy with {{db|been blanked by the creator}}.--Andeh 19:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:20, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yegg

dicdef already in Witionary DavidHumphreys ^{SPEAK TO ME}ABOUT_{THE THINGS I MESSED UP} 19:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOT a dictionary. Someone may have yegg on their face. --DaveG12345 23:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and possibly replace with {{wi}}. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 00:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was Keep Eluchil404 03:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Ogonowski

Very sad story, but I dont see the notability. Unlike other victims of the September 11, 2001 attacks, he did not exhibit any notable bravery. --Asbl 19:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: previous AfD discussion. Parsssseltongue 19:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Previous AfD lumped Ogonowski with other victims. --Asbl 21:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. His name is mentioned in the American Airlines Flight 11 article, which can be expanded more. I'd rather his name be a blue link than a red link, and give some context to his name in American Airlines Flight 11. Ogonowski's name turns up several hundred links on government sites [58], concerning his work in Agriculture. Expand that search to all websites [59], and there are 16,000+ results. So, I'm sure there is verifiable, reliable information out there to expand this article. --Aude (talk contribs) 19:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Re bravery, there is some information in the Madeline Amy Sweeney article that belongs in this article, he then received a posthumous Madeline Amy Sweeney Award, which I feel (among other things) makes him WP-notable. --DaveG12345 20:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Needs expansion based on above referenced notability. --Satori Son 16:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Expand. As DaveG said, there is more information on him than is presented in his article. --Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 02:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Darth Nihilus' Slaves

This seems like a bit of gamecruft relating to Knights of the Old Republic II. Wildthing61476 19:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Merge in with Darth Nihilus, there's nothing special enough about this that warrents its own page. PresN 19:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Delete actually, upon closer inspection, the Darth Nihilus page already references them, covering 80% of what that article says. PresN 19:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm a fan of the game and ummm I only know of one "slave." I think somebody is reading into something that is not actually stated in the game. --Pboyd04 23:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; i've been through that level countless times - I paid about 5 seconds attention to the slaves because they have no dialogue, and perform no actions. Deserves a short paragraph in Darth Nihilus to describe his power. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 02:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nothing more needs to be said than what's already in Darth Nihilus. BryanG^(talk) 05:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Starwarsgamecruft... Mind you, I consider Darth Nihilus to be Starwarsgamecruft too. -- GWO
Keep, Darth Nihilus' Slaves are as much a part of KOTOR 2 as Nihilus himself. I agree that it does not warrant it's own page, but the article on Nihilus mentions them but does not describe them. It says he has many slaves and then it starts talking about Visas Marr so I think this article should be kept but put at the end of Darth Nihilus' page. User:Shaak Ti 22:08 7 July 2006
Delete. They have no dialogue, they don't do anything. --Zoz (t) 12:39, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hannah G Solomon Elementary School

Delete elementary school with not assertion of significance. Schools are theoretically deletable, since WP:SCHOOL failed, and this one is not even a high school. - CrazyRussian talk/email 19:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with list of Chicago Public Schools, no claims of notability. --Eivind ^t ^@^c 21:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no notability offered or found. Not sure a merge would work as that List of Chicago Public Schools contains no elementary schools at all.--DaveG12345 22:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Simply non-notable. I'm also against the merge idea. -- Kicking222 23:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Spectacularly unnotable. -- GWO
Delete nn Schoolcruft.Carlossuarez46 20:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:SCHOOLS would suggest a merge rather than a keep, but of course, it is a failed guideline. Eluchil404 02:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Needs some assertion of notability and more than two sentences, at least. Grand master ka 04:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was keep. Mailer Diablo 04:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Huitzila

Delete Not notable --Macarion 19:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - We have loads of articles on (arguably non-notable) small towns in the United States. In the interest of fairness and globalization of Wikipedia this one should stay as well. --Loudsox 19:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Green caterpillar 20:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is not even the municipal seat of one of the 58 municipalities of the state of Zacatecas. It doesn't get much more unnotable than this. BTW, I reject this idea of "keep if there's a bad precedent" based purely on "fairness" and "globalisation", unless it's all enshrined in some WP policy that I'm unaware of (I am willing to be shown the policies involved if so). If we have articles on non-notable towns, villages, hamlets and park benches, they need AfD treatment IMO. --DaveG12345 22:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC) Neutral per discussion below. --DaveG12345 18:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but perhaps move to Huitzila, Zacatecas like the US towns with City, State? We don't only include county seats for the US towns. This town is notable at least for mescal production. Dpv 22:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Do you have a web link for that, because I failed to find anything notable. Thanks if so. --DaveG12345 23:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Holy excrement! When did a place being small make it deletable? There are places in the US with articles that have a population of zero (see Wikipedia:Unusual articles). As it is, I've extended the article somewhat, but surely a {{expansion}} would hav ebeen more in order than an AFD. Keep. Agree with th suggestion of a Move, since there is another Huitzila further south, close to Mexico City. Grutness...wha? 03:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, I think the one near Mexico City is Huitzilac, with a 'c'. Kuru ^talk 03:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - FWIW fallingrain.com's airport guide lists the one further south as Huitzila, which could also be responsible for the article's initial weird comment about this town being 340 km south of Zacatecas (which would put it several states away, close to Mexico City). Grutness...wha? 04:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, population of around 1429 [60], I could probably find dozens of smaller town articles for texas alone. Seems to be easily verifiable. Don't think there's any criteria for city and landmark notability. Definately rename as per above. Kuru ^talk 03:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Do we really keep all locations worldwide no matter how tiny, basically because there's no conflicting policy that says otherwise? This is a genuinely new one on me, and it leads to some odd situations - I've seen several articles about locations deleted vigorously in AfD in the past, and these were of much greater significance than a Californian town with no inhabitants, for example. Admittedly, these weren't Californian locations being deleted...

BTW, the article was originally named Huitzila, Zacatecas but subsequently that became a redirect to the current article because it was determined it was the only place with this name. --DaveG12345 04:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, short answer: yes. There's no real policies on notability, either - only "guidelines". The guideline for towns is noted from precendent in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Precedents (under Cities and shops). You can also look up historical debates on towns that were nominated and read the debates, some of them have much longer answers to your question. The Morristown, Ohio AFD has a good mini-essay from User:Geogre that may be useful. Other samples are: Jackson Center, Pennsylvania, Skonseng, Biancavilla, Les Moutiers-en-Auge, Collydean, Berridale, Sayula, and Mahal. I could not locate an example of a town that was deleted; were any of the locations you mention above actual towns? Could you provide a link to one? Kuru ^talk 23:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for those links. The articles deleted were, I believe (bit vague, sorry), boroughs or suburbs of UK cities. Notability seemed an issue in those discussions. However, per this AfD, I am not sure notability should have been an issue at all. A suburb can have a demonstrably stronger significance as a local identity, population, bunch of buildings, etc., whatever you like, as compared to a "town" with nobody living there, as an extreme example. I will bear in mind what has been said here. But, IMO, if a suburb of a city that may hold (say) 10,000 people can warrant deletion, that shows some kind of hole in current policy/precedent re WP locations. But thanks again. --DaveG12345 01:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Kaukau veld was deleted but that's the only place I've seen be hit. Housing estates/subdivisions are also usually considered nn. IIRC, UK suburbs are deleted since they are considered part of the town and thus properly covered in its article, but I could be wrong. Eluchil404 02:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename Huitzila, Zacatecas per Kuru, Grutness, and others above. It's verifiable and combats systematic bias. ×Meegs 09:01, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep verifiable towns and villiages should be kept. Eluchil404 02:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was nomination withdrawn as the {{copyvio}} template should have been used, and the reasons for the nomination are no longer present in the article. —TheJC (Talk • Contribs • Count) 06:06, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HMS Kirkliston

Delete because the article appears to have always been a copyvio of [61], and seems that just pieces of that webpage were cut and pasted to create this article. Article as it stands doesn't seem to have an encyclopedic tone and creating it from scratch would be my suggestion. —TheJC (Talk • Contribs • Count) 19:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've radically trimmed the Kirkliston article to appear more like the articles on her sister ships HMS Bronington and HMS Belton. Don't know if that will help spare the article, but I've learned something from the exercise. --die Baumfabrik 22:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination. Baumfabrik's edits to the article have removed the problems with the article, and the reason for nomination. —TheJC (Talk • Contribs • Count) 09:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — This probably should have been dealt with via the {{copyvio}} template. But the page looks okay now. — RJH (talk) 15:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete all. Mailer Diablo 04:31, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Bonfanti

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

According to the IMDB this director has no movies to his credit apart from the one listed, and that is not yet released. Not notable. DJ Clayworth 19:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also the movie Last Time Forever and it's copy Last Time Forever (2006). DJ Clayworth

Delete until they've actually released a movie, delete.--Andeh 19:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete - This director is mentioned in a related article. - 112233445566 20:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

This article contains a link to an article about the film he directed; likewise, the article about the film contains a link to this article. It should not be deleted. -- Filmbuff1 20:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC) (Note:Filmbuff1 has made only six edits, all to this page or the pages it references DJ Clayworth)

Delete The article states this is the director's debut movie. Also, NO other mentions on IMDB for a movie that has no notority mean this should be delete for WP:NN Wildthing61476 20:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete According the article about the film, it was screened at an international film festival. Notable. JoanneC 21:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Comment, Users first and currently only edit, only took them 6 minutes to find this AfD from the time they created the account.--Andeh 21:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't see anything in the film's article about a festival screening, let alone any citations for that statement. HumbleGod 23:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable, vanity page. Mrmctorso 22:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If the article is deleted, this should redirect to Last Time Forever (song), which formerly resided at this page (the creator of this article left quite a bit of cleanup to do after arbitrarily moving that one). Mrmctorso 22:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment decided to add the above template due to edits such as the ones done by KiteRunner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to this AfD. I've reverted the edits now.--Andeh 22:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all three as nn & vanity. Mr Stephen 22:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article about this director ought to be preserved as a stub. CitizenKane41 23:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment, users first and currently only edits are to this AfD.--Andeh 22:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Please make your case, CitizenKane41. Why should this be preserved? HumbleGod 23:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this and the movie pages - article does not make its case for notability. Textbook WP:NN, possibly WP:VAIN since we're seeing a lot of apparent sockpuppets here. HumbleGod 23:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article about this director is a stub; and, as a community, we are supposed to value stubs as useful first steps toward complete articles. If this article is deleted on the grounds that the director has only made one film, or on the grounds that the film has not yet been released, then steps should be taken to delete other US Film Director Stubs on the same grounds. There are quite a few such stubs, including articles on: John Roecker, Adam Minarovich, Nicedisc, Patrik-Ian Polk, Tennyson Bardwell, and Tony Giglio. These directors are hardly more "notable" than the director in question, and yet aforementioned articles have not been deleted. CitzenKane41 23:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment very good research. I suggest that you either PROD or AFD those directors as well. --Pboyd04 23:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. Bad articles are not excuses for more bad articles, they are just potential AfD candidates too. --DaveG12345 00:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, users first and currently only edits are to this AfD.--Andeh 02:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn doesn't meet WP:BIO --Pboyd04 23:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All per HumbleGod. NN/vanity, crystal-balling re the film having any notability. --DaveG12345 00:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DELETE This is a United States film director stub. There are many articles in this category which are similar in that they do not contain much information - this does not deserve to be deleted. Journalist 15:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC) (this contribution made by User:112233445566)

Comment - First off, I unbolded this "vote" and bolded your original one, since you've already posted your opinion (at least) once. (Forgive the snarkiness, but maybe you need to make sure you know which username you're logged in under before signing "unique" comments?) As for your reasoning here, as DaveG12345 noted, bad articles are not an excuse for more bad articles. The fact is that the article hasn't come close to proving its own notability. Unless this changes in a way that satisfies WP standards, I can't see a good reason why it should exist. HumbleGod 19:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Hamblin

Not notable, 2200 ghits but I think most are for an Australian philosopher who died in 1985, says he owns "Atlantis music company" but "Charles Hamblin" Atlantis gets 5 ghits minus wikipedia, and looks like none are about him

Delete non-notable, whatever it is that he does. JChap 20:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The band Fleet turned up zip too. --DaveG12345 01:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maddenmania

Does not meet any of the criteria in WP:WEB; Alexa ranking of 327,415. JChap 19:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 00:15, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and articles naming forum members' handles almost always indicate some form of nn vanity. --DaveG12345 18:06, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Article does not satisfy WP:WEB. —TheJC (Talk • Contribs • Count) 19:16, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- CRiyl 01:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the discussion was keep. —Centrx→talk • 05:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Phase change heat pump

Tagged for speedy deletion by Mbeychok with the following reason:

"The article Heat pump is by far a better article on this subject. This is an unnecessary duplicate article and a very poor one at that. See more discussion on Talk page.".

This is not a valid criterion for speedy deletion, so I'm instead taking the issue to AfD on their behalf. This implies no opinion either way on my part. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Yes, it's a poorly written article, and there is some overlap with Heat pump, but I'm not convinced that it is totally redundant. Phase change heat pump attempts to look at yer basic fridge in more detail, while Heat pump tries to take on too much. Some kind-hearted engineer (don't look at me; I've lost my copy of Eastop & McConkey) needs to overhaul all these heat pump pages. At the very least, someone should look at the articles on the Carnot cycle, Rankine cycle and Stirling cycle and think hard.--die Baumfabrik 22:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It could be improved especially in making it clear that it is a type of heat pump and the specific fundamental difference between this and other types of heat pumps. (I understand the difference but not due to the article.) Note that the other types of heat pump would need to also be AfDed or merged as well. Fyi the phase change heat pump takes advantage of latent heat of a phase change. FOr a more poorly written and incomplete article see Gas compression heat pump.--Nick Y. 23:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For duplicate articles, Wikipedia:duplicate articles should be one's first stop, not AFD nor speedy deletion. Uncle G 18:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE —Wh o uk (talk) 08:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tanawat Wansom

A non-notbale businessman whose article was created at the same time that a copyvio of his business's profile was posted (now deleted). Harr o5 23:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. 33 google hits, largely WP-generated. BigDT 01:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete CV of nn person.--Peta 03:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Whatever company this guy works with are spamming the wiki (see PrivatSea which i'm NPOV cleaning) MichaelBillington 08:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Half of humanity is alive now

"Currently accepted by many people." So? And does this concept really need to be explained? --Macarion 20:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I am not one of the "many people" who accept it. I maintain that all of humanity is alive now, as a dead body is not a human being. I could accept that half of humanity is awake now. Delete. Interesting and perhaps notable phenomenon, but not deserving of a separate article. Herostratus 20:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It isn't really deserving of its own article, is it? I'd say at least 95% of all Half Life gamers who ever lived are still alive. 0% of everyone who met Shakespeare are still alive. I mean, where does this end? (Answer: here) Folks should go to World population and make their own minds up. --DaveG12345 21:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete borderline speedy, it doesn't even try to make sense. Danny Lilithborne 22:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: unverifiable and unencyclopaedic. I especially dislike the meaningless note on scientists (>99% of all nanotechnologists who ever were are now alive, but so what?). How many humans have ever been depends on how long humanity's been around (and trust me, it's at least 6000 years). I like Arthur C Clarke's prologue to his novel 2001, in which he says that by the year 2000, there would be 30 ghosts for every living person: a humbling thought. --die Baumfabrik 23:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not even half of this article will be alive upon facing this log. Delete as original research. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 23:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — This argument is covered much better on the Doomsday argument page. — RJH (talk) 15:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy, attack/nonsense page.--Andeh 22:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

George The Curious Jew

Nn-bio / attack page. Speedy tag removed by author, otherwise I would not bother to bring it here. -- RHaworth 20:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom a clear attack page. DrunkenSmurf 20:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as a blatant attack page Wildthing61476 20:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong speedy delete nn/attack/nonsense.--Andeh 20:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and so retagged; attack/nonsense page. NawlinWiki 21:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was Keep Eluchil404 03:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guy Michelmore

WP:BIO, no notability claimed - or does every weather-person get an article? Rklawton 20:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notability is claimed - Michelmore is a TV news presenter in the UK. I see nowhere in the article that mentions he's a weather-person. The article also claims he's a composer for film and TV, which his IMDB profile supports. According to this he's won an Emmy for his music work as well as other significant awards. Seems notable enough to me. The article needs to be expanded - the links mentioned here would be a start - not deleted. Gwernol 20:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry 'bout the weatherman stuff, but the same applies to newsreaders. The other stuff you pointed out is really cool, but none of it is in the article. Rklawton 20:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, but the links do show notability of the subject. I'm happy to do the work to expand the article based on these and other links, though hopefully the original author will do it. A poor article about a notable subject should be expanded, not deleted in the general case. No worries about the weatherman stuff, I just thought you might know more about Michelmore than I did :-) Gwernol 20:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Gwernol, if that stuff does get added. Without it, the article doesn't look to pass notability on its own. You can feel free to do it now even, it would probably increase the article's chance for survival. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 20:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done - added the links and done some copy editing. The article needs more work, but its hopefully heading in the right direction. Gwernol 21:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if material mentioned is added. Dlyons493 Talk 21:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: not just for the info added by User:Gwernol, but the dynastic element is noteworthy. --die Baumfabrik 23:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I think this is a good example of a fundamental flaw in some authors' thinking: they do not feel the need to display the notability of a subject since "any dummy can see he's on the telly." Sure, Guy broadcasted to 10 millions, but only in one corner of the planet. --die Baumfabrik 23:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Definitely notable in the UK, additional material above has been added, I just added some linkage to dad Cliff. --DaveG12345 04:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pharaoh Moans

Fails WP:CORP. Google search for "Pharaoh Moans" wine yields 12 results [62]. Other articles by creator appear to be primarily for advertisement. mtz206 (talk) 20:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it is a non-notable corporation. Picaroon9288 20:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Creator states here (among other places) that she is hired by companies to get their products on Wikipedia. JChap 20:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hope she's getting paid before they all get shovelled off into here then. --DaveG12345 01:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom & crystal wine-glassing. We can't even buy the stuff until next year. --DaveG12345 01:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SPAM. Stifle (talk) 20:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was article made saving throw; kept. Mackensen (talk) 23:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sybase Open Watcom Public License

obvious factual errors, otherwise no content except for marketing ploys and excerpts from the license KiloByte 20:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but needs editing, I think. The company is notable, the license itself seems notable (38K Google hits for the exact phrase) and it's a partnership between Sybase and open source. --ColourBurst 00:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are countless different intellectual property licensing schemes. We shouldn't create an article for each of them. Just because the company is notable and the product is notable, that doesn't mean every little aspect of the product is notable. Unless there's something special about this particular license, it's just WP:NOT. If Sybase's collaboration with the open source community is important, list that in the Sybase article. Dgies 07:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: if considering this, people may wish to look at the other articles by the same user. --Pak21 08:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It would probably be a good idea to coalesce all these articles into a single table, stating items like stances of OSI, FSF and Debian, GPL compatibility and so on. Perhaps as a rework of the list of software licenses article, basing on existing work like the list maintained by FSF. --KiloByte 10:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cleanup and keep although with no prejudice against merge to an appropriate list. Should certainly stay around as a redirect if nothing else. --Pak21 12:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Jonathan de Boyne Pollard purged the article and started anew. The new stub already includes more information than the old version, and doesn't claim that the license is GPL compatible. (note: newbie here. What's the procedure in AfD when the article is restarted?) --KiloByte 08:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aeropress

This fails WP:ADS and is a contested prod. Gay Cdn 20:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Vanispamcruftisement. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 21:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: lacks cites from reliable secondary sources. Stephen B Streater 21:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Not notable. DarthVad e r 23:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete I use the product and consider it a significant innovation.

From deletion guidelines: The published works must be someone else writing about the company, corporation, product, or service. (See Wikipedia:Autobiography for the verifiability and neutrality problems that affect material where the subject of the article itself is the source of the material.) The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, or vendor) have actually considered the company, corporation, product or service notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it.

Do blogs about coffee and gadgets count? Or are these considered trivial?

http://www.singleservecoffee.com/archives/004326.php http://www.kk.org/cooltools/archives/001187.php http://www.gizmag.com/go/5051/ http://www.coffeecrew.com/content/view/345/27/ http://www.dansdata.com/aeropress.htm http://www.jacobgrier.com/blog/archives/502.html http://www.coffeeandcaffeine.com/archives/making-coffee-with-an-aeropress/ http://www.madprofessor.net/2006/05/aerobie_aeropress_1.html http://home.surewest.net/frcn/Coffee/aeropress.html http://mostlycajun.com/wordpress/?p=1689 http://www.howtobrewcoffee.com/aeropress.htm http://tomness.blogspot.com/2006/05/aeropress.html

So people who care a lot about coffee around the web are talking about the aeropress. It would seem to me that a Wikipedia entry is called for. I'm new to this though. If not, then please tell me why. Should any of the above reviews be linked as references? As the reviews are overwhelmingly positive, this might seem even more spammy. (I have no connection with the aerobie company, I just use the thing.) --Bephillips 06:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: blogs do not count as reliable sources, as anyone can write anything and there is no accountability. See WP:RS and WP:V. Stephen B Streater 08:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I can understand this with regard to comments on blogs, but when prominent bloggers themselves write something on their blog, there is as much "accountability", if not more, than many other publishing media. Thanks for the links. I see this:

Exceptions may be when a well-known, professional researcher writing within his field of expertise, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material. In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications, and they are writing under their own names, and not a pseudonym.

So a blog by someone like Juan Cole might be considered a reliable source. I'm not saying that any of the above qualify as such. I doubt they do. Thanks again for helping me with the process.--Bephillips 23:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was keep. Mailer Diablo 16:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Varjak Paw (film)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball - A disputed prod. Gay Cdn 20:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm the contributor who contested the prod, and my reasons remain valid: "The Crystal Ball policy states that articles must be verifiable- the sources provided in the article provide that verification; the article doesn't contain speculation ungrounded in statements by the persons involved. It next states that to merit inclusion, the subject matter would have to merit an article, assuming it actually occurs. There is a fairly good history of including major studio films in Wikipedia, and Varjak Paw will be a major studio film." All of the statements in the article come from the Jim Henson Company press release (duplicated off site, which can be confirmed with a trivial Google search) and Movie Insider. Captainktainer * Talk 21:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, Crystal Ballisms are things that can not be proved to exist and are like "hopefully (insert name) will aprove and it will win a million dollars." Also, it appears to meet notability by having both a notable person and book involved in it. Yank sox 21:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Verifiable. Major project of a notable film studio. What's the problem? dryguy 21:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the consensis is I have misapplied the crystal ball, no problem; but my take on reading the press release was that the book was only optioned (along with the second book); also the cast has yet to be anounced as per the article - while the reputation of those involved is not in question, if this film will be made and released is (in my opinion).--Gay Cdn 21:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the nomination was Speedy Easy... err... Delete per CSD:A1. Stifle (talk) 20:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Learn Easy

None notable website that does not even exist yet. There is no link to anything relating to the apparently upcoming website, or even the ___domain name that the website will take. It does not explain anything about the site apart from the fact that it is schedualed to be completed. Google reveals a lot of existing sites of the same name. J Milburn 20:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Easy Delete per nom the article states the website does not even exist, says it might exist in 2007 and has no information as to what it might contain or why it would be notable when it does actually exist. DrunkenSmurf 20:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is simply an article that might exist in 2007, but Delete may have it gone before then. Wildthing61476 20:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Easy Delete per nom. Crystal-balling. --DaveG12345 20:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's like reading a crystal ball/no evidence of notability except prediction..--Andeh 21:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the nomination was Speedy delete per CSD:G3. I consider creating deliberate hoax articles to be vandalism. Stifle (talk) 20:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yaboner Chavez

This appears to be a hoax, or at least unverifiable given that this name does not appear in any references I can find other than Wikipedia mirrors. Dpv 20:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability claimed here seems so unlikely that there'd better be some strong evidence (the 12 Ghits ain't helping here), and the rest of the tale deteriorates into WP:HOAX territory for me. --DaveG12345 20:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as provable hoax - there has been a Jewish community in Mexico for over 100 years. See, for example, [63]. NawlinWiki 21:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was nomination withdrawn, or so I'm assuming given the nominator's change to keep. Mind matrix 01:33, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2006 FIFA World Cup sponsorship

Delete. This article simply amounts to advertising for the involved companies. There is very little that merits saving from any encyclopedicity's point of view, and what little there is should go on the Miscellany page. See in particular the blurb about T Mobile in the Trivia section -- it's an unadulturated commercial/advertisement! Mareklug ^talk 20:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Keep. After a thorough rewrite by Vickser, this is now a viable article, so I change my nomination/vote. -- Mareklug ^talk 21:16, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Strong Delete~~ Copyvio Central, for the T-Mobile entry (from here) and for most of the rest from this article. --DaveG12345 21:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC) (Copyvios now fixed - see below) --DaveG12345 19:48, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Smerge back into 2006 FIFA World Cup, it was cut of from that article due to length, but we don't really need the trivia section (espesially since most of if seems to be copyvios), just merge the list of sponsors, and if the trivia needs to go somewhere take it to the companies articles (after a rewrite, due to the copyvios). --Eivind ^t ^@^c 21:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Are you sure you're not thinking of the 2006 FIFA World Cup miscellany article, which is another smørgåsbord of odds-n-sods that actually duplicates some of these copyvios (see the Curiosities section). --DaveG12345 21:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment According to the talk page it came from the main article, but I'm not sure. I wouldn't mind if it got deleted outright, I just prefer it to be shortened and merged. --Eivind ^t ^@^c 21:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment List of sponsors is not notable for an encyclopedia article about World Cup. It's just free advertisement for the companies involved. -- Mareklug ^talk 21:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

$trong Delete. I feel so dirty from that corporate "ambush marketing." It goes both ways! —Twigboy 21:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all of the above. I don't see the notability of the sponsors to the event. If Coors were the offical "beer" supplier, would Italy not have scored twice in the waning minutes against Germany? ~ trialsanderrors 22:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep after improvements made by User:Vickser, this is now a viable article. ~ trialsanderrors 19:53, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment They would, but the guys from Coors would be occupying those prime hospitality seats to see it, not the Bud boys. ;-) --DaveG12345 23:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Bigtop (tk|cb|em|ea) 03:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with 2006 FIFA World Cup miscellany, then delete. --Pkchan 06:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If the article is merged it must be redirected, deleting it would be against GDFL. --Eivind ^t ^@^c 21:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge WP 10:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for being unencyclopedic list. --WinHunter ^(talk) 11:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge that which is worthy with 2006 FIFA World Cup miscellany then delete. -- Alias Flood 22:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Following the work put into this article by Vickser, this article now has merit in its own right and I am changing my earlier opinion to Keep. I hope that it will continue to improve and I would encourage others to take another look. -- Alias Flood 22:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just wanna remind you folks, this article as it stands, 2 days into this discussion, is a significant set of multiple copyvios. --DaveG12345 01:38, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: überspam. Take out the advertisements and copyvios, you're left with an unterstub, not worth redirecting or merging. --die Baumfabrik 12:54, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: User:Vickser has made several improvements to this article; I especially like the sections on 'Revenue' and 'Tickets.' --die Baumfabrik 21:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article has been much improved and the copyvios removed. Since sponsorship is a big part of the FIFA World Cup, I feel the article arguably has merit as a standalone article, separate from a treatment of on-the-field antics. The content seems verifiable. What it could maybe use is a little NPOV consideration, as it reads a little too heavy on the negatives for me, and does not tell us, for example, exactly what the sponsorship cash is spent on, what the WC would be like if there wasn't this kind of sponsorship, etc. It surely can't be all evil corp greed can it? ;-) But, whatever, this can all be cleaned up in time. --DaveG12345 19:48, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try and find some stuff about that. I didn't find any quick articles, but the sponsorship cash gets plowed back into FIFA and funding goes to help smaller teams afford insurance and cup attendance, among other thingsVickser 19:53, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I thought this was a pretty wretched article, but a decently worthy topic, so I've cleaned it up and added a bunch of stuff. Information about what it means to be a sponsor, who the partnership system is changing for the next world cup, renaming the stadiums, ticket distribution, and a few other things. I've also removed the copyright violations. I encourage all of you to take another look and see if the new additions change your votes. Vickser 19:53, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Drop me a message if you want userfy. - Mailer Diablo 16:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert workman

Yet another hoax; only things on Google are this [64] also apparently fake biography, and this [65] apparently real biography which shows him as a nonnotable children's author and art journalist. NawlinWiki 20:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as NN. Wow, those bios sound like two different guys. --DaveG12345 02:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I see resume which makes it sound like a student at Louvre, not someone with works in Louvre. But then I find Illinois resolution which is something far enough back that I can doubt a hoax. But then the Litline thing has the same address for him, as a poet? Then also gallery which at least shows artwork. There are several Robert Workman's, so it is hard to figure who you are finding. I guess I'm just having a hard time believing enough notability can be shown. Shenme 05:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, should be userfy'ed ? Shenme 05:23, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless verified. Possible hoax. Stifle (talk) 19:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Userfy is also fine. Stifle (talk) 19:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hijab and other aspects

This page appears to be original research and completely non-encyclopedic. In addition, this user has been warned previously for POV topics regarding this current topic Wildthing61476 21:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While the concept itself may be worthy of an article (probably an extension of Women in Muslim societies#Clothing), it's not this one. Neither title nor content look salvageable. Delete --Huon 21:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:NOR fail, an essay apparently just in its genesis period, complete with rough notes. --DaveG12345 02:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DaveG12345. Stifle (talk) 19:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aaria Rahim

Rahim's only claim to notability is her organization, Teens Transforming the Community. Since the article about her does not contain any additional information, even merging seems too much effort. Thus, delete. --Huon 21:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The page here is a blatant advertisement for her organization. I would not merge this with her current organization's page if this is the case. Wildthing61476 21:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete blatant advert right down to including an email address. I wouldn't be opposed to a Speedy either. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy is only an option if there is no claim to noteworthiness. So it's delete for this article. - Che Nuevara: ^{Join the Revolution} 22:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete advertisement for praiseworthy organization, but the subject is not notable. JChap 21:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete userfied. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 21:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vourvopoulos

None Notable person. No reason given for notability, real name not given. Should be Userfied. J Milburn 21:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have userfied it, alerted the user, and put a speedy tag on the page. --Tagishsimon (talk)

Delete then. Wow, that was amazingly quick. J Milburn 21:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was Merge with Undermind. I also merged all of the other songs on the same album. —Centrx→talk • 05:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maggie's Revenge

In short, I am worried about the numerous articles for songs at list of Phish songs because only a few might be considered notable based on songs. Also, the articles may be considered fancruft to a degree. -- MOE.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 21:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the Undermind article, which could sure use the content. There's a whole bunch of these, per nom. If they weren't hit singles, I don't see the need for them at all, especially when the album article could accommodate the information easily. Not all songs are notable. --DaveG12345 22:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as DaveG. -- GWO
Redirect to the album. Stifle (talk) 19:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 21:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Isaac Hess

NN person, no attempt to claim notability, should be userfied.— Preceding unsigned comment added by J Milburn (talk • contribs)

Delete as nn bio. Amalas =^_^= 21:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete tagged with {{db-bio}}.--Andeh 21:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as above. michaelCurtis ^talk+_{contributions} 21:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Parvinder Singh

May be a vanity page. No encyclopedic content Eubulide 21:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. DarthVad e r 23:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: nn BIO. CiteSeer, DBLP and CSB find no citations for his work (indeed, don't even have his papers listed). — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 00:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: nonsense WP:BIO. Per nom and Kaustuv. --Bigtop (tk|cb|em|ea) 03:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. ALoopingIcon 04:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Google results are about Parvinder Singh, the Ranbaxy chairman, not this guy. utcursch | talk 12:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the nomination was Speedy redirected by the author's creater, User:Sparkyfry. Stifle (talk) 19:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dusty Kilmore

Google searches for "Dusty Kilmore" and "Minnesota Twins Dusty Kilmore" turns up no results. Article seems to be written as a possible joke, non-notable term regardless. Wildthing61476 21:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are incorrect. This term was actually used by Twins fans. Twins television broadcasters (Dick Bremer and Bert Blyleven) liked to talk about it in particular. I am not sure I am spelling the term correctly and was planning on making redirect links to possible alternate spellings (mainly "Dusty Kielmohr"). Actually, I just did a Google search for that spelling, and found numerous hits. See: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=dusty+kielmohr . I will recreate the article under that spelling. Sparkyfry 21:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dusty Kilmore lives! This is great, as a huge Twins fan, I just want to say that this is exactly the kind of thing I come to Wikipedia looking for, history that can not be found anyshere else. This is for real, it was a major part of a highly rated baseball telecast in a major market for an entire season. Great job Sparkyfry! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.29.240.140 (talk • contribs) 6 July 2006.

Delete, fancruft. --Ezeu 23:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note User:Sparkyfry has created the page Dusty Kielmohr and turned Dusty Kilmore into a redirect. --DaveG12345 02:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Surely this is now a prime Delete Dusty Kilmore & Redirect Dusty Kielmohr to Bobby Kielty case? Quite rare, but when they come up, I'm ready for them. --DaveG12345 02:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with a few things. First, this article is not "fancruft". The term "Dusty Kielmohr" was used by a large number of baseball fans in the Twin Cities, who were closely following the local Major League Baseball team as it pursued a pennant (which it won). The Google link I cited above demonstrates this. There are all sorts of articles on obscure occurrences in Major League Baseball, whether it involves the Twins' Circle Me, Bert phenomenon or Steve Bartman's unfortunate day at a Cubs game. These events are important to baseball fans in their respective markets, and there are thousands upon thousands of such fans.

I wrote this article specifically because I was chatting with somebody the other day, and he used the term "Dusty Kielmohr." I remembered the term, but couldn't remember what it meant. This is exactly the sort of situation where Wikipedia can come in useful. To be sure, it's trivial, but so is a lot of the stuff on here. Unlike fancruft, I researched the article before writing to ensure the accuracy of the statistics (i.e., combined batting average, home runs, etc.) and facts (i.e., who was traded for whom on what date). I wrote it in a tongue-in-cheek fashion, but that is a stylistic choice that other writers can change if they so desire. (It seemed appropriate for a piece of baseball trivia.) It doesn't detract from the value of having the article in the first place. The only thing I got wrong was the spelling of the term. (It's a term coined by local sportswriters, so it's not something with a proper dictionary spelling anyway.) Other people could likely make the same spelling mistake, so it seems reasonable to have a redirect link from the other spelling.

Second, I do not think it is appropriate to link this article to Bobby Kielty, any more than it is appropriate to Dustan Mohr. The term "Dusty Kielmohr" was used specifically to refer to *both* players, and not one or the other. It might be appropriate to have a link to the Dusty Kielmohr article on both Dustan Mohr's Wikipedia page and Bobby Kielty's Wikipedia page, or to have a link to both of those pages from this one, but not an entire redirect.

Dusty Kielmohr is a legitimate piece of Twins baseball history and deserves a Wikipedia article. Sparkyfry 02:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There seems to be a lot of these fan-based Twins references, including Soul Patrol (baseball), which you don't mention above, and which itself alludes to Dusty Kielmohr. Since these are just fans' colloquialisms for this or that set of their own players (jeez, the sports teams I support, there have been hundreds of these names over the years), using a redirect to the relevant article involving either the team itself or the players themselves (wikilink to one, make the assertion about the naming convention plus links to the other articles from there) surely makes more sense than having these spurious articles everywhere duplicating information? Other than the yoking together of players under a temporary soubriquet, these names say nothing that can't be handled in the players' own articles IMO. It strikes me as a bit odd that this is apparently a very important name, and yet it gets only 15 Google hits, and the Bobby Kielty and Dustan Mohr pages currently don't reference each other or this name at all. --DaveG12345 03:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- First off, I never claimed that Dusty Kielmore was "a very important name." Few people would attempt to argue that the contributions of Dustan Mohr and Bobby Kielty to the Twins franchise rival those of Kirby Puckett or Harmon Killebrew. I certainly wouldn't. What I did say is that it is a *legitimate* part of recent Twins history. It was a term many people who followed the team used, and as such, is part of the history of things associated with the team. Neither would I describe these terms as simply "fan-based." The terms were of course used by fans, but this is primarily because the local sports media -- I'm talking about major networks and newspapers, not fanzines -- were strong advocates of the terms, writing articles about them and discussing them on TV. I don't have access to Lexis Nexis, but I bet a search of "Soul Patrol" or "Dusty Kielmore" would turn up several stories in the Minnepaolis and St. Paul papers. Finally, giving a nickname to a group of players on one team is not a quaint practice used up here in the backwards Upper Midwest, but is commonplace in our sports-obsessed nation. This practice is reflected in Wikipedia articles such as Murderers' Row, Purple People Eaters, The Four Horsemen, Monsters of the Midway, Steel Curtain, The Hogs, etc. Dusty Kielmore may not compare to these legendary groups of athletes, but being a recognized, major-league entity certainly makes them worthy of a short article on Wikipedia. And a redirect wouldn't work for such a group, because the group is distinct from the individual players. It doesn't seem particularly remarkable that neither Kielty's nor Mohr's pages reference Dusty Kielmore, but I imagine it will happen with time. If it's truly that important to you, I'll add it myself. Oh, and your mention of the Soul Patrol was interesting. (I should add that I wrote that article as well.) I think team followers (including the media) liked having a nickname for the outfield so much, that they attempted to replicate the feeling by creating the hybrid Dusty Kielmore. Obviously, it didn't have the staying power of the Soul Patrol. Sparkyfry 05:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete AmiDaniel (talk) 04:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stone of Turin

del not verifiable, unreferenced. Such supposedly famous thing no traces on net. `'mikka (t) 21:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently a stone tablet with the inscription "Nostradamus was here" was found in Turin in 1939, then taken away and hidden in a cellar[66]. Some occultists believe the inscriptions may unlock secret texts of prophecies [67]. In any case, the Stone of Turin seems to be of such narrow interest that the article will remain a perpetual stub (for a lack of encyclopedic information), unless it is padded with some original research. Redirect to Nostradamus so that if there surfaces a reference from a notable source, the stone can be mentioned in that article. --Ezeu 00:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The user creating this ~~and Quatrains of Nostradamus (also currently under AfD)~~ seems to have made several edits to the Nostradamus article which were reverted as effectively vandalism (unsourced POV content), so I guess ~~these are~~this is a POV forks. --DaveG12345 01:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Corrected my incorrect info. --DaveG12345 17:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Stifle (talk) 19:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. This doesn't belong here. Mackensen (talk) 23:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quatrains of Nostradamus

del. Wikipedia is not a library of kookery. A couple of historically notable examples would be enough and may well go into the Nostradamus article. But 9/11 and Indian Ocean earthquake is way overboard. `'mikka (t) 21:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The translations aren't even good, and are specifically translated to fit their 'results'. - Che Nuevara: ^{Join the Revolution} 22:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The user creating this and Stone of Turin (also currently under AfD) seems to have made several edits to the Nostradamus article which were reverted as effectively vandalism (unsourced POV content), so I guess these are POV forks. --DaveG12345 01:15, 7 July 2006 (UTC) - (corrected my incorrect info)--DaveG12345 17:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - both because an article about a topic doesn't mean we're saying the topic is true (e.g., ear candling) and because it isolates this from the main Nostradamus article, in a desperate attempt to keep that one relatively kook-free (which is why I created this article a year ago)(the Stone of Turin guy is somebody else). - DavidWBrooks 16:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Apologies for getting the authorship wrong.--DaveG12345 17:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- A proper way to keep an article kook-free is to mercilessly delete anything unreferenced. I am aware there is a whole "Nostradamology" here. But some "decriptions" have some historical notability and mentioned in serious print, and hence deserve to be discussed here. The rest should be barred according to wikipedia:Verifiability policy. `'mikka (t) 21:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note that the article isn't kookland, containing reasonable skepticism and asides like "Critics point out that the word "Germania" actually refers to a region near the Danube River that is non-contiguous with modern Germany." Improvements needed, sure, but not deletion. - DavidWBrooks 16:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wikisource. Primarily a copy of source material. Stifle (talk) 19:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete and redirect. Mailer Diablo 16:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vision of Isaiah

This used to be a redirect to the apocryphal Ascension of Isaiah, one section of which is known as the Vision of Isaiah, until User:TheEditrix replaced it with a new article on a verse found in 2 Chronicles.

The article asserts that there was a book called "Vision of Isaiah". This is problematic on three counts

it does not give sources for the assertion that that book did exist and is different from the historical sections in the Book of Isaiah that are concerned with King Hezekiah.
it does not give sources that people call that hypothetical book the "Vision of Isaiah"
it does not give a source for the assertion that "some" (who?) consider the 2nd century AD Ascension identical with the work mentioned in the 5th century BC Books of Chronicles

Delete as original research and replace the original redirect to the Ascension of Isaiah. Dr Zak 22:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete & Restore Redirect per Dr Zak. If there's a place for this topic so it doesn't become a POV fork, it's in the Ascension of Isaiah article. --DaveG12345 01:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect per nom. Tevildo 12:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect The sources I looked at all agree that it refers to ch. 6-11 of the Ascension of Isaiah. This almost looks like a case of WP:NFT. JChap 20:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete and redirect per above. Stifle (talk) 19:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was merged to Midnight Cowboy (novel). --Sam Blanning^(talk) 00:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rico "Ratso" Rizzo

The article is virtually a copy of Midnight Cowboy (novel), with nothing more than a slight change made to the first sentence. The article is of no original substance and should therefore be deleted. Extravagance 21:20, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This article was tagged for deletion on 2006-07-02, but wasn't listed on AfD. Now listing. Lbbzman 22:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep but only if rewritten and expanded. As noted this is little more than a cut-and-paste of the main article, however I believe the character is notable enough to warrant an article. 23skidoo 22:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mergeinto Midnight Cowboy --Macarion 23:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Macarion. Stifle (talk) 19:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 16:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Taj Gray

College basketball players are not inherently notable -WP:BIO refers. I am, however, persuaded that they can be. In this case, though, there is insufficient notability aserted to make the grade. Delete. BlueValour 22:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable. DarthVad e r 23:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Whether or not male college basketball players are inherently notable, Gray is notable either way. First off, I've heard of him, and I hate college basketball. But let's ignore that, as it's not really a reason for voting keep. This is a player whose team won 20 games and was a high seed in the NCAA tournament, and he led said team in points, rebounds, and blocks (two years in a row, in fact). According to his ESPN profile, he went to a JuCo (junior college) before playing at Oklahoma and was the runner-up for JuCo player of the year. Although he wasn't drafted, ESPN ranked him as the 41st best prospect before the draft [68]. I think all of this asserts sufficient notability. -- Kicking222 23:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Mr. Gray was actually the Big 12 player of the year in 2005 and is currently playing on the summer league team for the Sacramento Kings. [69] In a similar AfD for Chris Quinn I suggested we let this sit for a month or so and see if he makes an NBA roster. I'm not sure if being POY in a major college sport for a major conference makes someone notable or not by itself. Anyways I was going to add information contained in the link to the article but I wasn't sure if editors were supposed to do such a thing during and AfD. DrunkenSmurf 01:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You can definitely clean up the article during AfD - in fact, I'd say it's strongly encouraged. --DaveG12345 03:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for the that DaveG12345, I was not sure. I'll try to dig up some additional info and add it in to the article this weekend. DrunkenSmurf 19:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable; short article. --Bigtop (tk|cb|em|ea) 04:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per DrunkenSmurf --Awiseman 15:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Request Ok, so I updated this article with some relevant information I found. It seems as though the article I refrenced above was incorrect in saying he was the Big 12 player of the year in 2005. Upon further research he was the preseason POY which is quite differant. Anyways, I tried to put together a better article for him, I would ask that folks take a look at it now and see if he warrants keeping. Keep in mind this is really the first article I have ever tried to create so be nice. DrunkenSmurf 19:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think you have done a nice job and this is undoubtedly a much better article than what passed for an article before. It would also help if you were able to source closer the key pieces of information that you inserted. Sadly, though, this confirms my view that the guy is not notable. He started his college career with great promise but he does not seem to have achieved anything particularly notable. Had he been a notable player surely he would have been signed by a pro team? That he wasn't is the clincher for me. If he subsequently makes pro then the article can be recreated. BlueValour 20:24, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My feeling here it that within a month we will know if he has signed an official pro contract with a team. We have no time restrictions here, and I see no big issue with waiting a month to see how it shakes out. Either way I'm cool with the decision, I'd just hate to see us delete the article and then next week the guy signs a contract as just happened to Chris Quinn which is up for AfD as well. DrunkenSmurf 19:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not drafted, not professional, not notable. Stifle (talk) 19:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete CSD G1 - nonsense. Kimchi.sg 07:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Faze (prank)

unencyclopedic, a Google search for [faze prank "pacific northwest"] gives a few hundred mostly irrelevant results-- ugen64 22:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A very pointless article, belonging in Wiktionary if anywhere.--Anthony.bradbury 22:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as nonsense. Or at least a regular delete based on WP:NFT. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 22:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (possibly speedy?) per made up nonsense. Sort of neogolisn too. -- Steel 00:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP... on writing this WP:NEO stuff and we will have to Delete it. --DaveG12345 02:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Philopaideia

Made-up word, 0 google hits. WP:NEO applies. Fan-1967 22:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Based on my high school Greek, the definition is dead wrong. Fan-1967 00:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Dicdef. BlueValour 22:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. DarthVad e r 23:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BlueValour. -- Steel 00:03, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Meant to be some laboured ungrammatical joke surrounding "paedophilia" I guess. Ho hum. --DaveG12345 02:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Philopaideia:

I made this article.

I am working on a book project called The Philopaideia Project compiling the classical knowledge of various human cultures.

I work in philanthropy.

I own philopaideia.org. I'm working on the website.

philosophy=love of wisdom philopaideia=love of learning

"paedo" is an entirely different word from "paideia."

Also: There is a long history, especially in Greek, of scholars creating words for their own purposes. For instance, Eratosthenes of Cyrene (c. 275-194 B.C.E.) was the first to call himself philologos (philology, φιλολόγος). Source: The Oxford Classical Dictionary, Second Edition, pg. 405.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnhenry312 (talk • contribs)

Comment According to this dictonary, the word means "love of boys". Regardless, the essential facts remain unchanged. It's a word invented by you, used only by you. You may want to review WP:NEO. It is true that other words have been invented. It is also true that Wikipedia does not document new words unless they actually achieve some widespread currency. Fan-1967 13:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wikipedia, paideia has nothing to do with 'love of boys' but instead is defined as:

To the ancient Greeks, Paideia was "the process of educating man into his true form, the real and genuine human nature." (1) It also means culture. It is the ideal in which the Hellenes formed the world around them and their youth.

Please look up Pedophilia. It is clearly stated in this article that the root word means boy and has an entirely different meaning from Paideia: pais (παις, "child")

I did read WP:NEO, however I believe that Classical Civilizations is not a subject that can easily be governed by the vagaries of popular culture. Most of what is the Classics will never be accepted under the greater whole of humans. Most people, especially Americans, have no idea what the root words are of the most basic Greek words like anthropology or philosophy.

It is a valid point that Philopaideia is not in widespread use at this time, but I believe in the spirit of the Greeks, which invented new words to suit their purposes (similar to German), such constructive concepts should be encouraged.

In addition, I don't think it should qualify as a neologism because it merely merges together two widely understood words- love (philo-) and learning (paideia). Rather than pedophilia, it would be better to relate Pedagogy and the word Encyclopaideia (all learning). In fact, Wikipedia itself could be written instead as "Wikipaideia" rather than Wikipedia as that would be truer to the original spelling for Encyclopaideia.

My website for The Philopaideia Project will be up soon and as soon as I said, I own philopaideia.org. This is not a for-profit operation but instead a non-profit venture and I have a long history of successful work in local and global charities and philanthropic foundations (many in my native Chicago).

Also, please keep in mind that I am new to Wikipedia and I would like to follow the rules and learn how to properly post. Thanks--johnhenry312

Comment First of all, non-profit vs for-profit is irrelevant. Secondly, everyone who tries to create a Wikipedia article on a newly coined word has a reason why they believe that their word should be exempt. The fact is that, in addition to violating WP:NEO, it's also, as your own work, Original Research. Wikipedia is a Tertiary source, and not the place for original ideas, uncited by anyone else. Wikipedia is deliberately not a place for people to float new ideas, but to document things and ideas which are already known to, at least, some significant number of the public. Fan-1967 17:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete possibly suitable for Wikinfo, but can't be covered here due to issues stated above. Just zis Guy you know? 17:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOR, WP:RS, and WP:NEO. Stifle (talk) 19:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was keep. (ESkog)^(Talk) 20:13, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Quinn

College basketball players, though not inherently notable by WP:BIO can be. This guy, though, doesn't seem notable. The article can be recreated if he does play for a professional team. Delete BlueValour 22:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. DarthVad e r 23:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Google has 89,300 exact results. Maybe we could implement WP:CITE and/or WP:V for this? --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 23:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment yes but not for this Chris Quinn try this one for example! More importantly if he was truly notable he would surely have been snapped up by a pro team? BlueValour 23:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Marcus Vick wasn't drafted, and the NFL Draft has five more rounds than the NBA Draft. -- Kicking222 23:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Marcus added to his notability by being an extreme horse's behind. After a couple of years, if he doesn't make it in the NFL or CFL, his article may go up for AfD (as a Mountaineer, I can only hope. :)). --DarkAudit 02:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Mr. Quinn was at one time considered the top point guard in college basketball and made the unfortunate decision of returning to school after his sophmore year. Had he entered the draft at that point he most certainly would have been drafted, but he had a less than stellar end to his career at Notre Dame. At this point I would bet he gets a spot on an NBA roster this year, although I understand that is clear crystalballism. My opinion is that we let this stay for a couple months and see how his pro career shakes out. DrunkenSmurf 01:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep There are other articles on undrafted free agents that do a much better job of attesting to the notability of a player than this one. See Mike Gansey. --DarkAudit 14:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a star on Notre Dame, I'd say that's notable. --Awiseman 15:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Quinn just signed a contract with the Miami Heat. I will update the article tonight to reflect his current status as well as give a little more insight into his college career. DrunkenSmurf 14:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the reference says 'Chris Quinn (Notre Dame) and Mike Gansey (West Virginia) have been signed to partially guaranteed contracts. But Spoelstra cautions that doesn't mean they'll make the team. "That just means they're here," Spoelstra said. "We do that every summer with guys that are prospects that we like just so they don't go somewhere else or to somebody else's summer team."' Could DrunkenSmurf help with what is a 'partially guaranteed contract', please? BlueValour 23:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response LOL, Hey BlueValour are you following me?? I think the quote you have produced speaks for itself, I mean I probably can't give a better explanation than what is there. All NBA contracts are fully guaranteed, meaning if Shaq gets cut for some reason he still gets paid for the remaining years left on his contract. The guys you mention above signed 2 year deals but if they don't end up making the team this year they would not get the money for the second year. Essentially the guys who are the best of the undrafted class usually get signed to these types of deals so that they can't just jump ship and sign with another team in the middle of the summer league. Anyways, as I said in the Taj Gray Afd, we will know in a month or so if this player makes the team and since we have no time limit here my opinion is to wait a few weeks and let it play out a bit.

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:47, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BMD Holland

NN Company producing wheels. Very few google hits, and the article is a very poor one. I say Delete. J Milburn 22:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even discounting the spelling errors, the article is not encyclopedic.--Anthony.bradbury 22:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. DarthVad e r 23:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks guys. As you might have noticed not native english. So feel free to improve. The article is background to te related article about Holland mechnics. There are in this marked 4 suppliers and wheel building a very specilized field. If you ride a bike you might have noticed the importance of the wheels in it. So please give me a hand how to make the article better and I will be greatful for that.

Comment- The issue is not so much that the article is a poor one, but that your company is not particuarly notable. If it is, please provide som evidence. Have you won awards? Do you have major contracts with famous companies? J Milburn 16:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless notability is proven. Stifle (talk) 19:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment---Bobbest 13:40, 11 July 2006 (UTC) The company builds machines where other have no change. The major technological player in the branch use these machines. They are able to produce better wheels by machines than ever being able by hand. This is proven to the test as I cannot state names of customers try to phone 5 if the biggest quality players in the marked and I can confirm at least 4 if not all. We are small but you do not have to be big to be notable. We do make the difference from Canada to Australia. Not nad for a small company I would say. Ok enough bla bla. I am a technical guy rewrite it if you need to else leave it for what it is (correct the bad Englisch would be appriciated). Just for your information I am also the editor of the piece on our compatitor (bigger but low tech). I am extending the history and tech pages with a bit more inside of wheels. A bicycle wheel is one of mans big mechanical constructions. 150 KG guy on 36 spokes try this balance for an airplane.[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:47, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Michael Craddock

Non-important person biography --Zachblume 22:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not notable enough. DarthVad e r 23:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. fails WP:BIO -- Steel 00:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems like a good faith article put forth by a former or current student. Unfortunately the individual in question needs to be notable outside of one particular school community. DrunkenSmurf 01:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn WP 10:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per everyone else. tmopkisn ^tlka 19:46, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kate Robson-Brown

The article doesn't seem to meet WP:PROF requirements. I couldn't find any books of general interest or widely-used textbooks written by Dr. Robson-Brown, nor could I find evidence that she has been quoted in any major publications. None of the links provided in the article establish her as particularly noteworthy: the Organisations section merely list groups with which she is affiliated (it's not surprising that a professor would be a member of such groups, and indeed dozens of others are listed alongside her), and the links under Reference Works lead to 1) a book review written by the professor, 2) a site, listed twice, through which a collection of papers she co-edited is sold, 3) a review of a conference which she attended, 4) the schedule for a "mini-conference" at which she spoke, and 5) a bibliography in which one paper which she co-authored is listed along with several hundred others. The main author of the article has been banned indefinitely for trolling, but given his eagerness to prove the notability of another person, I think that if there were something particularly noteworthy about Dr. Robson-Brown, he would have found it. - Tapir Terrific 22:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just another teacher. --Ezeu 00:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For what it is worth, this may have been just another attempt to back up Celtic toe and Phyllis Jackson based on the following remark from the article creator: I'll post Dr Kate Robson-Browns response to my inquiry about phillis jackson's work here... [70] IrishGuy ^talk 01:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --DaveG12345 02:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - cursory research seems to show that she is no more noteworthy than any of the hundreds of thousands of other scientists and archeologists around the globe, 99% of whom do not have Wikipedia entries Mammal4 09:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mamma14. Stifle (talk) 19:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was Keep stub - CrazyRussian talk/email 14:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ang Tanging Ina

No context, looks hideous, most of the page is not even in English. ~~I say delete.~~ J Milburn 22:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wait for Translation It looks like the page was intended to be a movie of some sort. Let's wait to see if someone can translate it. Targetter 22:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment what language is it in? J Milburn 22:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't know. I wish I knew. Let's post it on Wikipedia:Pages_needing_translation_into_English and see if someone can spot it. Targetter 22:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB says it is in Filipino, so I suspect this writeup is as well. HumbleGod 23:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article is in Tagalog and is a film review. Not notable.--Anthony.bradbury 23:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep it. This will be a Self-Rewrite as I'll try to format it per WikiProject Films' guidelines and Infobox everything on it. Although Google has 626 exact results... (gulp) --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 23:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now, with translation and cleanup tags. The movie is notable. Looking hideous is not a not a criterion for deletion, but for an extreme makeover. --Ezeu 00:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, now that we have people promising a translation and a clean-up, put on some tags and my vote is changed to keep. J Milburn 16:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vote change to Keep, as the article was cleaned up for status as a stub. --Targetter 21:15, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable movie --Howard t he Du c k 12:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was merge into Bialowieza Forest. Mailer Diablo 16:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barrel Oak

Group up for deletion: Barrel Oak, Dominator Oak, Emperor of the North Oak, Emperor of the South Oak, Great Mamamuszi Oak, Southern Cross Oak, The Guardian of Zwierzyniec, The King of Nieznanowo, Tsar Oak.

Nothing about these trees makes them any more notable than any other Oak tree in the world. One other article about a tree in the same forest which has some sort of historical significance, Jagiełło Oak has not been put up for deletion. Oz Lawyer 22:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mergewith Bialowieza Forest or Delete--Nick Y. 23:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into parent forest article. One of the other tree articles was AFDed back in March: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Congress Oak. I think I even pointed out that there were a dozen other articles about specific trees made by the same author - not sure why I did not follow up. Old age. I've mellowed with tenure, hence the merge and not outright delete. Kuru ^talk 04:01, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. And I can't believe no one has pointed out this bit - it's a dead tree! An article about a dead tree. A tree. Dead. A dead tree. Shenme 05:32, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was merge into Bialowieza Forest. Mailer Diablo 16:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dominator Oak

Group up for deletion: Barrel Oak, Dominator Oak, Emperor of the North Oak, Emperor of the South Oak, Great Mamamuszi Oak, Southern Cross Oak, The Guardian of Zwierzyniec, The King of Nieznanowo, Tsar Oak.

Nothing about these trees makes them any more notable than any other Oak tree in the world. One other article about a tree in the same forest which has some sort of historical significance, Jagiełło Oak has not been put up for deletion. Oz Lawyer 22:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mergewith Bialowieza Forest or Delete--Nick Y. 23:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into parent forest article. Per comments at Barrel Oak AFD (above). Kuru ^talk 04:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with extreme prejudice. Another dead tree. It's dead. Wikipedia is not a tombstone. Shenme 05:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was merge into Bialowieza Forest. Mailer Diablo 16:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Emperor of the North Oak

Group up for deletion: Barrel Oak, Dominator Oak, Emperor of the North Oak, Emperor of the South Oak, Great Mamamuszi Oak, Southern Cross Oak, The Guardian of Zwierzyniec, The King of Nieznanowo, Tsar Oak.

Nothing about these trees makes them any more notable than any other Oak tree in the world. One other article about a tree in the same forest which has some sort of historical significance, Jagiełło Oak has not been put up for deletion. Oz Lawyer 22:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mergewith Bialowieza Forest or Delete--Nick Y. 23:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into parent forest article. Per comments at Barrel Oak AFD (above). Kuru ^talk 04:03, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. Wikipedia is not a arboretum. Shenme 05:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was merge into Bialowieza Forest. Mailer Diablo 16:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Emperor of the South Oak

Group up for deletion: Barrel Oak, Dominator Oak, Emperor of the North Oak, Emperor of the South Oak, Great Mamamuszi Oak, Southern Cross Oak, The Guardian of Zwierzyniec, The King of Nieznanowo, Tsar Oak.

Nothing about these trees makes them any more notable than any other Oak tree in the world. One other article about a tree in the same forest which has some sort of historical significance, Jagiełło Oak has not been put up for deletion. Oz Lawyer 22:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mergewith Bialowieza Forest or Delete--Nick Y. 23:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into parent forest article. Per comments at Barrel Oak AFD (above). Kuru ^talk 04:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. Wikipedia is not a arboretum. Shenme 05:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was merge into Bialowieza Forest. Mailer Diablo 16:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great Mamamuszi Oak

Group up for deletion: Barrel Oak, Dominator Oak, Emperor of the North Oak, Emperor of the South Oak, Great Mamamuszi Oak, Southern Cross Oak, The Guardian of Zwierzyniec, The King of Nieznanowo, Tsar Oak.

Nothing about these trees makes them any more notable than any other Oak tree in the world. One other article about a tree in the same forest which has some sort of historical significance, Jagiełło Oak has not been put up for deletion. Oz Lawyer 22:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mergewith Bialowieza Forest or Delete--Nick Y. 23:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into parent forest article. Per comments at Barrel Oak AFD (above). Kuru ^talk 04:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. Wikipedia is not a arboretum. Shenme 05:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was merge into Bialowieza Forest. Mailer Diablo 16:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Cross Oak

Group up for deletion: Barrel Oak, Dominator Oak, Emperor of the North Oak, Emperor of the South Oak, Great Mamamuszi Oak, Southern Cross Oak, The Guardian of Zwierzyniec, The King of Nieznanowo, Tsar Oak.

Nothing about these trees makes them any more notable than any other Oak tree in the world. One other article about a tree in the same forest which has some sort of historical significance, Jagiełło Oak has not been put up for deletion. Oz Lawyer 22:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mergewith Bialowieza Forest or Delete--Nick Y. 23:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into parent forest article. Per comments at Barrel Oak AFD (above). Kuru ^talk 04:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. Wikipedia is not a arboretum. Shenme 05:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was merge into Bialowieza Forest. Mailer Diablo 16:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Guardian of Zwierzyniec

Group up for deletion: Barrel Oak, Dominator Oak, Emperor of the North Oak, Emperor of the South Oak, Great Mamamuszi Oak, Southern Cross Oak, The Guardian of Zwierzyniec, The King of Nieznanowo, Tsar Oak.

Nothing about these trees makes them any more notable than any other Oak tree in the world. One other article about a tree in the same forest which has some sort of historical significance, Jagiełło Oak has not been put up for deletion. Oz Lawyer 22:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mergewith Bialowieza Forest or Delete--Nick Y. 23:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into parent forest article. Per comments at Barrel Oak AFD (above). Kuru ^talk 04:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. Wikipedia is not a arboretum. Shenme 05:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was merge into Bialowieza Forest. Mailer Diablo 16:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The King of Nieznanowo

Group up for deletion: Barrel Oak, Dominator Oak, Emperor of the North Oak, Emperor of the South Oak, Great Mamamuszi Oak, Southern Cross Oak, The Guardian of Zwierzyniec, The King of Nieznanowo, Tsar Oak.

Nothing about these trees makes them any more notable than any other Oak tree in the world. One other article about a tree in the same forest which has some sort of historical significance, Jagiełło Oak has not been put up for deletion. Oz Lawyer 22:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mergewith Bialowieza Forest or Delete--Nick Y. 23:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into parent forest article. Per comments at Barrel Oak AFD (above). Kuru ^talk 04:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. Wikipedia is not a arboretum. Shenme 05:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was merge into Bialowieza Forest. Mailer Diablo 16:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tsar Oak

Group up for deletion: Barrel Oak, Dominator Oak, Emperor of the North Oak, Emperor of the South Oak, Great Mamamuszi Oak, Southern Cross Oak, The Guardian of Zwierzyniec, The King of Nieznanowo, Tsar Oak.

Nothing about these trees makes them any more notable than any other Oak tree in the world. One other article about a tree in the same forest which has some sort of historical significance, Jagiełło Oak has not been put up for deletion. Oz Lawyer 22:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mergewith Bialowieza Forest or Delete--Nick Y. 23:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into parent forest article. Per comments at Barrel Oak AFD (above). Kuru ^talk 04:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. Wikipedia is not a arboretum. Shenme 05:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Wikipedia is not an arboretum. Stifle (talk) 19:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 05:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Usurp Synapse

Non notable, non-NPOV bandcruft, appears to be a puff piece for this band, no semblence of any notability. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 22:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Being a little lazy here, or just a bit of a snob? Thousands upon thousands of Google hits for this band, definitely a notable band in its genre. Article needs cleanup, sources, etc., but is worthy of inclusion. PT 23:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll remind you of no personal attacks and to refrain from making comments such as the above which constitute personal attacks. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 01:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not being lazy here - actually 400 unique Ghits, not "thousands upon thousands", sorry.--DaveG12345 02:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm not really sure what you did there, but I have doubts the process is doing what you think it is. Following the same process, Nickleback gets 605 hits, Gnarls Barkley gets 706, and the Dixie Chicks get 677. Oz Lawyer 15:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment AfD them all!!! ;-) In truth, "unique" hits doesn't mean there aren't more hits, it's a Google filtering system kicking in that removes "similar" hits. WP:GOOG is just a rough rule of thumb, except that you'd expect notable websites etc. to have more than a handful of hits if they're "notable". For a band, Ghits on their own don't mean a lot, except that they can quickly verify whether an act actually exists, and they can obviously tell you the types of sites referencing the band - reliable music sites and reviewers = good, obscure forums and blogs generally not-so-good. WP:GOOG is a technique that's been the subject of a lot of debate, and is not even a WP guideline. I was just having a joke about Parsssseltongue's "lazy" comments above, really. :-)--DaveG12345 17:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. No entry on discogs.com. If the "slew of EPs" (non-self released) claim can be substantiated, then change to keep. Oz Lawyer 23:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vanity NN --Macarion 00:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, only if the information on the page is cleaned up. They aren't very influential, but still a big enough band(in the hardcore/screamo underground) to get an entry.--Toddd 15:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless record relreases are verified. Stifle (talk) 19:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I have cleaned up the article, providing verifiable references to their releases and tours. PT ^(s-s-s-s) 19:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Fl owerparty^☀ 04:46, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Insane-Entertainment

Just another NN company, this time a record company that doesn't even have a real website! --Bill (who is cool!) 23:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. DarthVad e r 23:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. If your website is a free webhost, that really says something. Fan-1967 00:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per CSD A7 - article doesn't assert the importance or significance of the subject. —TheJC (Talk • Contribs • Count) 23:35, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Fan-1967. Not a speedy, as it is not a person o group of people, but a company. Stifle (talk) 19:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Fl owerparty^☀ 04:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mornington Asylum

Completely NN lego creation, practically no google hits. Delete. J Milburn 23:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Totally trivial.--Anthony.bradbury 23:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hasn't generated any "popular interest" across the bit of the internet that I'm connected to. --DaveG12345 23:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Oz Lawyer 23:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only 4 Google hits WP 10:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Amalas =^_^= 13:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Fl owerparty^☀ 04:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bsdtalk

I nominated this for PROD but someone contested so I'm brining it here. Reason for prod were: nn podcast. doesn't seem to meet WP:WEB --Pboyd04 23:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom. Oz Lawyer 23:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above and not a collection of lists. -- Steel 00:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm also seeing no evidence that this podcast passes WP:WEB, nor does the article offer any assertion that it does. The subject's also limited to 250 unique Ghits, and the podcast's main blog site's Alexa ranking, plus that of the host itself are > 1,000,000. --DaveG12345 02:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all podcases. Stifle (talk) 19:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Fl owerparty^☀ 04:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon (Suikoden III)

No clear assertion of notability (or really anything else) in the article Could be merged into 108 Stars of Destiny (Suikoden) if that article is rewritten. Eluchil404 23:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~ into 108 Stars of Destiny, Notable Suikoden characters or Other characters (Suikoden) depening on which he fits into. -- Steel 23:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He's listed at 108 Stars of Destiny (Suikoden) but currently that article is just a breif overview of the topic and a collection of (mostly red) links. Eluchil404 00:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete then. None of the other characters seem to have anything devoted to them, and this guy's nothing special. -- Steel 00:15, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Steel. Stifle (talk) 18:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Fl owerparty^☀ 04:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clubbindublin

This website does not appear notable in any way, and as a consequence fails WP:WEB -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 00:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:SPAM No less than four links to their external web site. --Xrblsnggt 04:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:SPAM, fails WP:WEB. HumbleGod 22:40, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BALLS and WP:SPAM. Stifle (talk) 18:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Fl owerparty^☀ 04:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Airplane Shop

This is a company. So what? There is nothing in the article to suggest that it is especially notable, above all the hundreds of thousands of other companies in the USA. The article just gives a history of customers' shopping habits, and notes that they opened a few stores. Nothing notable whatsoever... not to mention that nothing is referenced. EuroSong ^talk 00:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree, non-notable company. --Awiseman 15:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:CORP and due to lack of reliable sources. Stifle (talk) 18:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the nomination was Speedy delete per CSD:A1/G4, its fourteenth deletion. Stifle (talk) 18:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jasbond

Non-notable website Steve 00:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can find no evidence of notability for this site and none is given in the article either. DrunkenSmurf 01:40, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete under 1k g-hits pretty much none of which are related to ths tei, 0 google new hits, no details at alexa.com. No assertion of notability as of yet. Written like vanity and is users 2nd edit after their test edit. Bean2 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) created the article for anyone interested.--Andeh 02:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This website has a virtually non-existent internet profile. --DaveG12345 02:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:WEB. In fact, speedy delete as a short article with little or no context. Stifle (talk) 18:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was keep. Mailer Diablo 05:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clean, Old-Fashioned Hate

It's a college rivalry, which in my opinion isn't all that notable, and apparently google agrees. All colleges have rivalries, but the only people that have any interest in them are current students and those closely involved in the program. Also, it's not particularly well written, and everything it mentions could probably be summed up into the articles of the colleges themselves (if they haven't been already.) tmopkisn ^tlka 00:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -this is the second time we have had one of these Georgia rivalries and the other was deleted. Interstate cups between colleges are not-notable. BlueValour 00:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete per above. Oz Lawyer 01:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Professional teams in the USA are few and far between. College teams and rivalries take on the level of pro teams in those areas. Some are as well known as the 'Old Firm' is in Europe. --DarkAudit 02:32, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - that point is taken but any local trophy between just two pro league teams, at any sport, would, I suggest be non-notable. BlueValour 03:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ If there's nowhere for this in the individual college articles or College rivalry, then there sure isn't anything here worthy of its own article. There are hundreds of college rivalries in the USA alone. If this one's as well known as the Old Firm, let's see some evidence, and if it's genuinely convincing, I will gladly switch my vote. --DaveG12345 03:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC) (see below --DaveG12345 05:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Keep The Georgia Tech vs. Georgia rivalry is, in comparison to many of the List of NCAA college football rivalry games articles which aren't up for deletion, a much more notable rivalry. The rivalry engages the entire populace of the state of Georgia (8,000,000 people) once a year for football, once a year for basketball, and three times a year for baseball. This is what American sporting is about, hardcore rivalries. They keep the games interesting and intense. I personally have never heard of the Old Firm rivalry in the United States but the average American college sports fan knows that Georgia Tech and Georgia hate eachother's guts. As a previous poster's mentioned, college sports and college rivalries in the United States are equivalent to European club rivalries. You guys get your rivalries, we've get ours. It can be stubbed, if need be.--Excaliburhorn 11:56, July 6, 2006
- Comment: I'd just like to point out that only two of the articles on that chart (Battle for Nevada and Catholics vs. Convicts) got fewer google hits then the one in question. Now, I realize that this isn't a sure-fire way to judge the article's notability, but I just wanted to inform you that some of those rivalries aren't as obscure as you might think. tmopkisn ^tlka 04:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Retort: Your Zadar Cow got many less hits than the article in question. I'm very displeased with this whole procedure. I recommend a stubbing and moving on.--Excaliburhorn 12:44, July 7, 2006
I found quite a few references to the rivalry that didn't always refer to the title of this article, so I'm going Keep and trusting you guys on the notability, before The Varsity Match ends up in here. ;-) BTW, I think there may be a mistake in the List of NCAA college football rivalry games , since the list states this rivalry is a few years older than the Deep South's Oldest Rivalry. --DaveG12345 05:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: You are correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Excaliburhorn (talk • contribs)
Having lived in Georgia, I know first-hand that people go crazy about it: Georgia fans don't use mustard (as yellow is Georgia Tech's colour), GT fans don't use ketchup for the same reason. If you get married to a person who went to the other school, both families disown you. So therefore, Keep. It's a big part of the social fabric of the state of Georgia.--ChicosBailBonds 05:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although this article can definitely use some cleanup/expansion, the rivalry is both historic and huge in the state of Georgia and has involved mainly notable coaches (e.g. John Heisman, Pop Warner, Bobby Dodd, Vince Dooley, Bill Curry, Bobby Ross). --Roswell native 12:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable college rivalry. Per DarkAudit, I'd say that college sports is bigger than pro sports through most parts of the southeast. That said, I'm not running out to create an article for the Textile Bowl, but Tech–Georgia is a biggie as rivalries go. —C.Fred (talk) 13:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I lived in Jacksonville, FL for three years. Florida and Florida State football got far more press than the NFL Jaguars, even when the Jaguars were in the playoffs. --DarkAudit 14:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm surprised this is being considered for deletion. This is certainly a notably sports rivalry. Johntex\^talk 14:13, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems well written and referenced. There is often a statewide (if not wider) interest in big college rivalries. --Ryanminier 16:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is part of {{WikiProject College football}} and for completeness on the subject matter, must be included. --Mecu 17:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Being from Michigan, I know how huge rivalries can be, with MSU and Ohio State. I say keep because rivalries are perhaps the biggest part of college football, many times even more important that what bowl a team makes it to. Bornagain4 17:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Very notable rivalry. Dsreyn 18:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Little Brown Jug (football) and Paul Bunyan Trophy both have articles, to cite two of many examples. JChap 20:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Important enough of a rivalry for Wikipedia to possess an article about it. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 01:39, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It has its own name, it has multiple print sources, it's quite important to a few million people in the state of Georgia. Notable enough for WP. VT hawkeye_{talk to me} 01:19, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is part a project and has notability CJC47 18:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete - CrazyRussian talk/email 13:47, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Northeast Midget Hockey League

The consensus at WP:HOCKEY seems to be that while junior hockey (the highest level of amateur hockey competition) is relevant and notable, midget (one step down, and for players 17 and under) is not. This league is not particularly noteworthy and falls a little too far down the scale. Also, a team in the league, the Connecticut Renegades, was nominated here with no consensus, and another team was deleted here. I voted to keep both teams but would now change my vote per further consideration and discussion; if anyone wants to re-nominate the Connecticut team I would support that deletion. BoojiBoy 17:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A league article is ok. Team articles would be overkill. Powers 17:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per my comments here; the results of Googling NEMHL (full name gets nothing of interest) really don't suggest any sort of notability. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I've been in the thick of the notability debate on hockey leagues, but midget = downright youth team; this is an age level comparable to high school conferences, which I doubt Wikipedia includes. RGTraynor 05:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Deathphoenix ʕ 15:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The league isn't even remotely notable. I think the fact that "Northeast Midget Hockey League" gets TWO non-Wikipedia hits (one being their web site) says it all. -- Kicking222 17:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- For full disclosure, Googling "NEMHL"+hockey gets about 2,500 hits, but less than FORTY are unique. -- Kicking222 17:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Angusmclellan. Stifle (talk) 18:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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