Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 June 24

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log
< June 23 June 25 >

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 debate was delete all three -- Samir धर्म 07:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fishing (RuneScape)

edit

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mining (RuneScape). Plus, there's an even better article on the RuneScape wiki. --Ixfd64 00:03, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD appended to include Woodcutting (Runescape).

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 all as vandalism (or, if you prefer, A7 since claims are non-credible) —Quarl (talk) 2006-06-24 11:06Z

Sir Andrew Roberts

edit
and the related pages Lord Officer of the Royal Palaces, Royalty Protection Branch, Lord Security Officer for Her Majesty Queen, Lord Security Officer for The Royal Family, Lord Officer of the Royal Palaces, LORP, LSOHMQ and LSORF

This person does not exist! There is no such thing as the Lord Officer of the Royal Palaces, the Royalty Protection Branch, the Lord Security Officer for Her Majesty Queen, the Lord Security Officer for The Royal Family or the Lord Officer of the Royal Palaces and this and those articles belong in the bin. The 9th Earl of Jersey didn't have a daughter called Sharon, and Lady Sarah Roberts doesn't exist and certainly didn't have any liasion with the 11th Duke of Marlborough. Also, User:Tvaddict and User:Helloamerica are adding crap to British Royalty pages and seem to be the same person. Craigy (talk) 00:24, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Earl of Amersham
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stefan Roberts (second nomination)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stefan Roberts
Recurring themes are the kid's name, as well as Villiers and the house of Jersey. Fan1967 04:20, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect so as well. Mackensen (talk) 04:45, 24 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 debate was delete. Sango123 03:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TekPlus

edit

Advertisement for non-notable company. Google for tekplus -wikipedia "market intelligence" [1] finds only 34 unique hits, none to reliable sources. It was CSD tagged as "no context" but I decided that there was context in the article and prod'ed it. Prod was contested without explanation. Delete. Kimchi.sg 00:38, 24 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 debate was delete. Kimchi.sg 02:14, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Visually Impaired Placenta

edit

Non-notable band, only a few Google hits. --Chris (talk) 01:02, 24 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 debate was speedy delete CSD G1, even worse than Captain Dan Splashback. Kimchi.sg 02:25, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Ethel

edit

Non-notable, and nonsense. --Chris (talk) 01:03, 24 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 debate was delete. Kimchi.sg 02:18, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3Hats

edit

Non-notable and nonsense. --Chris (talk) 01:04, 24 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 debate was speedy delete textbook CSD G1. Kimchi.sg 02:22, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Dan Splashback

edit

Non-notable and nonsense. --Chris (talk) 01:05, 24 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 debate was delete. Sango123 03:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NW's Pokémon Program Suite

edit

Non-notable Pokémon index, and a vanity article (primary author of the article is also ONE OF the authors of the program). Zetawoof(ζ) 01:16, 24 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 debate was delete. Sango123 03:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JDI Pixel

edit

Beta program, not yet released, also per lack of notability on the JDI Network AFD, its parent company. It also reads like an advertisement. Hbdragon88 01:16, 24 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 debate was speedy delete per CSD G4. Recreation of Standard definitions of terms relating to mass spectrometry, deleted per link below. -- Samir धर्म 02:10, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IUPAC MS Terms and Definitions

edit

A recreation of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_May_24#Standard_definitions_of_terms_relating_to_mass_spectrometry, POV, not necessary. It is an article about a draft document and concludes that it is a failure. Author has a history of attacking IUPAC and has a beef with the head of the commitee that produced this particular document. Delete P.S. I would also like to suggest banning the author for ongoing POV pushing and abusiveness. Nick Y. 01:20, 24 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 debate was Delete. The article has no sources, failing the policy at WP:V, and the consensus in this discussion is to delete. Hiding Talk 08:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Purifying Drink

edit

Possible Advertisement, little context (Purifying drinks are controversial lifestyle beverages) NMChico24 01:30, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete seems like a neologistic name for hang over cures. Perhaps if it was sourced better shown to be widely used and notable and in encyclopedic style? Definately nix the advert.--Nick Y. 01:35, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this one puzzles me. Sounds like a generic sort of drink but only 7 Google hits and none for the branded drink. Should be deleted unless someone comes up with some good sources PDQ. BlueValour 01:47, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unverifiable. --Coredesat 01:55, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no sources, reads like an ad, possible for this product? Dpbsmith (talk) 02:33, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:V Jammo (SM247) 04:51, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete... so controversial, no-one's ever heard of it... --TrianaC 11:27, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Perhaps if we've never heard of a described product type and it doesn't exist on the internet, it's not real!? Luckily neither is the case. If this were an advertisement, I would then label it as weak, a weak (possibly counterproductive) advertisement. I prefer to research things before commenting, let alone taking the time to actually add a wiki. A quick YAHOO on *purifying drink* brings up the official website of the said American product, and a YAHOO on *soberade* brings up about a dozen of the European versions of the described product type. Another easily obtained widley distributed news article shows how a french version of the product type was banned from France (aka controversial). Of course REDBULL and TUARINE were also banned in the U.S. in '92, although that didn't last very long obviously. If Wiki were around in the early 90's it may have been a bit pretentious to delete the *energy drink* entry, just because no one knew of this phenom product type in the states for years after it had arrived. I suppose we could delete all new, underground or relatively unknown product categories until they are readily available at WalMart or MTV breaks a big story on them, but I dont have that kind of time, and it seems very anti-wiki to me. --Cadillacula 00:46, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Re-creating Okay based on the above comments I am recreating the Purifying Drink article, void of a specific product name or example. It simply describes a product category. Please refrain from saying the product type or category doesn't exist... simple type in "purifying drink" or "SOBERADE" into YAHOO and browse through a dozen products on the market or so that lower B.A.C. - Wiki users deserve to be aware of such products, wether popular or not. Order the products via their respective online stores for even further physical proof.
    • Lastly, if one 10 word sentence of the Purifying Drink was a source of issue... why will no one petition the following far more blatant and detailed advertisements for deletion?: Rockstar Energy Drink, Monster Energy Drink(search), Von Dutch Energy Drink(search)... Before an article about a product type (Purifying Drink) is again brought under fire, I feel one must explain why the previously mentioned advertisements on specific product brands are allowed to exist unscathed. Fair enough?--Cadillacula 22:00, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Google is the search engine of choice and produces 7 hits, none of them comvincing, for 'Purifying drinks' and 1 for 'soberades'. Two of the drinks that you specify have no WP article and Rockstar is factual, exists, and makes no claims. BlueValour 22:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Google is the search engine of whose choice exactly? KEEP - it's now a non brand-specific nuetral and new (to some?) broad product category/type description. Oh dear, I wonder if this is what it was like for the first man who discovered fire and tried to bring it back to his tribe. I am not sure why my research is proving far more effective than a few of the others here, it seems so simple. Next time you are conducting extensive research on the said product type with your *search engine of choice* try OUTOX, DTOX, BANGOUT drink, SECURITY FEEL BETTER, SOBERGUARD, NOTOX drink, the list goes on. Real products you can purchase and consume, right now. I apologize if I am the first one to expose this product category to the known world. All very convincing as 'purifying drinks' and 'soberades'. Again I ask if something is not instantly evident in someone’s quick off the cuff internet search does this mean its not real or its presence shouldn't be felt on Wiki. Is it inconcievable that a piece of new knowledge be made more readily accesible to a Wiki user than to a Google user? My point is clearly not to advertise any brands (unlike the dozens of *energy drink* Wiki entries) only the CATEGORY. Contrary to someone elses findings, two of the ENERGY drinks I specified (Monster Energy Drink and Von Dutch Energy Drink) do indeed have WP articles which read like true advertisements, however for whatever fault of the Wiki system, they only show when you do a specific search and click on their 100% relevant listing, as I thought I clearly indicated by putting the word SEARCH after I mentioned each of them (see *Lastly* above). Rockstar is factual, exists, and makes unproven claims to boost energy, mind and spirit with special ingredients, it is also far more of a specific brand advertisement (posted by its founder) than a quick article about a new type of drink category. Entry has been modified--Cadillacula 00:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete? On the other hand the following article, for example, is an advertisement: Rockstar Energy Drink, most likely posted by the noted guerilla style marketer Russell Goldencloud Weiner. While contrastly the Purifying Drink article in question appears to simply be about a product category, though a fairly new one (to the U.S.) indeed.--Cadillacula 01:03, 25 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 debate was Sorry, Malvern, but your article is in another Wikipedia. DS 03:59, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Malvern Blackwell

edit

This chap is just one of thousands of level designers working in the industry - just a regular guy doing a regular good job but no more notable than any doctor, lawyer, teacher etc BlueValour 01:30, 24 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 debate was Redirect to Shayne van Vlerken and await the deletion of that article. -- RHaworth 01:43, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mhelp

edit

Advertising spam, identical text to Shayne van Vlerken Matticus78 01:38, 24 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 debate was speedy delete CSD A7. Kimchi.sg 04:23, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shayne van Vlerken

edit

Non-notable, advertising spam, identical to article Mhelp which has since been merged. Matticus78 01:40, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also a redirect at Mr. Shayne L. van Vlerken, inventor Mhelp. -- RHaworth 01:46, 24 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 debate was speedy delete per CSD A7, and userfied -- Samir धर्म 02:06, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Big Bubbs

edit

This article is self advertising, the user name is the same as the article name SirGrant 01:55, 24 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 debate was delete. Kimchi.sg 04:25, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Digital Network Control System

edit

Advertisement Nv8200p talk 18:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Samir धर्म 01:52, 24 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 debate was delete. – Will (message me!) 19:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NCFL Grand National 2006

edit

Delete Annual tournament held by a notable organization is not notable simply by association. After deprodded, the dissenter compared the tournament to the World Cup and the Superbowl. The article itself is nothing more than a collection of lists rather than an actual encyclopedia article that could inform people who are interested. If anything, this should be incorpriated into the NCFL article, but it certainly doesn't deserve a page of its own. Delete as listcruft and NN except by association pm_shef 02:01, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep I believe my original words on the article's discussion page will suffice: "I have challenged the deletion of this article for the following reasons: This is the second-most important speech tournament in the US, open to far more than just the "Catholic home school debate" that the claimant mentioned. (In fact, it is open to both public and private schools.) There is substantial precedent for making articles for each year's version of an event - see the Super Bowl or the World Cup - and, even if this is a speech tournament, I believe that there is a strong enough speech community to churn out plenty of info for articles like this one. (See Victory Briefs Daily [2] for just what I mean, though you might have to check a few months back to find the NCFL and not NFL stuff.) --JKLPirate 02:12, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the tournament itself does not have its own website and the first Google hit that appears is Wikipedia. Does not have much encyclopedic value. --Terence Ong (Chat | Contribs) 04:06, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and inasmuch as a given iteration of a NCFL competition is non-notable, IMHO, and I'm not at all sure there's anything valuable to merge here (the fact of the ___location and dates of the competition is surely well-available and less-than-substantive, such that, with the information's having been merged into the NCFL article, this article could be deleted without our incurring GFDL troubles). Joe 04:07, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per T&E:FEQ ~ trialsanderrors 05:54, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to NCFL's page. There's not much here that couldn't adequately be covered in the NCFL page. —C.Fred (talk) 18:18, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. High school debate tournaments, even national ones, are not the focus of general public attention in the way that professional athletic events such as the Super Bowl and World Cup are. --Metropolitan90 18:25, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable in the least. --Coredesat 21:20, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep-If an event which had 3,000 participants natinwide is not notable, then maybe we should eliminate such events as olympic years, specific superbowls, world series etc.

Jeeps2009 21:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment That's ludicrous. The Olympics and Superbowl are watched and/or attended by millions, if not billions of people. Both events generate billions of dollars in revenue, the olympics attract particpants from literally every nation on earth. How anyone can try and draw similarities between this event (which doesn't even have its own permanent website) and the Olympics, is beyond me. - pm_shef 00:42, 28 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 debate was DELETE. Article has no third party sources, required per policy at WP:V. Claims of notability have been made in the discussion, but no sources have been forthcoming. Hiding Talk 08:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Werribee Plaza

edit

OK; its a shopping centre - so? NN BlueValour 02:40, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I understand your point but we have to start somewhere and get standards and precedents. I'll be more than happy to spend some time looking for these articles and nominating them for deletion. Pascal.Tesson 15:36, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep we have to start somewhere?! THe idea of going on a deletion crusade does not add to WP at all. It actually detracts, because instead of improving, you simply delete problems. Please show where it was decided that shopping centres are not distinct building s and structure landmarks in their locality. --Shuki 19:39, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Shopping centres certainly can be notable, particularly if they are the largest in the region or architecturally notable. However, this one does not fit either category. The line has to be drawn somewhere or else every shopping arcade in the world could be included. You voted 'Keep' - what was it about /this/ arcade that you thought was sufficiently notable to merit inclusion in a serious encyclopaedia? BlueValour 19:57, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The idea that deletion is counterproductive to WP is not sound. Keeping a minimum filter of notability will improve WP's reputation in the long run. I agree that poor articles should be improved not deleted but in this instance there is simply no avenue for constructive improvements. Pascal.Tesson 20:16, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, but I disagree. I don't need to argue about anything. Perhaps you need to reread my comment: notability is not part of my thinking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JJay (talk • contribs)
I responded to this quote (emphasis added): Notability is what this AfD is being argued on, to argue for keep you need to indicate why you think it is notable enough to be included in wikipedia.. I am not "confused" and I would ask you, again, to cease the personal attacks when commenting on AfD. --JJay 17:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think that in 'you need to argue' the need the poster referred to was the need to help others in the discussion understand your argument; allowing them to either agree or give some(any) weight to it. Whilst you are certainly not under any obligation to provide explaination, not giving it will not help your aim of keeping this article at the close of this discussion. Inner Earth 18:30, 28 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 debate was speedy delete by Alex S as repost. Kimchi.sg 04:30, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MittenZ

edit

repost and wikipedia is NOT a site to promote a person or groupBetacommand 02:45, 24 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 debate was DELETE. Many of the keep comments can be discounted on the basis of their being based on the commentors experience rather than applicable policy. The argument that this should be kept because it doesn't fit in the main article is somewhat redundant, if it is POV there then it is POV here. There don't seem to be enough sources to warrant a separate article from the parent, and with the quotations removed from the article, it would be best presented in the main article, giving the information the due weight it deserves. Information which would unbalance a main article by giving it undue weight is considered a POV fork when split out. Hiding Talk 10:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Research into health benefits of Falun Gong

edit

Collection of source material, mostly by Falun Gong supporters, supporting health benefits. Apart from mostly being just quotes, this is also highly NPOV, and nearly all of it is of questionable notability. It appears that the researchers for the "journal" article are connected with the editors for the page, so there may be WP:VAIN problems as well. Philosophus T 02:51, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These are not believable research projects Bwithh 18:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wiki is to report anything as long as they have a valid source. -- Quite certainly not. ~ trialsanderrors 19:19, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please read the verifiability policy carefully:Articles should rely on credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. For academic subjects, the sources should preferably be peer-reviewed. Sources should also be appropriate to the claims made: outlandish claims beg strong sources.. One peer reviewed obscure journal article (with a sample size of six subjects ) plus some large scale surveys whose only source is a Falun Gong promotional page is not sufficient here, especially given the enormous claims made by these reports. Bwithh 23:17, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for pulling out the text for me. I think the article itself did not make outlandish claims, instead, it may just report some seeming outlandish claims and leaves the readers to decide. Whether the sample size is adequate or not is not a question for wiki, but for the journal paper review committee. Fnhddzs 04:46, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, technically it's not the business of WP to report primary sources in the first place. Our job is to wait until it gets picked up by a secondary source, such as a textbook or compendium, from which we turn it into a tertiary source. ~ trialsanderrors 04:51, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ok. that seems a good comment. If I understand correctly, so you mean although the source is a published journal paper, it has to be cited by any other source to be cited on wiki? Although I personally think it is kind of too much, I follow your suggestion to find where it is cited. I found 'two' places.
According to [6], This paper was cited by :
Current awareness on comparative and functional genomics
Comparative and Functional Genomics. 2005, Vol. 6, No. 7-8: 412

But it is not cited by this only one as suggested on liebertonline.com.

According to isiknowledge.com, It is also cited by Zieker D, Zieker J, Dietzsch J, et al.
CDNA-microarray analysis as a research tool for expression profiling in human peripheral blood following exercise
EXERCISE IMMUNOLOGY REVIEW 11: 86-96 2005 [7][8]
Would this look better? -- Fnhddzs 05:36, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I already listed this on the Talk page, along with the impact score of the journal. This is not really what I'm talking about, but I recommend we continue the discussion at the bottom, where I wrote some comments on what an encyclopedic article requires. ~ trialsanderrors 06:25, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the above. Over 50% of the article is text copied from elsewhere. Might as well read the original studies if you want the info. (ADMIN: Please watch for sockpuppets in this vote.) -Medtopic 06:44, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I second fnhddzs's words and want to add that, as part of the Falun Gong article, this information is very relevant since one of the most common claims made by Falun Gong practitioners, as well as the founder himself, is that it is beneficial to health. The page mostly contains results from actual scientific and physiological research and surveys. Although these researchers may support Falun Gong, that does not render their findings POV. The fact that they were published in scientific journals furthers their credibility. I don't know what you're talking about regarding a connection between the editors and the researchers. Also, like all wiki pages, this page is subject to improvement and further editing. I expect that the majority of the quotes will be better summarized in the near future.Mcconn 07:18, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment These are NOT genuine scientific research and surveys. Take a closer look. They're more like hoaxes. See my further comment below Bwithh 18:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment As I mentioned above, wiki does not care about whether it is genunine or not. For example, if Wallstreet newspaper said a physicist named ABC said the moon is tetrahedron. Wiki articles could report it as long as it mentioned the source since the Wallstreet newspaper is a nice source. Fnhddzs 19:39, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Do I read this correctly that the article is based on a study with 6 + 6 subjects? ~ trialsanderrors 07:20, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment My main problem with this article is that it appears to be an abstract of one single reference source, save some top and tail sources. I am unsure whether this satisfies WP:NPOV. I am unconvinced at the moment that it warrants deletion. It might help if Falun Gong was wikilinked from this daughter page at least once though! --DaveG12345 07:30, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's put it this way: Strong Delete as WP:NOT part of accepted knowledge and WP:POV unless this is summarized significantly unless the editors get a WP:PR underway before this AfD is over. I'm not even sure this isn't WP:OR. ~ trialsanderrors 07:36, 24 June 2006 (UTC) 17:15, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and retain WP:NPOV tag, add wikify tag. This appears to be an article with a fairly busy discussion page in the process of addressing its (fairly considerable) POV issues. Assuming those are eventually fixed up, this is - on the face of it - a work in progress but valid spin-off from a long main article (which has POV problems of its own). --DaveG12345 08:00, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm sorry. If an article starts with Research into I expect an article on a research field. Something that has produced enough peer-reviewed journal articles to write a balanced review summarizing the key theories and disputes. Replicating the findings of one third-tier article is not what the title of this article implies, and looking at the edit history I'm not confident that this article will go anywhere, lengthy discussions on the talk page or not. But maybe someone surprises me and cuts this down to size. ~ trialsanderrors 08:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, using WP:AGF, I couldn't find grounds for delete. --DaveG12345 09:53, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • OK, I agree that WP:POV might be assuming bad faith. But a single article on a 6+6 study from a third tier journal (impact factor 1.051), a conference report and a survey of unknown provenance is far below WP:N for a science article. If it hasn't been compiled into a textbook, research survey or another secondary source it fails WP:RS. An alternative would be to put this AfD on hold if the editors agree to a Wikipedia:Peer review. ~ trialsanderrors
  • Keep. Whats POV about this? Wouldnt reserach into health benefits of tai-chi be of great relevance to a tai-chi article. Falun Gong is a system of Xiulian ( cultivation practice) like taichi. To avoid POV issues, the data from the papers/surveys were presented as such. No extrapolation was done by any editor. Dilip rajeev 10:18, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Falun Gong is not very comparable to Tai-Chi, as Tai-chi doesn't have a cult movement leader that claims to have supernatural divine powers and claims to be humankind's saviour who will turn all his followers in gods after the coming apocalypse . Bwithh 15:53, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I'd say it's relevant of course, no issue with that. But the source used here seems to be a primary source, and - according to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Some_definitions - primary sources used in WP must be from a reliable publisher. The publisher of claims of positive health benefits from their own research surely cannot be "reliable" in this sense. Note the definition of a primary source includes the following: "In general, Wikipedia articles should not depend on primary sources but rather on reliable secondary sources who have made careful use of the primary-source material." I don't think (from what I have seen) this has occurred in this case. But I say Keep, and feel sure it will be sorted given time. --DaveG12345 13:38, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Of course it should be kept, it is a research so it is important that it is kept./Omido 11:08, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Coredesat. --TrianaC 11:36, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete as per excellent arguments made by trialsanderrors regarding very poor methodology and dubious intent of "scientific" research cited. Unverifiable / POV research + possible Original Research problems, even possibly hoax problems. Bwithh 15:53, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The large-scale surveys sourced from this page appear to be highly dubious too. For instance, these supposedly official scientific studies demonstrate their methodological authority by stating "The data was input into a computer.... The data was analyzed with Microsoft Office 97 Excel version 8.0" (how impressive!). To confirm (why does this have to be confirmed in this way?) something as simple as gender and age distribution of their sample size, the researchers confidently state that used two different statistical methods (again with the indisputable Excel 8.0). The conclusions of the surveys are also completely pro-Falun Gong with very little scientific discussion. In fact, they sound like propaganda or advertising: "The survey showed that the number of people learning Falun Gong was growing bigger and bigger. This was, based on the analysis of the survey, because 1) the practitioners of Falun Gong were able to prove its extraordinary effects through their own practice. After doing Falun Gong, their health was improved. Their intelligence was enhanced. Their minds were widened and clarified. Their bad habits were quit. Their family lives were in amity. They become compassionate in their hearts. Their relationships with other people were harmonized.". This is nothing like genuine scientific research. This is bogus propaganda Bwithh 18:07, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Verifiability" in this context does not mean that editors are expected to verify whether, for example, the contents of a New York Times article are true. In fact, editors are strongly discouraged from conducting this kind of research, because original research may not be published in Wikipedia. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources, regardless of whether individual editors view that material as true or false. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is thus verifiability, not truth.

Fnhddzs 19:54, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, aside from the issue of basic verifiability in terms of the scientific method, the only source for the large scale surveys is a Falun Gong promotion page. Take the large scale surveys out, and you're left with a sample size of six with six control subjects in a peer reviewed journal, which, well, raises the issue that not all peer reviewed journals are equally believable. Verifiability depends on reliable sources. Bwithh 22:45, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The surveys are gone (again). Your feelings about journals aside, I think in this case you would have to show the unreliability of the Journal before it could be ruled out. CovenantD 23:57, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Peer review is not sufficient to guarantee reliability of a source. Anyway, regarding the research study example which remains - this study, according to its full abstract takes 6 (six) Falun Gong practitioners who exercise in a Falun Gong way for 1-2 hours a day (and possibly exercise in other ways too for more time - the abstract isn't clear), for at least one year previously, and up to 5 years. These Falun Gong exercisers are then compared to a control group of 6(six) people who have not followed any exercise program of any kind for 1 year or possibly longer. This second group of people are called a "normal and healthy" group by the research authors. Now, I'm kind of a couch potato, but even I know that doing NO exercise whatsover for a YEAR is not "normal and healthy" (unless you're in some kind of manual labour job), and even a 6 year old can predict that the 6 who are doing special exercises 1-2 hours a day (more than most people!) possibly besides any other exercising will turn out to be healthier than the control group. Again, peer review is not the hallmark of sound research. Now I'm off to the gym machine. Bwithh 02:39, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I posted some impact data on the journal and the lone cite to the article on the Talk page. As I mentioned there, the article is probably worth a one-liner, with a caveat about micronumerosity. For those who don't know the scientific publishing industry,m at the bottom of every specialiaztion there are a lot of journals that are essentially scams that milk university libraries for shitloads of money. This journal, by impact factor, seems slightly above that level. It's still not anywhere near what I would consider a sole reliable source for a science article, not to mention that the article itself should write about seconday sources (textbook science), not paraphrase primary sources at length. Again, I can only recommend organizing a peer review. ~ trialsanderrors 03:04, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done. It's up for peer review now. CovenantD 17:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It is to report something. It is a daughter article of the main article Falun_Gong#Research_into_Health_Benefits. It does not have POV issue. All editors working on the main article have had agreed to splitting the main article and link to the daughter articles. Could you tell me where the content to go if the article is deleted? Go back to the main article will make the main article lengthy again. I agree to wikify it or improve it. But I disagree to delete it. Fnhddzs 19:44, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per nom. -- Jared Hunt 01:49, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. To get it out of the way, I've only got 31 main namespace edits, but no vested interest in the fate of this article. I've been reading the Falun Gong and related talk pages for a while, and at this point I tend to agree that this article is both required and probably the most neutral formulation of the name available. In response to Cordesat's argument, this isn't an indiscriminate list of information, as, from what I've read since first hearing about Falun Gong (May something or other), health benefits are pretty central to the practicioners' claims. Moreover, I tend to disagree with TeaDrinker that the name is inherently POV, or, rather, wonder if anyone can think of a better phrasing? "Supposed health benefits of Falun Gong" implies they're dubious, at best; "Health benefits of Falun Gong," that they're confirmed and true; perhaps, "Claimed health benefits..." As it stands now, the name only states that the claims of health benefits are being studied. All of this has been hotly debated on the main article's talk page. I'm the first to agree with Bwithh that the study which made up much of the content (it has since been removed) is an utter sham; that doesn't invalidate the topic, in my eyes. The current quality is marginal, but the numerous editors of the FG pages should be given a chance to keep working and clean this up; it's taken them quite a while just to get this far. At least let trialsanderrors' suggestion of WP:PR run its course. --Philodespotos 05:17, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment First, on the name, I would recommend health effects rather than health benefits, but that's a minor issue. Second, I'm still pushing for a WP:PR, but it seems like only one of the active editors is interested in it. Third, I tend to agree that health effects of FG warrants its own article if there is in fact a research field on the topic. And I'm less sanguine than you that this field actually exists in any meaningful way. Discussing one unvetted article at length is simply non encyclopedic, regardless of its scientific value. So the question is: what other material is there to turn this into an encyclopedic article? I see that the editors are trying to comply with WP:NPOV, but as long as that's the only piece of clay they have, it'll never turn into a sculpture. ~ trialsanderrors 05:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I see that the dubious large-scale surveys which were pulled before from the article due to doubts raised here are now back in full force (and still just sourced from that australian pro-falun gong website). Bwithh 06:41, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per trialsanderrors and Coredesat. Tychocat 11:38, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete & Merge compromise solution- I understand that the editors of the parent article feel that the content of this article is distracting from the main article; however, it can not stand on its own either. Both of those problem come from the same problem. It is mainly a pubmed summary of research paper mainly direct quotes from research. The appropriate solution is to cut almost all of the quoted material and maybe have one, two or three sentences similar to the opening of this article with footnotes to references directly in the main article. That way it is not distracting to the main article. Something like "There has been limited research into the health affects of falun gong practice. Some articles have claimed to demonstrate health benefits and even effects on gene regulation ^1^2^3^4^5."--Nick Y. 16:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't quite understand what you mean by "distracting"? The parent article was too long. So it got split. Almost each section of the pararent article has a daughter article. Anyway, if this article is deleted, the content may have to go back to the main article since it was there. Fnhddzs 01:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No it won't. The same problems that have spawned this AfD prevent it from being transported back into the main article in it's current form. I think the compromise is the best that can be done, given the quality of the one and only source we have. CovenantD 01:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CommentThanks. But could you please educate me the problems in detail? I think in the main article it would be a totally different story. I don't object to compromise somehow, though, since it is improvable anyway. The number of the source of one may seem to be few. but the quality seems good to me:). Fnhddzs 01:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here are the problems with the journal: Not well established (11 volumes). Publisher without reputation. Low impact indicates cursory peer review at best. Here are the problems with the study: Micronumerosity makes external validity extremely suspicious. Major sample selection problems. Study design problems. Single cite mean this paper has not been sufficiently vetted in the scientific community. Here is what speaks in favor of the journal: Online version available at cdlib.org. Here is what speaks in favor of the study: Authors are researchers at respectable medical centers. In summary, I second Nick Y.'s proposal, especially since none of the defenders of the article are willing to subject it to a peer review. ~ trialsanderrors 02:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for educating me. But regardless how many volumes (it was published on vol. 11 as of Feb 2005, but now it is June 2006), it is NIH publication searchable on NIH website[9]. I would be proudly putting on my professional resume if I have such a publication (I know disqualified publications weakens my resume). Fnhddzs 17:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I add that as "in favor of journal" then. Note also that I don't condone removing this source (unlike the "survey" which should be canned as blatantly unscientific). It should just be pared down to size according to its academic status. And if it is the only credible piece of scientific evidence discussing health effects of there is little reason to keep this outside the FG article. ~ trialsanderrors
  • Strongly Keep, per the above discussions, I strongly wish to keep this article. Health benefits of Falun Gong has been seen by all Falun Gong practitioners and their families, friends. Actually, that is the main reason for most people to start to learn Falun Gong. This article provides invaluable information to shed light on why many sick people get well after practicing Falun Gong and why many found their health and energy level significantly improved after practicing Falun Gong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jinlian (talk • contribs)
  • Keep. I am speaking about my own experience. I had an insomnia due to spiritual pressure, but now I enjoy sound sleep. I attribute this to practicing Falun Gong. This topic is a good topic. Although its current paper is not many, it deserves more research. Crystalblue 04:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Keep. Many sociological analyses of Falun Gong's spread in China are reductionist instead of acknowledging that the relevant questions are extremely multifaceted. Falun Gong's popularity cannot be taken out of the context of its alleged (and possibly empirically verifiable) health effects. The Chinese government initially promoted Falun Gong because it could potentially save large sums of medical expenses. Falun Gong won several prizes and was nominated twice as the "Star Qigong School" in Beijing's Asian Health Expo in 1992 and 1993. The Chinese qigong community has cultural competence to evaluate the effectiveness of different practices, and Falun Gong is the most popular and widespread form of qigong in history. In addition, supernaturality has been one serious discourse in the scientific research on qigong for a couple of decades, so Falun Gong's extraordinary (and fantastical?) claims are no reason to belittle any serious considerations of its validity. Last but not least, this is a daughter article. The actual Falun Gong article got too long, hence the editors decided to make a split. Removing a page that is under development and a relevant part of the whole shouldn't be sanctioned. ---Olaf Stephanos 14:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So do you know of any research into the health effects of FG? ~ trialsanderrors 14:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I happened to just find an article on MNdaily.com[10]. It is not a research, just an interview. Also here has the words said by Mr. Da Liu [11][12]. I could try to find more[13][14]. Here is a new one [15], it mentioned "Because of its self-discipline and healthy approach – practitioners do not smoke or drink alcohol and have a rigorous moral code – it was encouraged by the authorities.". Sadly, in terms of organ harvesting,

Administrators tell inquirers: "Yes, it will be a Falun Gong, so it will be clean."

which suggest everybody know practitioners are usually healthy. Fnhddzs 18:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment None of these references qualify as relevant research or even just research, never mind authoritative research Bwithh 22:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You know what. I think the word "Research" implies some negative doubts on the object following it. It does not mean this article has to be about academic research. I am willing to change the title of the article. But I am ok with this current title too. I hope people could understand what I mean. Thanks. Fnhddzs 03:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A really important aspect is that Falun Gong practice has really profound health benefits. Even Master Da Liu the Master who introduced Tai Chi to North AMerica said at the age of 95 that he now asks all his students to practice Falun Gong.. So research into health benefits of the system is really relevant. Further the research was done at Baylor College- one of the Nation's top 10 medical institutes..

202.83.32.153 15:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Above user has brief Falun Gong centred edit history Bwithh 22:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I also had benefits practicing Falun Gong, very slow stress level compared to before, my waist is not cold anymore, I don't need to wear glasses, I did not get cold since I started to practice even though I did not take any medicine. --HappyInGeneral 02:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Above user has brief Falun Gong centred edit history Bwithh 22:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To me at least, testimonials as to the effectiveness of Falun Gong is not an arguement for keeping the article, especially when the cause for deletion is original research. --TeaDrinker 02:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment First congratulations to the great health benefits HappyInGeneral received. I would say although Falun Gong practitioners all say Falun Gong is good (even after 7 years of persecution), they say it with a solid reason of which health benefits are significantly correlated. Yeah, maybe personal testimonials here are not very to the point. But media reports mentioning health benefits would be helpful, I will try to find more of that. By the way, the cause for nomination of deletion was POV, now it changed? Anyway, we are doing a vote. Cause is not that important, I think. Fnhddzs 03:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I vote to keep.

although science would probably be unable to completely prove health benefits of Falun Gong and qigong practices - since there is still an issue of belief and enlightening - there are at the same time hundreds of thousands if not millions of cases. Alot are also documented as self evident testimonies.
It would be silly to ignore the experience of such a huge number of people just because they hadn't published it in a well known newspaper.
Falun Dafa never bragged about being able to cure people, this is not a main purpose of the practice and there is no need to show those to prove or validate for Falun Dafa. It stands for itself in all its glory and splendor.
For Wikipedia, which aims to have factual information, health benefits surely happened and there is no problem to mention it.
Just my opinion, Kobi Lurie.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kobi_Lurie (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 delete. – Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Atkins Tennis Center

edit

No notability asserted. 6 indoor and 8 outdoor courts = not a U of I landmark. Even the campus history link is only a two-liner. (De-prodded without comment, but Wikipedia:WikiProject Illinois tag added.) ~ trialsanderrors 02:58, 24 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 debate was speedy delete CSD A7 -- Samir धर्म 02:59, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica allanic

edit

Self-witten and un-notable Wikibout 02:55, 24 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 debate was speedy delete. Kimchi.sg 04:28, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CAMPA-JAI

edit

Platform of Jessica allanic who has just been Speedily Deleted. Non-notable; a massive 1 Google hits! BlueValour 03:09, 24 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 debate was merged consensus to merge Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 21:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sparring (online role-playing)

edit

Apparent neologism. My attempts to find these supposed references, aside from the single one externally linked to, have turned up nothing. --InShaneee 03:20, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As to InShaneee's comment of not being able to find external sources, here are a few pages with rules for textual roleplay fighting, also known as sparring: http://tcmuseum.proboards54.com/ http://circ.lagedorre.net/rules.shtml http://forums.rpgchat.com/showthread.php?t=36375 --Circ Thursday, June 29th, 2006.


There's two separate communities here, one for roleplaying and the other for sparring. They tend to not mix well. They should be kept separate. Alighieri 17:37, 29 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 debate was Keep (or Merge). The decision to merge or not is left as an editorial decision apart from this AfD. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dixie Chili and Deli

edit

A local chili restaurant in Kentucky. I cannot think of a reason why this would be notable. GabrielF 03:33, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete, fails WP:CORP. --Coredesat 06:38, 24 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 debate was speedy delete as copyright violation. Kimchi.sg 04:45, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Secret Life of J. Edgar Hoover

edit

This article is a book summary that currently resembles an advertisment for the book in question rather than an encyclopedia entry. Netsnipe 03:40, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete as a copy-vio. Looks like the creator took everything from Amazon[16], which I'm pretty sure doesn't fall under the GFDL. Yanksox (talk) 04:10, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It is not a great article by any stretch of the imagination, which is why I placed cleanup and wikify tags on it---but I hardly think that it reads like an ad for the book. If this is ad copy, the guy should be sacked! ---Charles 04:11, 24 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 debate was speedy delete —Quarl (talk) 2006-06-24 11:46Z

The Kids From Rosemont High

edit

Hoax or non-notable. Neither the name of the "popular TV show" nor any of the mentioned characters can be found on Google. [17] Cinnamon42 03:56, 24 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 debate was Speedy deleted at request of creator - see below. Capitalistroadster 03:03, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Index to the Dictionary of Australian Biography

edit

I don't see the point of this article - this Index is available from the Dictionary of Australian Biography website linked via the WP article. We don't need to duplicate something done well on a website. BlueValour 03:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep (as creator). The Dictionary of Australian Biography is a very important reference work for studies of Australian history. The 1949 edition is now available online as part of Project Gutenberg Australia and is in the public ___domain, (here) making it moreso. The reason for this index page was to provide a method for Wikipedians and readers to see which articles are available inside Wikpedia (ie blue linked). Also, an index of names of prominent individuals associated within Australian history is a not unreasonable thing to have in an encyclopaedia (IMO). -- I@n ≡ talk 03:58, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am struggling to see why folks would want to use this article to see who is in WP. If they spotted someone in the Dictionary that they wanted to follow up on surely they would just put the name in the Search box? - seems cumbersome to have to go through another list. Also, we already have a List of Famous Australians so this Index would duplicate that - better I suggest to add names to the exisiting list rather than create another. BlueValour 04:25, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A list of notable individuals associated with Australian history is different from an enumeration of biographies in a given reference volume; even as the content might be identical, the former would not need to reference the Dictionary (as, for example, any number of our lists, see, e.g., List of novelists from the United States; there are, of course, those of us who believe categories comprise articles sufficiently such that lists aren't necessary, but there's no consensus for that view) and would surely be differently-titled. Joe 04:03, 24 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 debate was delete. – Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alacra

edit

This page was originally created by user:Alacrainc (the user's only edit). The tone is of a sales brochure, not an encyclopedia article. It has been unimproved in over two months. The Alexa ranking for this company's website has been highly variable but even at it's best never got into the top 20,000 (and currently ranks at 114,114). The company's website reports only that they have received various amounts of venture capital at different times. They do not report revenues but their reported total headcount is a mere 60 employees. I can find no evidence that this company meets any of the recommended criteria at WP:CORP. Rossami (talk) 03:44, 24 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 debate was speedy delete. malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 04:51, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Slam-it-in

edit

Non-notable term, Wikipedia is not Urban Dictionary SirGrant 04:02, 24 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 debate was delete. W.marsh 12:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Torn City

edit

Non-notable game. Article is basically a how-to, which WP is not; article has been around for quite some time, but does not assert significance or notability. Ghits from lists of game sites and various forums and blogs, but no media citations immediately obvious. Paddles TC 04:13, 24 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 debate was no consensus to delete, but redirecting seems like a good idea. W.marsh 12:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Certain Romance

edit

Prodded once and deleted as "Unnecessary article about an album track that will not be released and contains no information that is not already included in main articles. No scope for growth." It was recreated and re-prodded, but I've removed the re-prod as recreation of a prodded article is an implicit challenge to the original prod. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Kimchi.sg 04:14, 24 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 debate was delete (and restore redirect). —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PBB

edit

spam advertising of a "new" product. The article page admits its a new PHP product, undergoing ALPHA TESTING! The page used to be a redirect to polybrominated biphenyls. - 70.51.11.132 04:27, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete, per Pascal Tesson --Alphachimp talk 05:42, 24 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 debate was delete. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Looney Tunes Comics

edit

Indiscriminate information. A list of every comics story from every Looney Tunes comic (or, at any rate, it hopes to be such).--FuriousFreddy 00:45, 24 June 2006

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

The result of the debate was redirect no real need to delete to do a redirect, unless the redirected article's history needs to go for some reason. W.marsh 13:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

edit
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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. This is a difficult debate to close, and I will do my best to explain my logic in closing it as "delete." The nomination has been proposed on grounds of non-notability. This is a common accusation against articles which turn up here, and an important one. Articles which fail to establish notability may be deleted even if they are verifiable and referenced. Now, there are four broad categories of "keep" votes present here.

The first asserts that all high schools are notable. One user cited WP:SCHOOL in support of this; this policy was rejected by the community and has no bearing here. Nowhere is there a binding assertion of notability for high schools, as opposed to four-year colleges and universities. No one has linked to any policies or guidelines which would reinforce such a view. The fact that previous articles on high schools are generally kept does not reinforce this debate. Therefore, such an assertion must be treated as a question of personal preference. The second category brings forth news sources to demonstrate notability. These sources discuss the school's construction. While the design of the school is indeed interesting, discussion of said design belongs in an article on urban design trends or architecture. The school itself cannot be notable in this instance simply for being built. Hundreds if not thousands are built or renovated every year; any local newspaper is bound to cover such a thing. There is no demonstrable evidence of wider notability for the school as opposed to the design. The third category is that of utility. Allow me to quote a user: "This is a valuable article for people that live near the school." That may be the case, but utility is not and never has been a reason to keep an article. Plenty of things are "useful." I find the walk-throughs on gameFaqs.com useful, but that doesn't make them worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia (not that such a consideration has prevented the ballooning of some game-related articles). The fourth category, finally, is the X, so Y category. Broadly, this is the assertion that because X exists, Y should exist; conversely, if Y is deleted, so should X. This has never been a proper keep/deletion criteria on Wikipedia. An article must stand or fall on its own merits or lack thereof, particularly when X and Y are not remotely similar in scope or quality.

In summation, then, this debate has failed to demonstrate a wider notability for this high school that would at this time merit inclusion in Wikipedia. It is entirely possible that future events will render said judgement obsolete, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Therefore: delete the current article, without prejudice to re-creation. Thank you for your time, and happy editing. Mackensen (talk) 21:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbor View High School

edit

Unnotable school. Wikibout-Talk to me! 05:03, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, First off, I'm pretty sure that Stuyvesant High School is notable (I'm assuming that was what you meant by placing it in quotes). Heck, it's a featured article. Secondly, I think a place that hundreds if not thousands of people are forced to attend every day assumes some sort of intrinsic notability. --Alphachimp talk 06:03, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1. After the three seconds I looked at the SHS article I have no doubts that the article establishes notability. After looking at the AVHS article for three seconds I also had no doubts that notability was not established (although I did a Google news search just to be sure). 2. There is no such thing as intrinsic notability. There are classes of objects that are considered notable because as a class they receive enough outside coverage that the discussion is moot. A Fortune 500 company is notable. A Formula 1 driver is notable. An accredited university is notable. High schools are not as a class notable. This doesn't mean there aren't high schools that are notable, it means that the listed articles have to establish notability for themselves. This one doesn't. ~ trialsanderrors 06:17, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment AVHS began last year and was heralded by the Las Vegas Sun as the "biggest and potentially most efficient campus the district has built" [18]. The school was built to hold 2700 students, but currently only holds 1500. The building was designed to "rewrites the book on modern high school construction" according to the architect that designed it. The point to all of this is that this high school is completely notable, even though it isn't Stuyvesant. --Alphachimp talk 06:48, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There you go. Here's more, from a Lexis-Nexis search on Western regional news:
  1. Arbor View High School; Education Project, K Through 12, Southwest Contractor, December 1, 2005, Features; Nevada Best of 2005; Pg. 76, 235 words, Staff
  2. Class Act; CORE Builds New Prototype Las Vegas High School, Southwest Contractor, September 1, 2005, Features; Pg. 38, 702 words, Tony Illia
  3. And so it begins..., Las Vegas Review-Journal (Nevada), August 30, 2005 Tuesday, FINAL EDITION, B;, Pg. 1B, 888 words, Antonio Planas
  4. First-year Arbor View program displays heart, character in defeat, Las Vegas Review-Journal (Nevada), August 27, 2005 Saturday, FINAL EDITION, C;, Pg. 1C, 645 words, Joe Hawk
  5. Site work begins on Town Square project, Las Vegas Review-Journal (Nevada), August 22, 2005 Monday, FINAL EDITION, D;, Pg. 2D, 541 words, Hubble Smith
  6. 16. Arbor View High School, Southwest Contractor, June 1, 2005, Top Projects 2004; Nevada; Pg. 52, 101 words, Staff
  7. Students feel at home by design, Las Vegas Review-Journal (Nevada), April 25, 2005 Monday, FINAL EDITION, B;, Pg. 1B, 569 words, Antonio Planas
  8. 314 students will stay at Cimarron, Las Vegas Review-Journal (Nevada), March 2, 2005 Wednesday, FINAL EDITION, B;, Pg. 1B, 507 words, Antonio Planas
  9. In Brief, Las Vegas Review-Journal (Nevada), December 10, 2004 Friday, FINAL EDITION, B;, Pg. 12B, 147 words
  • I'm sure that should give you enough material to write the article. I'm not gonna change my vote though because my criterion for notability is news coverage outside its home region, and there is nothing for AVHS. ~ trialsanderrors
  • Comment, I'm going to put it on my list of things to do within the next day. Trouble is, someone could delete it after I make my changes. What should I do? (I've never actively tried to save a page before.) --Alphachimp talk 07:03, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You could start it on your user page, wait out the result of this AfD, and post it afterwards. I'm sure it won't get deleted with prejudice, so you can recreate it with new material. Or usually if notability is established during an AfD it is reflected in the votes. ~ trialsanderrors 07:12, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. BryanG(talk) 06:07, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Should be expanded if possible, because as it stands, there is very little information here.
  • Strong Delete I am usually a defender of school articles, however, I firmly believe that this article has no place on Wikipedia. I also disagree with Truthbringer's rationale, not every school is notable. If that rationale was true then we would have to extend it to every single establishment that exists within most towns and cities. This school was recently created and there is absolutely not claim to notability and it does no stress it's subject's notability. We speedy delete any article that comes through new pages that doesn't stress the importance of it's subject. What gives this school a special exception to go around the rules? Yanksox (talk) 06:17, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, I think the difference between a school and "every single establishment that exists within most towns and cities" is that a school is a place that children are forced to attend 6-8 hours 5 days a week. In that our children spend 30-40 hours in school each week, individual schools assume an extremely notable role in our society. The microcosm of their politics often reflects those of society as a whole. --Alphachimp talk 07:21, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But that doesn't make it notable. That makes it the standard normality. A school has to at least stress it's importance. I'll use a good example: the school I went to. The reason for it's notability is not just the alumni lisy and the 140+ year history, but was also affliated with a college, gets mentioned in large papers for academics and athletics, and it actually does whatever it can to stick out. If we keep a high school article that DOESN'T stress any importance at all, and suggest we keep it because it's the normality, that just doesn't click. This school is also too recently formed. I don't object to most school articles since they at least present interesting facts and at least attempt to seperate the school from others. But this article in it's current condition, and with the current facts just doesn't merit an article yet. Yanksox (talk) 13:06, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely. That's why, in a few hours, I'm going to write a lot more for the article. --Alphachimp talk 14:39, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Despite my delete comment, I agree that some schools, like Yank's, can be notable. However, I would be amazed if a one-year-old school has an impressive history or alumni list, or any other factor in its favour other than it exists. Agent 86 18:54, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest possible non-speedy delete. I said this before - schools have no inherent notability. Give me a reason why this should be here (besides the fact that it exists), and I'll change my mind, but from the looks of it, there is nothing notable or newsworthy (on a national/international scale, mind you) about the school, any of its students, or any of its alumni. --Coredesat 06:54, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the current article is written, this school is a total nonentity. I'm very much opposed to this idea that a school is somehow inherently notable because people attend it. Self-congratulatory public relations commentary from the city or the architects about its supposedly revolutionary design doesn't help with the notability case, and it doesn't sound like it's been around long enough to get any independent assessment thereof. Opabinia regalis 08:33, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Schools policy. --Arnzy (whats up?) 09:00, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as no notability stated or implied. Tychocat 09:26, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, there is no precedent for automatic keep votes for schools, and no "inherent notability" either. There is no "schools policy" on Wikipedia. As for this particular case: this school does not assert notability, nor have I been able to find any. I therefore see no reason why the article should remain. - Motor (talk) 13:22, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete per Coredesat and Motor. WP:SCHOOL did not succeed, the creation of a wikiproject does not automatically confer encyclopedic value on any given article within that project, schools are not inherently notable (but an individual school can be notable), and "precedent" is meaningless because stare decisis does not apply to wikipedia. In for this particular school, it is absolutely lacking in any content that explains why a one year old school is encyclopedic or even notable in any way. Agent 86 18:51, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no claims of notabily --Jaranda wat's sup 19:08, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no assertions of notability in the article, and the article says it's just opened in 2005 which decrease the likelyhood of it to be notable. Furthermore, the article is rather short and conatains little or no information. --WinHunter (talk) 19:14, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep schools, and all other major public institutions. So what if it opened last year? Schools are notable per Alphachimp and previous discussions. (I might have a different opinion if this were a newly opened private school.) bikeable (talk) 21:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, schools are not instantly notable institutions, they are institutions but just because they belong to the general public does NOT make it a notable establishment. If this logic were true would we draw it to fire stations, police stations, etc. Since they also are part of public works. Something, I mean I use a small measure of something when dealing with school, has to happen to make in notable. There is nothing in a recently created school that makes it stand out. Yanksox (talk) 21:59, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if it were "universally kept" then we wouldn't be having this discussion. Tychocat 07:18, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, they are universally kept. Do you know when the last time, a verifiable, real, non-copyvio, non-attack article on a high school was deleted? It's been a while. Feel free to give some AFD examples, that prove me wrong. --Rob 10:05, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The pages on vandals exit on the project space, not the mainspace, per WP:ASR. Yanksox (talk) 03:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The point was that there is obviously enough storage. High school articles are not simple unnotable bio articles that are an attempt at free personal web spaces, they're not spreading wrong information, they're not harming anyone. There is no point deleting them.--Konstable 03:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As I have stated before I regularly defend high school articles and help them grow when they approach from NPP. However, this article has nothing to help it out. No history, nothing that makes it unique, nothing that makes it stick out. It's just too recent and there is nothing to elaborate upon this for now. Also, in regards to storage: You can defend alot of articles that run through AfD as innocent, benevolent little pieces. But roughly half of them, don't deserve or merit an article. Look at any regular High school article, there is at something interesting in the history or something to elaborate upon. This has nothing, it's stalled. There is nothing that seperates it or splits it away from nothing. Yanksox (talk) 03:30, 27 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 debate was Speedy delete ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:34, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fightsport.com

edit

Advertising. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 05:04, 24 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 debate was delete. Not a lot of input here, but considering this could probably have been speedied under CSD A3, it goes. Without prejudice for now -- I don't think we have consensus that it's impossible to write a good article on this topic. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jardin de Paris

edit

As it stands, the article has no information whatsoever. Pascal.Tesson 06:03, 24 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 debate was delete. W.marsh 16:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fairmont Winnipeg

edit

No notability, no encyclopaedic value. Pascal.Tesson 06:05, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, not notable. It's either that or transwiki it, but we can't transwiki things to WikiTravel through AfD, so the decision is made. --Coredesat 07:00, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this article. Though needing expansion, it is inline with other properties listed on the Fairmont wiki page. I think it could use a clean up to get it to at least those standards. Now as to whether the Fairmont page should have all its properties listed...that is open for discussion (i'm sure wiki doesn't list all the Holiday Inns in the world). So...keep if we are going to keep the Fairmont entry as is and label as needing expansion...otherwise delete ALL the Fairmont properties links and just highlight significant ones within the Fairmont article (like the Chateau Laurier in Ottawa) KsprayDad 07:08, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: note that I'm not proposing that we nuke everything that is related to Fairmont Hotels and Resorts which is a legitimate article. But that particular hotel does not have much claim to fame or importance of any kind, contrary to some other Fairmont properties that do have their own article. Pascal.Tesson 07:47, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not quite sure I understand what you mean here - if not the Fairmont Hotels and Resorts article, which "Fairmont" article were you referring to? --DaveG12345 08:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I guess my sentence is confusing. I meant something like the Fairmont Winnipeg is an uninteresting hotel belonging to the (mildly interesting) Fairmont Hotels and Resorts group. I'm proposing only to delete the first one. Pascal.Tesson 15:15, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yep, me too. --DaveG12345 18:21, 24 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 debate was delete. W.marsh 13:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Slavija Lux

edit

No apparent notability or encyclopaedic value. Pascal.Tesson 06:02, 24 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 debate was No consensus. Oldelpaso 08:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PruHealth

edit

Appears to be non-notable as per WP:CORP. I believe this is advert. Pascal.Tesson 06:29, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I was referring to WP:AUTO, not WP:VAIN. Medtopic 17:08, 26 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 debate was delete redirect possible if anyone's interested, but if you want to merge content from this article let me know as I'll need to undelete the history (we can't really delete AND merge content). W.marsh 13:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marché Lachine

edit

As someone who lives in Montreal, I can attest that this market has little or no notability. Of course, most people in Montreal will know the name but it isn't even close to having any sort of landmark status. Pascal.Tesson 06:37, 24 June 2006 (UTC) For the same reasons, I am also nominating the Marché Maisonneuve article. Note that the Marché Jean-Talon and Marché Atwater articles, in contrast, have some legitimacy as both are considered as fairly important institutions in Montreal.Pascal.Tesson 06:43, 24 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 debate was delete. W.marsh 13:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speak Inc.

edit

Blatant spamming of a non-notable company by a sophisticated spammer, with a record of link-spamming, producing promotional articles, uploading logos and even creating promotional categories, and who has used various methods including null editing on their user page (so they appear as a blue link) and removing speedy deletion notices. TheGrappler 06:34, 24 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 debate was delete. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Geary Interactive

edit

Blatant spamming of a non-notable company by a sophisticated spammer, with a record of link-spamming, producing promotional articles, uploading logos and even creating promotional categories, and who has used various methods including null editing on their user page (so they appear as a blue link) and removing speedy deletion notices. TheGrappler 06:52, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability? KsprayDad 07:11, 24 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 debate was speedy delete —Quarl (talk) 2006-06-24 10:56Z

List of transformations in dragon ball

edit

Delete Random fancruft. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.--Orion Minor 07:02, 24 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 debate was no consensus. W.marsh 13:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Harding Charter Preparatory High School

edit

Delete Notablility not asserted. Reads like an advertisment rather than an independant summary of the school... perhaps is just needs a huge overhaul but the way it is now is unacceptable as an Encylopedic entry. KsprayDad 06:56, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your assessment of the situation. From what I can tell, precedent in this area is well-established. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 13:26, 26 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 debate was delete. W.marsh 13:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Olier

edit

No real notability. Just another summer camp. Pascal.Tesson 07:02, 24 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 debate was delete. W.marsh 13:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Technology & Education: Connecting Cultures

edit

Google indicates this is a non-notable student organization. Less than 70 hits. OCNative 07:02, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there is a redirect at Technology Education Connecting Cultures. OCNative 09:47, 27 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 debate was delete. W.marsh 13:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Tim Lentz

edit

High school choir director. Appears to be copied out of a school rag. Assertions of notability are unverifiable. Would they be notable even if they were verifiable?! Medtopic 07:05, 24 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 debate was merge all to URJ Camps. I will add the merge tags to the articles, but my role here is just closing the AfD, not doing the merge. I'll leave that to the people active and knowledgeable in editting these articles. W.marsh 18:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


URJ Camp George

edit

Blatanly WP:NPOV. No notability, no history (founded in 1999). Sure, it's run by the Union for Reform Judaism, so what? A line in the URJ article will do just fine. Pascal.Tesson 07:07, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note, there's a whole surfeit of similar WP:NN/WP:NPOV campcruft articles (my assessment of the articles alongside):
URJ Kutz Camp
Simply WP:NN.
URJ Joseph Eisner Camp
Simply WP:NN.
URJ Henry S. Jacobs Camp
Simply WP:NN.
URJ Camp Harlam
Simply WP:NN.
URJ Greene Family Camp
Simply WP:NN.
URJ Camp Coleman
WP:NN/WP:NPOV - longer article that reads like a brochure.
URJ Camp Newman
Blatantly trivial campcruft WP:NN.
URJ Crane Lake Camp
WP:NN and completely inconsequential.
URJ Camp Kalsman
Shaky WP:NN credentials because not built yet.
URJ Myron S. Goldman Union Camp-Institute
Gushing WP:NPOV adspam.
URJ Camp Swig
Currently closed, but at least begins to say something worthwhile. WP:NN still not there for me.
URJ Olin-Sang-Ruby Union Institute
This one at least has an article attached, although WP:NN is still dubious. And is this encyclopedic? Check out the blog-esque user signatures at end of main page too.
Unless notability can in any way, shape or form be demonstrated for any of these, I would personally Merge All into Union for Reform Judaism (for whatever value that would add), then Delete All.--DaveG12345 09:44, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment let's all cool down and let me make my point clear. There is avery decent entry for the organization running all of these camps and I'm just saying that there is no need for individual entries. There are countless summer camps everywhere in the world and it seems pointless to me (but not to others) to have an entry for each of them. Camps that have a well-established history or a particular significance in some respect should stay. The articles posted up for deletion appear to be neither. Note that I am not advocating the deletion of the URJ article just the related campcruft ones. Pascal.Tesson 21:47, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hey, hey, this was a good faith suggestion. I did in fact state "Unless notability can in any way, shape or form be demonstrated for any of these..." - well, if notability can be demonstrated, let's hear it. I am happy to change my position in light of new evidence. It is not enough to say "it needs expanding" - if it isn't notable to start with, it needs deleting. Assert the notability. --DaveG12345 05:57, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All. A camp experience can be as formative as a year at school. All these establishments have significant reference value. TruthbringerToronto 19:52, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The camp I work helps formulate children and I know I help in giving them an excellent experience. However, I am fully aware that the camp I work at does not deserve an article because it is not notable. I have disagree with Truthbringer's logic because this is not an evaluation, and the belief of keeping that is pure speculation. Notability is not established and to the best of my observations, does not yet exist. Yanksox (talk) 22:35, 24 June 2006 (UTC) Merge per other comments. Yanksox (talk) 01:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete All as per nom and to stop sliding down the slippery slope of "if schools why not summer camps?, if summer camps, why not local youth groups? if youth groups why not kindergarten groups?" Bwithh 23:30, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alas, for I share some responsibility for the existence of these pages, Delete. Notability just isn't there. Forgive me, for I was young and foolish. -Joshuapaquin 07:58, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per Bwithh and Yanksox; no notability claimed or implied, and the fact that they read like advertising copy ("lucious greenery and stunning views", "ideal setting for children ... to grow and develop as members of the Jewish community") doesn't make me any more inclined to keep them. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:16, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per above -- Nesher 15:46, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The two articles for deletion today -- the Shefa Network article and this one -- both arguably have only modest (but not miniscule) notability compared to major Jewish denominations and figures. But they seem to be getting a different mixture of keep and delete comments. Want to express a concern that relatively obscure but noncontroversial institutions within major denominations have little delete pressure, while institutions which are more controversial have much more such pressure. --Shirahadasha 18:31, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly wouldn't conclude that. Right now, only Shuki and Truthbringertoronto suggest that the articles be retained. Everyone else wants them deleted/merged; the delete pressure for "noncontroversial institutions within [this] major denomination" seems quite strong at the moment. -Joshuapaquin 22:33, 25 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 debate was delete. W.marsh 13:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Senta Maria Anna Siller

edit

No assertion of notability. Appears copied from something somewhere. Medtopic 07:14, 24 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 debate was no consensus. W.marsh 13:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Diamond Jubilee Higher Secondary School

edit

Nn-school. Originally deleted as an uncontested PROD and recreated. AmiDaniel (talk) 07:37, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, although it's pointless to say so. I could point out that WP:SCHOOL did not succeed, the creation of a wikiproject does not automatically confer encyclopedic value on any given article within that project, schools are not inherently notable (but an individual school can be notable), and "precedent" is meaningless because stare decisis does not apply to wikipedia. However, I doubt anyone will actually read that, let alone pay attention to it. Agent 86 08:34, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete, not notable (fails the Google test miserably), poorly-written, recreation of deleted content (though this is not a speedy candidate). Schools are not inherently notable unless they have achieved something that is actually noteworthy (aside from existing, which is not enough). Borderline fails WP:NPOV. --Coredesat 09:03, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, let's hope it closes before the delusional schoolcruft supporters get here. - Kookykman|(t)e
Would you please care to withdraw this remark? It doesn't seem to make Wikipedia a happier, saner, more productive place if one editor calls others delusional. I'm not a schoolcrufter, I think that there are users whose views on school articles are (in my opinion, and many others') unreasonable, but I am getting increasingly frustrated by the name-calling and atmosphere of genuine nastiness that is emerging. As User:Essjay says: Every time you click "save this page," be completely convinced that what you are saving will make Wikipedia a better, more friendly, and more successful project, and if what you've typed won't do that, don't click save. TheGrappler 15:24, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In fact it is plausible that this is the premier educational institution in a region of some 100,000 or more people. But only plausible. What's missing are good-quality secondary or even primary sources, unfortunately. TheGrappler 17:24, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Which is a reason to add sources, not a reason to delete, or 99% of articles would have been deleted soon after creation. Honbicot 16:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I might have found one - though it doesn't assert notability. TheGrappler 17:35, 27 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 debate was no consensus. W.marsh 13:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alfa Cable Television

edit

Article on an illeagal station that was posted early March. Since no effort has been made to translate or clean up Nuttah68 07:58, 24 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 debate was delete. W.marsh 13:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Randum Films

edit

Non-notable "web based production company", begun in March. Featuring the work of "Etan" ("Actor, photographer, marketing executive, philosopher, musician...is an amazing and humble man) -- which is, coincidentally enough, the name of the article creator, who also removed the "Prod" tag without comment. "Randum Films" gets 553 Google hits, only 28 of which are unique and which are, shall we say, of low quality. Calton | Talk 08:14, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • What was the "prod" tag for. I've asked with no reply. You guys do not like to help people with questions. And what does Word Press have to do with anything? -- Etan 15:38, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • "WP" doesn't stand for Word Press in this context, but rather for Wikipedia. And "Prod" is Wikipedia jargon for a message like this:
It is proposed that this article be deleted, because of the following concern:
nn "web based production company", begin in March.
If you can address this concern by improving, copyediting, sourcing, renaming or merging the page, please edit this page and do so. You may remove this message if you improve the article, or if you otherwise object to deletion of the article for any reason. To avoid confusion, it helps to explain why you object to the deletion, either in the edit summary or on the talk page. If this template is removed, it should not be replaced.
The article may be deleted if this message remains in place for five days (This template was added: 19 June 2006).
If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article so that it is acceptable according to the deletion policy.
In short, you should attempt to improve the article so that it is acceptable according to the deletion policy. TruthbringerToronto 19:43, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did begin working on improving article quality only to be attacked. You guys have an interesting way of inviting people to help with Wikipedia. -- Etan 15:17, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reality check: removing the prod tag and adding pointless detail abou yourself -- without addressing the actual issues raised in the text of the plainly visible tag -- isn't "improving article quality". --Calton | Talk 23:53, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Regardless of article quality, this company in terms of its status and influence at the moment, is very unlikely to be acceptable as a subject for a Wikipedia article Bwithh 01:29, 25 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 debate was delete. Consensus is borderline by the numbers. Tipping the balance somewhat for me is the fact that I was unable to locate any sources for the detailed information in the article - which is written in first person, further hinting at Original research and non-verifiability. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alterra Coffee Roasters

edit

advert for non notable company Nuttah68 08:22, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yeah, thanks, maybe "someone else" will do it in the rewrite. My recommendations stands. Tychocat 09:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The comment and both of the repeated "someone else" remarks in quotation marks sound memorably hostile. I would edit it if I'd come across this in some usual Wikipedia search and not in a page of people fussing over texts as they stand. Nice.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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. W.marsh 13:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No borders

edit

I looked up in Google and in a political encyclopedia, and didn't find any movement or well-formed ideology called "No borders." Of course, the meaning is intuitive, and sometimes used as a title ([20]) but not as a general dogmatic name. It is part of other well-established schools of thought, like anarchism, but cannot exist on its own. --Gabi S. 08:32, 24 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 debate was no consensus to delete, merge possible but I'm not seeing anywhere to merge it yet. W.marsh 18:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Luisa

edit

Minor, unnamed character from one episode of a TV show. Despeedied and deprodded by creator without comment. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 08:41, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are other minor characters from one episodes/chapter/comic book issue/etc in the whole wikipedia database. This character is not really unnamed, is named in the episode credits. Other interesting point is that, the character has a particular and curious ethnic background. --Gonzakun 24 June 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 debate was delete. W.marsh 13:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Celph Titled

edit

The last paragraph of this article reads: "Celph Titled has yet to release a solo album, but is slowly gaining popularity, especially since his appearance on track 15, "The Battle" off of Fort Minor's debut album The Rising Tied." Artists who are "slowly gaining popularity" do not meet WP:MUSIC. Neither do artists who have appeared on a single track of the debut album of a self-styled "supergroup" made up mainly of other, similar artists. I cannot see any evidence of notability here. At least one of these self-styled supergroups survived a no-consensus AfD and is of only marginal importance. Just zis Guy you know? 19:35, 18 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, [ælfəks] 08:49, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there's 112,000 Google hits for Celph Titled. AFD are not venues for you to tell grandiose lies. Please refrain from doing this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.24.169 (talk • contribs)

  • That is pretty much the classic case for deletion. No information now = unverifiable from reliable secondary sources = delete. There is no deadline; if this artist becomes famous in future, we can cover them then. Just zis Guy you know? 06:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He has a 4 dics CD out: http://hoodz.wordpress.com/2008/05/06/celph-titled-the-gatalog-a-collection-of-chaos/ He is very well known, and has not only been on the Fort Minor album, but is a part of Army Of The Pharaohs who have released 2 albums and are very well known. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.57.85.197 (talk) 19:04, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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. W.marsh 13:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Singapore Changi Airport passenger traffic by destination

edit

Previous AFDs
1 & 2. The first time around was a keep consensus, the second time was no consensus.

Still I feel that this article is unmaintainable, and is not likely to be updated for some time considering the author of the article has left Wikipedia. Furthermore it doesnt really look that encyclopedic for a helper article of a major airport, and even if anyone is looking for such data, they'd look up the operating authority themselves. Wikipedia is not a indiscriminate collection of information --Arnzy (whats up?) 08:52, 24 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 debate was delete. Robert 13:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hareiously

edit

Can only ever be a dictionary definition. Might be suitable for a move to Wiktionary. RicDod 08:53, 24 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 debate was delete. Robert 13:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Simpolicon

edit

From what I understand from researching, this software was published in 1984 and seems to really just be used by the developer's classes. There's one link [21] to a forum that has an article on it, but no source information on the article. And there's two article abstracts on ERIC but not the full text. One [22] is written by the developer himself. The other [23] is an independent author. Google gets 16 hits, the 3 links mentioned, plus some Xanga entries from his students. Can't find notability or verifiability on this. Metros232 19:23, 18 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, TigerShark 08:52, 24 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 debate was delete. W.marsh 13:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The MonsterGrrls

edit

This looks like an ad. It's a self-published book. However, it's got about 1,000 Google hits. At what point does a self-published book become notable? Rklawton 19:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment This is not the place to decide notability of self-published books. Nominations should be clear to the nominee at least. Ansell 00:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Good point! Self-published fiction seems like it could fall outside the intent behind the prohibition of self-published works. That is, self-publishing is a legitimate route to notability in the realm of fiction (as opposed to astrophysics). I've just left the author a note regarding ways to demonstrate the book's notability. All in all, I should have used the "prod" tag instead of an AfD nomination. My bad. Rklawton 02:12, 19 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, TigerShark 08:57, 24 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 debate was delete. W.marsh 13:47, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Coolnepal

edit

non notable portal Nuttah68 09:53, 24 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 debate was delete. W.marsh 13:47, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Charles de Granville (now inc ADEX and all its sub pages of products)

edit

Googling for "Charles de Granville" gives 287 results (on UK version atleast), with the 2nd being this article itself. I see no real claims of notability. As a side note, the person who made the article claims his version is the "Producer Version" and seems to revert any changes. Now including the company page, and all it's product sub pages as listed below. Ian¹³/t 17:52, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have added an afd notice to: Charles de Granville, ADEX, Baron de Sigognac, Chateau de Bordeneuve, Gaston de Casteljac. Ian¹³/t 17:54, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "The Producer" also runs the following articles along similar adspam lines (owned by same ADEX firm):
Baron de Sigognac
Chateau de Bordeneuve
Gaston de Casteljac
All (including ADEX itself) fail WP:NPOV/WP:NN, basically adverts. Delete All, if there's a chance. --DaveG12345 10:56, 24 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 debate was delete, nimblofully. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nimblosity

edit

Protologism, one google hit, deprodded. Weregerbil 10:12, 24 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 debate was delete. Robert 13:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duo Design

edit

a blatent ad for a non notable company Nuttah68 10:12, 24 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 debate was merge both - CrazyRussian talk/email 19:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Morrison (and Glenn Wheeler)

edit

Non-notable radio talk show host and possibly WP:NOT. Article creator has added several articles on radio station 2GB talk show hosts, most of which contain a fair bit of personal opinion and "chat" (which are content rather than deletion issues if otherwise notable) but really there seems little of any real substance to show why they should have a wikipedia article to themselves.

  • Same user has also edited a third 2GB-related talk show host Alan Jones (radio) but this one seems notable judging by article.

FT2 (Talk | email) 10:11, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to 2GB for Morrison and 2UE for Wheeler. If no consensus to merge then Delete as non-notable presenters. Peripitus (Talk) 11:27, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge both to 2GB. --Coredesat 20:55, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to 2GB for Morrison and 2UE for Wheeler which are the stations that both men work at, delete otherwise as neither are notable enough as radio presenters to warrant a stand alone article. For the record, Alan Jones is very notable both as Sydney's most listened to breakfast announcer and as a former Australian rugby coach. Capitalistroadster 03:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 03:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to 2GB article, I am suspicious as to why the nominator was nominating at all if they had not heard of Alan Jones. Alan Jones is only the most famous (IMO) radio presenter in Australia, and not knowing this would mean they are not sufficiently well informed to make notability statements about the others from the same station. Maybe it is better not to follow users around and comment on their related edits in a deletion discussion. Ansell 05:16, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Quick answer: Nominator knows nothing of radio presenters in that country. However.... it was likely from the articles themselves, that one was notable and the other two were unlikely to be. Which is basically what's being agreed by others who know more. (To answer your question, the basis for AFD was noting one NN creation, and checking the author's other recent edits as a matter of course. Its a commonsense check in case a person who's still learning WP policies, inadvertantly has created or edited other NN articles on a similar theme. Alan Jones was a similar theme.) FT2 (Talk | email) 16:24, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. An article should support its own notability, even to a reader with no familiarity with the subject. (I'll make an exception for highly technical subjects where some understanding of the field is required just to comprehend the article, but bios don't generally fall into this category.)--Calair 01:59, 26 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 debate was delete. W.marsh 13:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bambang Parmanto

edit
is he notable? what we have here is someone who basically posted the bio/vita of an assistant professor at a library school. he has some articles, but do they meet any criteria of notability? as compared to? do we want to list all assistant professors? unless there is a claim toward notability made by someone... then i'd say not notable--Buridan 10:28, 24 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 debate was delete. W.marsh 13:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

===Energy Enterprise Solutions===www.eesllc.net Seems to be spam. Fails WP:CORP. In previous versions of the article, contact details for the company were even listed! Viridae 11:19, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Why is it such an outrage I listed the contact details? I have seen contact details in other articles on Wikipedia! It is a new company (couple of months) that's why there are not many hits on Google. --Ansett 11:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment Listing contact details violates WP:NOT A7.7: "Wikipedia articles are not directories, directory entries, TV/Radio Guide or a resource for conducting business (...) Wikipedia is not the yellow pages." --DaveG12345 12:11, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment please have a look at WP:CORP and indicate which of the requirements for inclusion it satisfies. If someone satisfies the community of the company's notability, it will be kept. Viridae 11:50, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Trivial coverage, such as simple price listings in product catalogues.

*The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself.

--Ansett 11:57, 24 June 2006 (UTC) [reply]

  • Comment Sorry but Trivial coverage, such as simple price listings in product catalogues. is an exclusion. On the second point, it would be helpfull to reference the article and provide links or information about the non-trivial published works. Viridae 12:01, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks like an eBay scammer, and might be notable as such -- the scam is still in the progress of playing out (see http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/forum-replies-archive.cfm/540472.html), so maybe there'll be some news coverage later. —Quarl (talk) 2006-06-24 12:07Z
  • Very Strong Delete Multiple violations. WP:VAIN (applicable to companies as shown in footnote one of WP:CORP), self-created by company rep, intrinsically fails WP:NPOV, WP:NOR (no cited third party sources) and WP:V. Also violation of WP:NOT A5 "Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories". Main content on this article page is an ongoing news story about an apparently "unusual" laptop deal run by this firm. Initial edit of this article was clear advertisement for said laptops, violating WP:ADS and WP:NOT A7. Likewise, initial edit of external link (labelled "Forum about Energy Enterprise Solutions") linked to third party website selling laptops. Current version links to third party Australian Broadband Forum, where the default thread features victims of ongoing laptop sales deal (money taken, no laptops delivered) discussing the consequences. Strong circumstantial evidence of wanton self-publicity with no respect whatsoever for Wikipedia. Fails WP:CORP dismally by own admission (unknown, unremarkable, unverifiable two-month old company). --DaveG12345 12:49, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm not an Admin or a weatherman but I think it's starting to look like Snow --Doc Tropics 06:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Seconded. WP:SNOW --DaveG12345 10:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
PLEASE - Do not blank any portion of this page! Thanks. --Doc Tropics 13:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Let's rethink this. If the company is failing to deliver computers that people have paid for, and this is happening on a large scale, then its misbehavior is newsworthy and notable. Wikipedia is not a list of recommended suppliers. I suspect that a good article on this company with references that discussed the risks inherent in dealing with it would dissuade most people from buying from the company. Sometimes notable means icky. --TruthbringerToronto 03:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Comment - I understand your thinking TT, and I would agree with you if the case were especially notable. However, this relatively minor incident would only be a brief story on a newscast, possibly with a short follow-up later; it just doesn't seem to be noteworthy enough to include in an encyclopedia. Even though we disagree, I appreciate your good intentions :) --Doc Tropics 04:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I echo that, insignificant company is blatantly using WP to perpetuate their marketing. I'm amazed the article is still there. --DaveG12345 08:17, 29 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 debate was delete by King of Hearts. This is already on Wikisource. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 12:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Advice for Little Girls

edit

Quoted prose with no discussion or reason Nuttah68 12:06, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like nonsense nonetheless :) --Gabi S. 17:19, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah! So you knew it was Twain... --DaveG12345 18:54, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just copied the text over myself. Crum375 17:14, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • By that logic this should also be copyrighted, but it is claimed to not be copyrighted in the US. Does anyone know what the exact copyright status is of Twain's works? Crum375 19:26, 24 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 debate was redirect to Bookstore —Quarl (talk) 2006-06-24 21:30Z

Bookseller

edit

This seems to be advertising; perhaps it should be part of the Barnes & Noble page (if it is in Wikipedia at all) - Matthew 12:37, 24 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 debate was delete per WP:VAIN, WP:NN and WP:V. Tangotango 12:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EBEARD FILMS

edit

Fails WP:CORP. Fails google test. Fails WP:V. Unfortunately also fails to meet WP:CSD A7 as it asserts notability. –Dicty (T/C) 14:08, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep the videos are funny if u watch them, he is big in australia, a website is being launched in july. www.ebeardfilms.com --big pon 06:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Ebeard Films has currently made it into the finals of the Tropfest competition in sydney. Deletion would hamper this fine companies chances of winning—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.101.183.44 (talk • contribs) 2006-06-27 07:05:52 (UTC)
  • Keep Ebeard is a valuable company, website coming up, public exposure, tropfest in sydney. big in sydney not world but other entries on wikipedia arent valid internationally either i.e Adam Mogg --218.214.57.10 12:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep have u seen the website, funny stuff, i would say that due to the views on each vid and tropfest that this is a more than relevant page to be featured in wikipedia... i also agree with wat has been previously discussed.. that there are many irrelevant pages wider society on wikipedia i.e. Adam Mogg --220.233.169.181 08:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, these comments were made by the article creator and three IP sockpuppets. Adam Mogg's notability is irrelevant to this debate. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 12:32, 29 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 debate was delete. Robert 13:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Callum Stewart

edit

According to IMDB, this actor only had unnamed parts in the listed movies [25]. As far as I know, this is below the current degree of notability for actors (Liberatore, 2006). 14:57, 24 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 debate was delete. W.marsh 13:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dynasty Entertainment

edit

Cannot validate that the company or anything they have produced is notable Nv8200p talk 23:02, 18 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, No Guru 15:23, 24 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 debate was delete. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shawn of the Lake

edit

Non-notable urban legend. 6 Google hits for "Shawn of the Lake" all of them Wiki or mirrors. Metros232 21:29, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.--Runcorn 10:23, 24 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, No Guru 15:46, 24 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 debate was Premature closing and Speedy Delete of all listed articles by Deckiller because of discovered copyright violations (CSD A8) from firststrike.totalbf2.com. A message has been placed on Mathieu121's talk page describing this incident and the site's policy toward copyright violations and non notable content. — Deckiller 21:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First Strike

edit

An apparently unfinished mod for Battlefield 2, set in the Star Wars universe. No evidence of notability, no links, nothing. Delete (and redirect to first strike). - Mike Rosoft 15:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The user also created articles about the following items from the game:
Mike Rosoft 16:17, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also:
More found by Deckiller:
Delete all. - Mike Rosoft 17:42, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to say something, before u decided to delete this, I have been hard at wrok getting it set up. I am NOT by no way finished, this is just being done as I go along, for right now I have exams (finals) right now and I promise it WILL be hdone to the ways of wikipedia and its neutral view. So please take that into consideration. Mathieu121 11:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. It is not all that difficult to tell that these articles are well under the notability line for Wikipedia. Mathieu121 - I recommend you read up on the policies of Wikipedia because it is a shame to see so much work go to waste. If you familiarise yourself better with what articles and content are acceptable on Wikipedia then your efforts will go to good use, and everyone wins. Remy B 11:51, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTICE: all of the above articles (including the parent article) are copyvios from this site:[26]. These should all be speedy deleted. — Deckiller 20:44, 28 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 debate was delete. W.marsh 13:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rising Conflict

edit

Another article about a Battlefield 2 mod, created by the same user as First Strike. This one gives a link to the mod website - with an Alexa rank of over 700.000. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 16:29, 24 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 debate was delete DRV here we come, eh? We shouldn't be keeping articles based on guesses that they might be about important topics. No verifiable sources were presented showing any kind of importance. Verifiability isn't optional. If any kind of a source can be found, let me know and I'll reconsider. W.marsh 13:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pyongyang Hotel

edit

No notability whatsoever. Pascal.Tesson 15:48, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Hardly, the article itself doen't detail any reasons for notability. If it did then it mght be worth keeping, otherwise I would say delete. michaelCurtis talk+ contributions 20:58, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Information about North Korea is scarce, and there is a good chance that important international meetings will take place at that hotel or have already happened. As well, North Korean official architecture needs to be better documented. I wish nominators of seemingly marginal articles would try to improve the articles rather than nominate them for AfD. TruthbringerToronto 19:48, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete cannot find any information that isn't advertising or a personal review. Articles like the Ryugyong "Hotel" need to be kept because they are notable pieces of NK architecture, this one is apparently just a bog-standard hotel in Pyongyang. Jammo (SM247) 00:45, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Jammo (Sm247). No evidence that this is a notable hotel. it's not even regarded as a top hotel in the North Korean official classification according to the article itself. (other NK hotel articles indicate Class A is the top category) Bwithh 06:02, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This site http://www.kcckp.net/en/tourism/attraction/attract-view.php?1+8 (veeeery slow loading) indicates that the Pyongyang Hotel is in fact classifed as a third-rank hotel Bwithh 06:45, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You... guess? Is every store/hotel/company/building in Washington or London or Paris with the word "Washington" or "London" or "Paris" in its name likely to have been used for some important purposes too? As I've noted above, this hotel is not even regarded as a first or second rank hotel according to the official NK categorization, and its much smaller than its higher ranked peers too Bwithh 22:33, 25 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 debate was delete. Proto///type 12:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The More Than Fitness Company

edit

Non-notable; zero Google hits BlueValour 16:39, 24 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 debate was delete. Proto///type 12:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pinkbike

edit
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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. Proto///type 12:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Insure.ie

edit

has been speedy deleted several times, and I told the user that it was an advert, he said it was a copyvio and it has been fixed, so I restored it to make him happy. I will put it on AFD to get a final community consensus on the deletion Kungfu Adam (talk) 18:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the user that put it up, its a purely informative article about Insure.ie. It just says what kind of company they are and some stats relating to when they started. Its very much like the AXA page. Perhaps if there is anything specific that should be added or removed from the article to make it more to the standard you would like to see in wikipedia I could try and improve it?

Archdukefranz (talk) 20:33, 23 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 debate was delete Proto///type 12:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PCA applied to yield curves

edit

Prodded by User:Avraham as having no content or context, deprodded by User:Blotwell, adding a reference to what it's supposed to be about, but still no content (disregarding the figures, which should be in Yield curve, if anywhere) or context. Not expandable. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:48, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Tevildo 16:55, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. PCA (now that context has been provided) could be applied to a mathematical model of yield curves. But no such model has been provided, and nothing more could be said other than that sentence. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and mark as stub. Maybe someone will expand it one day. --Gabi S. 17:29, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's just three graphs. Limited context, this is a dicdef at best. Ifnord 19:11, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The article does not make any sense to me. What is this "motion" thing? These curves are not wiggly worms, are they, that change shape as you look at them? What is on the horizontal axis of these curves? Isn't that time? So are there two kinds of time, a meta time for seeing how evolution in normal time evolves? And on whose authority does Wikipedia claim that shift, rotation and curvature are the three main movements? Rotation looks like pseudo scientific junk; it does not commute with linear scale transformations and can turn graphs of functions into non-functional graphs. "Curvature" does not appear to mean what curvature is supposed to mean. --LambiamTalk 19:18, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"What is on the horizontal axis of these curves?"--- exactly! What do the axes mean? That is basically the problem with PCA; statisticians can't tell you what it means to rotate "options price" into "oil production" or whatever. The geometry makes sense because mathematicians can deal with abstract euclidean space, and the euclidean metric happens to be consonant with elementary parametric statistics (e.g. Gaussians), but how is one to interpret a rotation (as in the principle axis theorem) outside the realm of euclidean geometry (i.e. independent of the original meaning of the axes)? ---CH 10:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, limited context, almost nonsensical. --Coredesat 21:06, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per above. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:12, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but for different reasons - as presented it is original research, there are similar things that are done with yield curves, but right now I'm not up on them enough to properly edit this. The principal components stuff seems like a logical way of approaching this problem, but where is it from? Smallbones 14:28, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nonsense vio of WP:NOR. Actually, this vapid stub is a fitting :-/ parody of PCA, a widely used but suspect method in statistics (the geometry is fine; the problem is with the interpretation; as typically used, PCA is just a method for lying with statistics--- in a way, it's rather fascinating that such a thing is possible, but plainly I digress.) ---CH 10:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • People, people: you and I may be trained as mathematicians: we know what "rotation" and "curvature" are "supposed to mean", and we beat anyone with a big stick who is so sloppy as to use it to mean anything else, but it seems clear enough to me from the context that by rotation is meant "vertical shear" (which certainly does take functions to functions) and by "curvature" is meant some quadratic term. Here is just one of the many Google hits for PCA "yield curve": note that it implies that yield curves are the important application of PCA in finance. Keep. —Blotwell 10:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, I said rotation and I meant rotation; I just didn't take the time to try explain in detail. Keep googling, if you are curious, and you'll find my critique of PCA from several years ago. ---CH 02:45, 28 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 debate was speedy delete as CSD A8 - copyvio. Kimchi.sg 17:48, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly_Roberti

edit

Practically all taken directly from the artist's own Web page Kelly Roberti's Jazz & World Music which itself is copyrighted. He looks to be of some note, but the material looks like all self-promotion quoting sources of doubtful verifiability in many cases. Alan W 16:47, 24 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 debate was speedy delete by Yours Truly as CSD G2. FYI, there was a previous, more coherent version - but it was deleted as a copyvio. Kimchi.sg 17:29, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kirkham Grammar School

edit

This is a nonsense - note to the School Inclusionists - please look at the article before voting. BlueValour 17:02, 24 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 debate was speedy delete as CSD A7, no assertion of the fraternity's notability in the article. Kimchi.sg 17:41, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha gamma pi

edit

Non-notable fraternity. Crystallina 17:13, 24 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 debate was delete. Proto///type 12:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shrubbing

edit

This page is for a new word that has not yet gained wide spread acceptance and is not yet worthy of an entry RicDod 17:31, 24 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 debate was delete. Proto///type 11:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Telantek

edit

Advertising, not notable. Created, incidentally, by a "User:Telantek". Sarge Baldy 17:39, 24 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 debate was delete. Proto///type 11:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Dace

edit

Seems to be a vanity piece --BradBeattie 17:38, 24 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 debate was delete. Proto///type 11:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nomads (hostels)

edit

Fails WP:CORP. No established notability.Pascal.Tesson 17:42, 24 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 debate was delete. Proto///type 11:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

4tvs

edit

vanity page for a non notable artist/radio host Nuttah68 17:47, 24 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 debate was Speedy delete as patent nonsense. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91(review me!) 18:03, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bruts McGruts

edit

Looks like a neologism, or something like that. Google in quotes gives 0 results. Staecker 17:55, 24 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 debate was keep -- 9cds(talk) 18:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Das Keyboard

edit

NN and unencyclopedic. There are many novelty keyboards out on the market, including ones with Disney and Barbie themes. I do not see how this is different from any other. BigE1977 17:58, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Google receives 307,000 results with the exact term. I'm not so sure if we could keep it and/or rewrite it. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 18:01, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As pointed out by User:Slgrandson there are over 300,000 Google hits (see search here) which is not the case for other "themed" keyboards. While I think the concept itself is silly, it is notable and verifiable. I see no criteria for deleting the article. Ifnord 19:02, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Weak Keep per Slgrandson. Not 100% convinced that it meets WP:CORP - a better reference than Slashdot would be a help, for starters. Tevildo 19:41, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. There are various links for strange keyboards under keyboard but their 'novelty' is dubious. However, this seems to be notable as per Slgrandson. Anand(talk) 23:57, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Das Keep Not much in terms of news articles though, but the New York Times had a writeup. ~ trialsanderrors 00:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Undecided on this, but if it survives, it needs cleanup, as it reads like an advert with a NPOV veneer - virtually all citations are manufacturer's own claims, the section called "Criticism" simply shills for "Version II" (the fact it's $20 more than the original is hardly appropriate for an encyclopedia), and so on. Be careful with Ghit-counts on this one too, as I believe "das Keyboard" is acceptable German for "the keyboard", and that will distort the count. --DaveG12345 11:47, 25 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 debate was delete. Proto///type 11:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Belgian-Dutch Sin Moo Hapkido Association

edit

Untranslated Dutch after more than two weeks at WP:PNT. Apparently a martial arts club, I guess it is not notable. Delete unless translated and notability explained at the end of this AfD. Kusma (討論) 18:20, 24 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 debate was redirect 1000000000000 (number) and delete 1000000000000. W.marsh 18:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1000000000000 (number) and 1000000000000

edit

I see no reason for the existance of these two articles. I believe 1000000000000 (number) must redirect to Orders of magnitude (numbers) while 1000000000000 should be deleted as by conventions it should refer to the year 1000000000000 and it does not make any sense to have an article abou that year.

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1000000000000000000. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 18:51, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is a bad thing that the billion/trillion terminology is ambiguous. But 1000000000000 (number) is not the right place to talk about it. This is dealt with at long and short scales in great detail, as well as at billion and trillion. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 23:54, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So if you link billion to the discussion, how is the reader supposed to know which one you mean? I think it's bad when the link just leaves a numerical value ambiguous. — RJH (talk)
You can write billion (10^9). I truly doubt that linking to 1000000000000 (number) is a better solution. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 23:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and Delete per nom. -- Northenglish (talk) -- 22:52, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and Delete per nom and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (numbers and dates). — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:20, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep of 1000000000000 (number) with absolutely no redirect. If I link trillion on a page I want to be able to link to the number, not to a discourse on how the term is ambiguous. The later is completely inane as a solution and I've struggled with this issue on astronomy pages. — RJH (talk) 18:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • P.S. Having separate pages for trillion (short scale) and trillion (long scale) would resolve the ambiguity, but odds are they would just be merged again. Perhaps somebody has a better solution? — RJH (talk)
      • I thought I'd do for this article what PrimeFan has done for 100000000 and 1000000000, namely, list some interesting 9- and 10-digit numbers. But after putting in four Fibonacci and the factorial of 15, I didn't feel like working on it anymore. Anton Mravcek 21:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • RJHall, I don't think that a link is the correct instrument to use if you want to specify which meaning of trillion you are refering to. If you use a link, the reader must follow the link to see what you mean. The text should stand on its own as much as possible. Either use scientific notation, or say "trillion (a million times a million)" or something like that. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 02:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes well I correctly enter a "million million" and then somebody (presumably unfamiliar with the ambiguity) "corrects" the text by replacing it by a "trillion". Comparable things happen with scientific notation. These things happen on Wikipedia, and linking to an ambiguous description page is not the solution. — RJH (talk) 15:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Are you kidding me? Would anyone actually find this information useful or for that matter search this? OTAKU 05:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    No kidding, if all I remember is "what's its name" for 1E12 instead of Tera I could try 1000000000000. Admittedly I'd never add "(number)", this Wikipedia MoS idiosynceasy is useless for whole numbers with more than four digits. -- Omniplex 07:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. PrimeFan 20:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep since we accept WP:NUM and it says those high powers of 10 get tehir own articles if that number "have a standard word name and commonly used SI prefix" Numerao 22:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Surely you realize that it's open to argument whether 10^12 has the "standard word name" "trillion" in the English speaking world. You'll get no argument from me on the SI prefix side of this AND statement. Anton Mravcek 18:15, 28 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 debate was delete. W.marsh 01:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bhopal disaster (witness accounts)

edit

Unverified and, more importantly, unencyclopedic; this is important information but it belongs somewhere else. Paul 18:42, 24 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 debate was Speedy deleted per current consensus and implicit user request (page blanked). Dpbsmith (talk) 22:20, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Gabriel Johnson

edit

Does not appear to meet WP:BIO. Article created by User:GabeJohnson whose user page redirects to Gabriel Johnson, strongly suggesting autobiography and vanity. Main stated achievement is being "publisher/editor/Chief Contributor" of Florida Free Press, which gets 20 Google hits, none of them indicative of its being an important journal. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:54, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i am the only one i know ho has an ability to do the types of things such as create wikipedia articles. this is why i do this. i have created several other srticles, one about the word "haterade" which was deleted, and i just dont know what you are looking for here.

(Above is an unsigned remark by User:GabeJohnson)
GabeJohnson, if you are indicating that you want the article to be kept, I suggest that you edit the comment so that it begins with *'''Keep''' just to make that clear. What we are looking for here is an indication that the article is not vanity and that Gabriel Johnson is a person who ought to have an encyclopedia article about him. WP:BIO is one set of guidelines for this; click on the link to read the guideline. Look at the guideline and see what things about Gabriel Johnson might apply. If he has written a book which has won an award, mention the book and the award. If he has been "the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person"--for example, if major Florida newspapers have written about Gabriel Johnson and the Florida Free Press, mention them. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:11, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i would like to request that reguardless of any degree of fame or notariety which i amy recieve, that i never be included in your encyclopedia. thank you.

(Above is an unsigned remark by User:GabeJohnson) Dpbsmith (talk) 19:29, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(That will cut this discussion short, which otherwise will continue for about five days. But for the record, that will not guarantee that an article on Gabriel Johnson will never be included in the future, however, should someone decide that Gabriel Johnson has become famous or notorious. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; like Britannica or any other encyclopedia, we do not include biographies simply because people have requested that a biography of them be included, nor do we remove them simply because people have asked that biographies of them be removed. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:27, 24 June 2006 (UTC) [reply]
  • Actually, blanking the article doesn't work, as bots will automatically revert the edit. If the author of an article wishes it deleted, he/she should tag it by putting {{db-author}} at the top of the page. Fan1967 20:18, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think it might be an idea to mention this on the CSD page. It still says there that blanking by the author is a legitimate way of G7-ing an article - "If the author blanks the page, this can be taken as a deletion request." Tevildo 20:29, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That should be changed. Edit history shows that Mr. Johnson tried it, and it was reverted within a minute by an anti-vandal bot. Fan1967 20:35, 24 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 debate was delete. W.marsh 01:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AIU Consulting Inc

edit

Advertising. Does not appear to meet WP:CORP. Edit comment on creation says "(putting aiu in the business directory, there are references to it on my page, and so forth," but Wikipedia is not a business directory. Created by User:GabeJohnson whose user page redirects to Gabriel Johnson, who is said to be the founder of AIU Consulting, strongly indicating self-promotion. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:01, 24 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 debate was delete. W.marsh 01:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CT332

edit

non-notable course only available at one university Adolphus79 19:09, 24 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 debate was redirect —Quarl (talk) 2006-06-24 21:26Z

Bialey

edit

This article is already found under the more common spelling, "Bialy" Yoninah 19:31, 24 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 debate was delete. W.marsh 01:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tekon

edit

Looks like advert to me. Nothing notable found.Brad101 19:54, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom. Even if the technology is notable (and there's no indication here that it is), this doesnt make the technology unique to the company and doesnt make the company notable Bwithh 05:40, 25 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 debate was delete. W.marsh 01:47, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Philippe Melka

edit

Vanity article and has a lot of the author's point of view. Alan Davidson 20:08, 24 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 debate was merge into Genealogy software (better ___location than the LDS page). Proto///type 11:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Ancestral File

edit

No evidence of meeting WP:SOFTWARE. No userbase, no evidence of innovation, no record of coverage in reliable sources etc. Possible LDScruft. Just zis Guy you know? 20:20, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge into main LDS article. Gioto 02:35, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • (No vote). It's popular enough with amateur genealogists (of which my mom is one) that "PAF Files" are considered a standard when exchanging data, but I don't know how notable that makes it outside that area. It isn't only used by LDS members - LDS records and software are popular with amateur genealogists because they don't limit their research to members. It's mentioned on Genealogy software already. --Jamoche 05:26, 25 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 debate was delete. W.marsh 01:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

VIRTUALSNIPER

edit

Not notable. Advert BennyD 20:54, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete This is def. a non controversial issue. It should be speedy ready! Lsjzl 20:55, 24 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 debate was delete. W.marsh 01:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Water Tapped

edit

Article was listed for deletion using proposed deletion (prod) template for reason "Nn band" after being listed as a speedy candidate for same reason. This appears to be contested as the prod tag was removed so am listing here for the original reason Non-notable band. TheJC TalkContributions 20:58, 24 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 debate was delete. W.marsh 01:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Divine Name

edit

This doesn't read very well and doesn't make much sense. It points to some religious website, but does not make any claims of any kind. The author, Shirin777 (talk • contribs) seems to have scrawled this link into a number of pages. — Gareth Hughes 21:07, 24 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 debate was no consensus, default to keep. Hey, I used to visit this site. Hyatte was funny. Proto///type 11:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

411mania

edit

Not overly notable website. I couldn't find any reputable sources and there aren't really any cited exactly. This all seems to be original research to me. Delete. Wickethewok 21:13, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Alexa rank of 23000. Viridae 00:03, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Nine unique Google hits result from a search for 411mania. joturner 01:09, 25 June 2006 (UTC) Hmm... that must have been a strange glitch when I did the Google search originally; I thought that was a bit odd when only nine links total showed up, but the top-right corner said 1-9 of 367,000 results. In fact, 393,000 Google hits show up. joturner 01:12, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep: It is one of the more notable wrestling sites. However, I just worry that an article will be started for almost every website, message board, and chatroom. But, there is also the "Pokemon argument."MrMurph101 03:12, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: the two most notable wrestling publications, the wrestling observer newsletter and figure 4 weekly both neither have their own wikipedia article. The website spin offs of both are more notable yet it gets by on simply being listed at the authors of boths wikipedia pages (Dave Meltzer and Bryan Alvarez respectively). I don't see why what seems to be an advertisement for 411mania gets a pass while Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/TheSmartMarks.com didn't.
  • Keep: Just because certain things don't have an article yet (or a "more important" site has a shorter one) isn't a reason to delete this one. The site is much weaker since several key figures split to form InsidePulse.com, but I wouldn't say it shouldn't have an article. --TheTruthiness 09:23, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just to point out something that can be verified easily, 411 does roughly five times the traffic that InsidePulse does. The sites aren't really on the same level. A quick look at the Alexa rankings show that InsidePulse's ranking is 82,447, far from noteworthy. Their one week average is 83,357. 411mania's ranking is 23,016 and one week average is 19,600. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.242.217.92 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete per nom. TheRingess 19:55, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a marginally notable subject with an article that reads as an ad. -Fsotrain09 20:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete; 411Mania is a commercial rumour mill. Virtually all their news is lifted from Wade Keller or Dave Meltzer. McPhail 18:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Both Meltzer and Keller work with 411 in some ways and they all have good relationships so I dunno if "lifting" is the right word. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.242.217.92 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment What does thesmartmarks.com not being allowed have anything to do with 411mania? thesmartmarks.com is a tiny site ranked 81,386 on Alexa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.242.217.92 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep. It's the 2nd highest rated wrestling website behind wwe.com. Trying to delete is obviously some type of odd personal vendetta or over moderation. Unless someone has a 411mania brand of potato chips, in which case I'd see the point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.236.31.17 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment - I understand you guys are new, but could you please sign your posts using 4 tildas? Wickethewok 05:26, 27 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 debate was delete. W.marsh 01:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shian Storm

edit

Not notable; no claim to notablility. Unpsecified award; apparently not associated with the Proof of Chaos movie that's listed at IMDB. (And that film is only 7 minutes long.) Doesn't list specific award. Who isn't a podcaster these days? Having "a bone to pick" with the Bush administration isn't notable, either. less than 50 hits on a web search. Mikeblas 21:18, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I later figured out that Shian Storm is really [Cheyenne Storm] over at IMDB. That name gets only 350-something hits. -- Mikeblas 21:42, 24 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 debate was delete. W.marsh 01:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

QKENCHANT

edit

Hoax or unverifiable conspiracy theory. Delete —Quarl (talk) 2006-06-24 21:48Z

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 withdrawn (rewrite) —Quarl (talk) 2006-06-24 22:22Z

Kingstie

edit

Hoax or unverifiable. Cryptozoology "source" is user-submitted. Delete —Quarl (talk) 2006-06-24 21:57Z

  • Thanks for the CSICOP link, Tevildo. I will rewrite as description of a genuine hoax. —Quarl (talk) 2006-06-24 22:21Z
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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. W.marsh 01:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BrickFlick.com

edit

Not really notable. Alexa rating in the 2 millions. Crystallina 20:29, 18 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, TigerShark 22:07, 24 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 debate was delete. W.marsh 01:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PGNx Media

edit
  • This article is about a website and does not provide any information as to why the subject matter is important. If its deleted, don't forget to remove all the redirects leading to it. File Éireann 22:12, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:WEB. Alexa rank over 600,000. From the article, it seems their best trait is that the site doesn't crash as much as it used to. Fan1967 22:20, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Alexa score is so low because the website no longer supports Alexa because of spyware.
A quick Google search shows that is is frequently linked to. Over 189,000 results.
It is no different than Advanced Media Network Thinkjose 22:25, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah 174,000 hits -- 13 of them unique. Call me a wee bit skeptical about the vailidity of that response. --Calton | Talk 08:44, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
this google search excludes the pgnx.net ___domain and there are still 129,000 results. Are you sure there are just 13 unique links? Because I'm counting more on the first page or two. Thinkjose 16:41, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Try clicking the little blue arrow pointing to the right at the the bottom of the page. Are you sure there are 129,000 results? Maybe the SEO thing ain't working out as well as you thought. --Calton | Talk 00:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you revise this after I showed you that there are over 129,000 links excluding the pgnx.net ___domain. There are link from hundreds of domains. Why are you so interested in this particular entry being removed? Thinkjose 16:41, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you so interested in this particular entry NOT being removed? Hint: playing the paranoia card isn't particularly helpful to your cause.
Oh, and I reran the search, and I got 96 unique hits this time. STILL not even close. --Calton | Talk 00:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So, basically you ran out of actual reasons so you've resorted to falsely accusing me? SEOs? 96 unique hits? Come on. It's included in various aggregation websites, it's quoted extensively, and it has been association with corporations such as Alienware. There are much worse entries Calton. Pick a better fight. Thinkjose 02:07, 26 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 debate was Merge to Crimson Chin. Oldelpaso 07:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nega-Chin

edit

Even the article on The Crimson Chin is borderline, this is going a little too far. Delete as fancruft. Was prodded, prod removed. UsaSatsui 21:56, 18 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, TigerShark 22:19, 24 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 debate was no consensus. W.marsh 01:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stanford Sierra Camp

edit

Shows no sign of notability. Reads like an adverstisement. Has been maintained pretty much by a single user who removed a previous prod tag by stating in his edit summary "This is a notable summer camp. Goggle certainly has some stuff on it meaning it is notable. Reads like an advertisiment? How?". Fails all current and proposed guidelines for notability, WP:CORP, WP:ORG. Pascal.Tesson 22:43, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to understand how the ownership of the camp has the slightest bearing on the notability of the camp, ESPECIALLY given that its function is tangential, at best, to the mission of a UNIVERSITY. --Calton | Talk 08:47, 25 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 debate was delete. W.marsh 01:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Resurrection Life Church

edit

This was nominated for speedy deletion under A7 (no assertion of notability), but I wasn't sure what the notability criteria are for churches, and felt that an article that has been around for more than a year should at least have a discussion before deletion. No vote. EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 22:48, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral per nom. Having several thousand members would _seem_ to make a church notable; if the article were expanded a little (for example, I'm sure that the church does _something_ other than hold services), the decision might be easier to make. Tevildo 22:59, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete In its current form, church is not notable. Could not find any external sources Riadlem 01:56, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. A church that calls itself Resurrection Life Church but cannot document that it has been responsible for any resurrections is just another run-of-the-mill church; parishcruft. Carlossuarez46
  • Delete This church is very well known in its community, but aside from its cultlike tendencies, there is very little notable about it (and no, I cannot document the cultlike tendencies, which renders that point moot.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.238.205.94 (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 delete. W.marsh 01:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Taverna

edit

This minor actor appears insufficiently well known to have a Wikipedia article. File Éireann 22:52, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete Main points made by article are that the subject is a bed & breakfast owner and is involved in his local theatre. Very few ghits. --NMChico24 22:53, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. IMDB does not support the film credits listed on the external AOL link. When searching by the director and star's names, he's not listed on one of those films, and the other film isn't listed at all. Fan1967 23:02, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
vanity? for a deceased author~actor~portraitist? -SHLAMA 00:37, 26 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 debate was delete. W.marsh 01:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eugene Oak

edit

Article is an autobiography, and although its subject has written some books, the article does not fully assert his notability. – ClockworkSoul 23:24, 24 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 debate was delete. DS 03:55, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dismal's Paradox

edit

Wikipedia is not a repository for jokes like this. If it was, it would need an entry for every joke every comedian came up with. This stuff might be more appropriate for Uncyclopedia or BJAODN. Jesse Viviano 01:19, 25 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 debate was no consensus. W.marsh 01:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Turley

edit

Non-notable author biography... Adolphus79 23:50, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep published author with books of a reasonable following. Jammo (SM247) 00:36, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - just a note, per WP:BIO, Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work... the article makes no reference to any reviews or awards... that's all... if someone can show multiple reviews and awards, I'll gladly change my vote... - Adolphus79 00:48, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment From the book notability criteria - "...books with an ISBN-number and/or availability in a couple dozen of libraries and/or a Project Gutenberg type website, and with a notability above that of an average cookbook or programmers manual would qualify." His books are therefore officially notable; I think it would be perverse for him not to be, in that case. Although, this may just be a result of inconsistent notability standards. Tevildo 00:59, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: how did an ISBN become a criterion for notability? Anyone can buy one. - Nunh-huh 01:49, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
on that note, I clicked on those 2 ISBN numbers linked in the article... Google, nor Amazon, found any matches... and the only review listed at the moment is from a 14 year old who only gave the book 2 stars out of 5... - Adolphus79 01:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See here. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 18:28, June 25, 2006
"Amazon.co.uk Sales Rank: #755,612 in Books" - that didn't help prove notability any... - Adolphus79 19:20, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-serious comment. A lawyer would undoubtedly claim that the "multiple independent reviews" criterion in WP:BIO quite obviously only applies to _photographers_. But, fortunately, the policy pages don't have to comply with legal standards of drafting. :) Tevildo 01:04, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Serious comment I'm not saying this author is a hoax at all, but the idea that an ISBN number is sufficient proof of a book's notability is unacceptable as ISBN number registering and corresponding listing on Amazon.com has been used for hoaxes on Wikipedia in the past. Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Brent_Henry_Waddington for an example Bwithh 05:28, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • From National library:"In the United Kingdom the Legal Deposit Libraries Act 2003 restates the Copyright Act of 1911, that one copy of every book published there must be sent to the national library (The British Library); five other libraries (Bodleian Library at Oxford University, Cambridge University Library, National Library of Scotland, Library of Trinity College (Dublin) and the National Library of Wales)". So there is the possibility of one library apart from these 6 (which hold his books only as a part of a legal requirement to hold copies of every book) has copies of this author's books Bwithh 16:27, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Calton; I tried several OPACs without results. However, the Edinburgh Libraries catalogue found me a children's book by a J.T McQueen (A world full of monsters, Collins, 1986) long before the subject of this article is said to have been writing. Odd to say the least, unless J.T McQueen is a collective pen name like Luther Bissett. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:08, 25 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 debate was delete. W.marsh 01:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor Stevens

edit

very sparse article that gives no information as to why model is important File Éireann 23:51, 24 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 debate was delete. W.marsh 01:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Hutson

edit

This very minor writer has no claim to fame in the article as written File Éireann 00:22, 25 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 debate was no consensus. W.marsh 01:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Convent of Hell

edit

There is no indicator of notability in this description of a recent ghost novel File Éireann 00:29, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No more than a synopsis of a wholly un-notable pornographic comic book.--Anthony.bradbury 00:37, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. And someone should look up synopsis before trying this sort of thing again. Tevildo 01:37, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article may qualify as a stub, but Wikipedia has lots of them; deletion seems overly harsh. It is verifiable, not a vanity page, nor original research. This comic might be somewhat obscure to the general public, but it is professionally published, still easily available for purchase nine years after it was first published, and widely reviewed by websites covering the genre, most of which make a point of saying it is notable for its controversial content and quality artwork. And, yes the synopsis is rather detailed, but no moreso than plenty of others on Wikipedia. Klope680 03:35, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. If evidence of notability is provided, then the article should stay. And, in that case, I'll be more than happy to edit down the synopsis to something more reasonable. Tevildo 14:22, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This seems to be a notable book. --DaveG12345 03:07, 26 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_June_24&oldid=1081096279"