Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 October 1

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log
< September 30 October 2 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete - not notable per the guidelines at WP:BIO, for example has not been the primary subject of a published work nor do they get lots of distinguishable hits on Google (to pick just two of the tests on WP:BIO, the others are not met either). Thanks/wangi 12:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kit Jarrell

edit

Non notable blogger, delete --Peta 04:17, 21 September 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, Mailer Diablo 15:56, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That artice was deleted so a redirect will not work. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wide Awakes Radio --70.48.174.220 20:29, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete as a non-notable biography, WP:BIO refers. A difficult decision with the authoring of two chapters in The Future of the NHS and being a talking head leagle beagle in the UK media. On balance, these are not enough to assert notability and the career as a barrister is not illuminated enough by the article to suggest a notable legal career. (aeropagitica) 10:53, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Kevan

edit

Questionable notability and written entirely by the subject (see page history). Cordless Larry 09:54, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, no evidence that he meets the WP:BIO criteria. The most usual ways for lawyers to become notable are "making a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field" and/or "achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events". Neither of these appear to be the case here. Thryduulf 10:23, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A vanity article, yes, but notability is asserted. Some of those books he has written seem notable, as they are available from major book vendors and libraries like Amazon[1], Wildy Legal Bookshop[2] and Adlibris [3], University of London Institure of Advanced Studies [4]. He has also figured in some BBC articles[5][6] where his opinions have been sought. --Ezeu 16:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
and note that even blatant vanity published works are often available on Amazon- availability there should NEVER be used to establish notability for a work or an author. Badgerpatrol 01:24, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and WP:BIO. Being a rent-a-quote doesn't make someone notable. Blisco 19:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The books don't seem to assert anything. Law books (and articles) in the UK are often written by not so succesful lawyers and are in essence a cheap means of advertising. Same goes with getting on the BBC. If there were third party reviews of his work I'd be more impressed. The stuff about the Conservative Collegiate Forum could be a claim to notability if there were some ("substantial") press coverage cited, but at the moment there isn't. JASpencer 19:03, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I am the person under discussion and was new to wikipedia until this year. I have apologised for starting the page as vanity publishing and I repeat that apology again.The page was allowed to stay on the basis that I asserted notability as a writer. I wholly accept that some of my books help advertise my practice although if you do a search of barristers' chambers you will find that very few barristers have even written one book. However, of the ten books that I have now written, I would suggest that three are important books in their own right: Email, the Internet and the Law was one of the first on this subject and Professor Richard Susskind described it in the Times newspaper as "an important new book" at the time of its publication; Sports Personal Injury is the only book on the subject and was therefore once again breaking new ground and has attracted interest internationally; finally, I contributed two chapters to The Future of the NHS which also includes chapters from all three political parties and most of the major think tanks. As for my political involvement, I did not add the story about the Conservative Collegiate Forum but it is true and was covered in both The Times and The Daily Telegraph in 1993, among other newspapers. As for my media appearances, I make no great claims save that I am the regular legal voice for the Jeremy Vine Show which is the largest daytime news and current affairs show in the country (with around 5 million listeners). Once again, I am genuinely sorry for any offence caused by vanity publishing. I shall leave well alone now other than to contribute to this discussion and will be very happy if you cut down my entry substantially. However, I will continue to contribute to wikipedia in the future and thank you all for a great site. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Timkevan (talk • contribs) 16:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Comment OK, so now we have a number of claims for notability of a junior barrister:
- That two of the books he wrote solo are important in their own right, presumably they would meet Wikipedia:Notability (books). For the moment the fact that none of these books have an uncontested Wikipedia article should be seen as a sign that this is not proven.
- That Kevan wrote for The Future of the NHS, which does have its own article (let's pass by the main author of this book. However as the introduction for that article says it "brings together forty-four leading experts in the fields of health care, politics and policy making". So Kevan is one of forty-four. Not a claim to notability.
- The Conservative Collegiate Forum information may be a claim for notability - but it's still not cited.
- The Jeremy Vine show is notable, but being a contributor would only be notable if he was essentially a co-host.
JASpencer 21:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I have restored the two books that Kevan cites as his most significant. On balance I am happy with him having an entry. The combination of his writings and media appearances make him worthy of an entry. <POV>If Big Brother contestants and rappers who have released a couple of CDs get in here someone who has already done what Kevan has done (and no doubt he will do a lot more) should not be excluded. </POV> TerriersFan 03:18, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So is Wikipedia a prize for achievement? JASpencer 09:01, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: "Article A should be kept because we have articles on utterly unrelated topics B, C and D" is generally not considered a good "keep" argument by the closing admin. Just saying. --Aaron 22:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with gusto/userfy if not already done. Where is notability asserted here? He certainly does not meet the criteria for an author, unless he can demonstrate that his books are CORE texts of general application- i.e. sales numbering in the thousands. As noted above, it is quite common for barristers in the UK to contribute papers and or books. If there are multiple external full reviews in e.g. The Times or similiar, then let's see links to them, and it may sway my thinking here. However, on the basis of the facts as they stand, I see no evidence that this gentleman deserves to be in here as an author or academic. So, his other two claims to notability are that he's a barrister and went to Cambridge- as far as I'm aware, neither of these are covered in the notability guidelines. Get yourself on myspace Mr. Kevan- that's the place for popinjays such as yourself, not here. Out out out. I note for the record that Mr. Kevan also added a nice vicarious vanity page for one of his chums, who has even less of a claim to notability- Daniel Barnett. Badgerpatrol 01:20, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I see no reason to believe that Tim Kevan started this article in bad faith. He was unaware of the rules and has since apologised for inserting his own article. He also seems to have made quite a few good edits to non-related articles. While we may disagree with him on his notability - could we please stop the name calling? Most vanity articles start out as good faith efforts by people who don't fully understand the purpose of Wikipedia. JASpencer 09:01, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is it name-calling to refer to someone who incorporates a biography of themselves and their workmates into an encyclopaedia for the purposes of self-advertisement as a "popinjay"? It's a simple assertion of fact. I struggle to understand how the motivation of someone (ANYone) who composes their own biography here can possibly be described as good faith, unless they are a very foolish and myopic person. It strikes me that Tim Kevan is not particularly foolish or myopic- although he obviously knows an opportunity for free self-promotion when he sees one (see his comment above, for example). The subject edited his article repeatedly over a period of 2 months. He has indeed made some good quality edits to unrelated articles- but many (if not most) of his contribs appear to pertain to himself directly, his father, or his friends and workmates. Very poor show indeed. Badgerpatrol 01:50, 1 October 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, Mailer Diablo 15:57, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete even after cleanup. I'll admit he skirts the edge of WP:BIO enough that I had to think about it, but in the end I still don't think he's quite reached notability yet. Maybe if one of his books had been more popular or if he'd gotten some mainstream media coverage somewhere. He does seem like the sort of person who will qualify for an article in the future, but not quite yet. Nice hair though. --Aaron 22:50, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vanity, WP:BIO failure, and per the above arguments. Ultra-Loser Talk | BT sites 06:19, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He is on the news a lot (BBC, Sky etc) and people will want to look him up. Useful to have independent content for them here, apart from his own website. Garryw16 12:40, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is Garryw16's first and only contribution to Wikipedia. Badgerpatrol 15:40, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BIO. wikipediatrix 15:43, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is the subject of this debate, Tim Kevan, again. I very much accept the criticisms made of me and again I apologise. It seems that most of the writers are prepared to accept the entry if there are independent references etc. There have been a number of reviews of my books and references to my student politics (something which was added to my entry by someone else) in national newspapers and publications. These are only available it seems to subscribers. However, for your benefit I have done a search of just one of these newspapers, The Times, and have put the references online at: http://www.timkevan.com/articles/times%20articles.doc. I would be very happy that others did searches of other newspapers and publications. I am concerned at getting overly involved in this debate but the suggestion of no references is inaccurate. Tim Kevan
Comment I'm sure youd didn't mean it but you shouldn't vote twice. I've added in the stuff about the CCF to give people some idea of it's notability or otherwise. (There's also an article about this here although badly written). Personally I think this person is less notable than Emily Barr, who doesn't have her own article. If the ins and outs of the Maastricht debate and Major's dog days become better covered on Wikipedia then I could change my mind. On the e-mail law book, if this is the extent of its notability I think we should forget it. It's said to be an important book in a short review in the Times. There's no indication that it's influential on other books or on cases. If you could prove this then it could be kept in. JASpencer 21:31, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Disclaimer that I was a Cambridge contemporary, although not in the same party, and did some work to wikify the article. I admit it is close to the line, but senior officers of student political organisations can become notable if they are mentioned in the press. Don't know enough about the legal field to say but authors of legal textbooks does support claim of notability. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 11:44, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Tim Kevan was notable as a proxy in a fight that is otherwise unmentioned in wikipedia. Conor Burns - the other candidate, who's achieved a lot more subsequently - does not have an article in Wikipedia. As coverage improves of Maastricht and the Tory hari-kiri that was the John Major premiership then the Conor Burns affair may be included together with some of the supporting cast. Other than his selection to the post there is no other evidence of his effect on the now defunct organisation or the wider Conservative Party. As to legal textbooks, well no one apart including Tim Kevan has started any articles for them or argued that they would meet notability standards. JASpencer 12:13, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. If someone wants to merge and redirect later, great. - Bobet 17:04, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorption isotherm

edit

The information given is wrong. If someone speaks German you could translate my German article http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorptionsisotherme as a replacement. Rosentod (Ger) 13:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the information is wrong, then just change so it is right. It seems like you speak enough English to at least be able to create a sentence or two about it. Recury 14:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but there is enough to do in the German wiki. I'm already busy there. --Rosentod (Ger) 14:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Close. Nonetheless, AfD is not cleanup. Go ask at Wikipedia:German-English_translation_requests. ColourBurst 17:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done. But I'm still favouring deletion of this stub. Rosentod (Ger) 08:51, 22 September 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, Mailer Diablo 16:00, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorption isotherm is the graphical depiction of the sorption behviour of a chemical entity which depicts the link between the water content of the substance and the humidity of the air at a particular temperature.
However 'sorption isotherm' is used generally for any adsorbed or absorbed material, not just water. When writing the definition one should not restrict it to sorption of water. I think Localzuk's version would need one further iteration to make this clear. I also looked at the German version. It does use general language, to include materials other than water. But, while it is informative, it has no graphs and no fully-specified references, so I don't think that a pure translation would make the best possible article.
I don't favor the idea of redirecting this to Sorption because the latter is very short and vague. Also, one day, someone will have the patience to make a nice graph of a sorption isotherm, which will make Sorption isotherm worthwhile in its own right. EdJohnston 23:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:32, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin E. Jones

edit

This page was tagged as prod for the second time, so I move the request to AfD instead. WinHunter (talk) 14:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Original Prod nom statement: Two unfinished and unreleased films do not establish notability. --Merope 17:41, 19 September 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, Mailer Diablo 16:01, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Bobet 17:02, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Commission for Scientific Medicine and Mental Health

edit

Non-notable organization, vanity article, most of website is non-functioning, unverifiable membership. THB 16:03, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Over 700 Ghits, an organisation that counts 3 Nobel laureates amongst its membership. A non-functioning website is not grounds for deletion of an article about a group that is not based in cyberspace. There is a hint of bad faith about this AfD nomination. --BillC 20:42, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Actually, most of the Google hits are mirrors of the Wikipedia article, their press releases, or items planted by the parent organization. One must look beyond the number at the quality. The membership is not confirmable including any of the Nobel laureates listed. Indeed, having Nobel laureates as members does NOT make an organization notable, anyway, on its own. This organization may be notable at some point in the future but it certainly is not at this time. -THB 02:08, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've never really looked at this article before. If it is to be kept I think it has to be almost rewritten from scratch. There are no sources other than self sources (e.g, CSMMH and CSICOP websites). The "contributions to scholarship" section also seems questionable inasmuch as it consists solely of a few articles written for CSICOP's magazine (one of which amounts to nothing more than a summary of the criminal conviction on a non-related charge of a paranormal researcher involved in something they didn't like); and then a mention of the fact that a member of CSMMH was on a TV documentary once. I've been on TV in a number of countries playing international sport but I don't see an article about me. I think delete unless something more can be found and attributed to reputable sources.Davkal 17:36, 25 September 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, Mailer Diablo 16:02, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete Looking at the notability guidelines, this organisation seems to fall short. I would say delete now and recreate if assertions of notability can be made when someone has the time or inclination to. Localzuk(talk) 20:08, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. While all articles must assert notability, it's a red flag when every word of an article seems to be an attempt to prove it. --Aaron 23:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The article reads like a vanity page. While the subject is not without interest, I tried to see if their published articles (in their two journals) were having any impact, using Google Scholar. Results were minimal. EdJohnston 00:40, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Punkmorten 09:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Lane Greene

edit

dubious notability. I looked him up on Google and there's not too much. Nekohakase 16:39, 21 September 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, Mailer Diablo 16:03, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:32, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Apeman Cometh

edit

appears to be non-notable podcaster - CobaltBlueTony 16:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Additional: This article does not meet criteria for web content (Extensive copy and paste of the linked-to page elided. Uncle G 18:28, 22 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Comment. At first glance it appears to be advertising. But more importantly, how did you come to the conclusion this podcast was non-notable. Was it a lack of listeners? Too few episodes, Too new? Your nomination doesn't explain your reasoning. Instead of using "non-notable", please explain your reasoning with objective facts. - Mgm|(talk) 22:07, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I understand that the phrasing does seem to be advertising, but this was written following several other podcast and internet radio pages that seemingly are not nominated for deletion, so I would like some clarification on this as well. I am open to making changes to the page if suggestions are provided. However, the non-notable part also makes me curious. If it is based on "too few episodes" (currently residing at 27), then I'd like to know what number is no longer "too few". If it's "not enough listeners", I'd like to know where your data was obtained, as it has never been made publicly available. If it's "too new", then please tell me what the timeframe to no longer be considered new is, since I have been podcasting over one year. - MtA
    • "If article X then article Y." is a fallacious argument. The criteria for web content have been linked to above. Please cite sources to demonstrate that they are satisfied. Uncle G 20:25, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am not trying to make an argument, I am pointing out that there are articles for other podcasts and internet broadcasts that are not nominated for deletion, despite the fact that they do not meet the notability criteria either, as referenced above by you. If you feel that my article should be deleted, then I am merely making the point that there are several other non-notable articles out there similar in format to mine that are not being nominated, including but not limited to No Holds Barred Radio and The Dawn and Drew Show. Neither of these have cited any sources, neither have clearly demonstrated notability based on the requirements listed, yet they are not being questioned? I'm not making an argument, but rather questioning the fairness and making sure I am not being singled out for some reason.Mike the Apeman 18:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Mike, we're not here to prove a point. None of us are. Somebody needs to cite sources if the article is going to assert any notability - and I, for one, have never heard of your show, let alone until recently the show you originally were on. (I only heard about NHB from my wife, who got it once from a Shoutcast feed.) --Dennisthe2 17:55, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I have taken Uncle G's comment into advisement and removed all copy and paste's from referenced links. - MtA
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 16:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn. --Dennisthe2 17:55, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable. Maybe the author of the podcast is, but that doesn't mean everything he produces is. Localzuk(talk) 20:13, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; lack of reliable sources, advert/promotional content, vanity concerns, no demonstration of notability. --MCB 23:23, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not going to keep debating this back and forth. If you guys are going to delete my article, then do it. I may not agree with your reasoning, but this is your sandbox, so you make the rules. I am going to point out that the person who noimated this originally has seemingly disappeared from this discussion, which leads me to the conclusion that this was a targeted effort and the discussion wouldn't even be happening without that person's action.Mike the Apeman 15:22, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Punkmorten 09:20, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tant Strul

edit

Non-notable. And two of the links are to myspace blogs of the band members. Nekohakase 16:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Actually, this is a notable band. Tant Strul was one of the leading Swedish punk bands from the early 80s (they quit in 1985, with a few nostalgia concerts in 2004 and 2005), and Kajsa Grytt has become a notable solo artist in her post-Tant Strul years. Tant Strul released four LPs and six singles on MNW, the leading Swedish alternative label of the 1970s and 1980s (the company is still around, but not really important, it seems). The discography is available on Kajsa Grytt's website. up+l+and 07:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do they have any links besides MySpace?? Nekohakase 16:08, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • You mean something like an official website? No, it doesn't seem so. Except for a couple of reunion concerts at punk nostalgia festivals, they stopped playing in 1985, so they probably see no need to make one. The Tant Strul pages and discography at Kajsa Grytt's website (which is not at MySpace) is probably as official as you get. Does it matter? up+l+and 16:35, 22 September 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, Mailer Diablo 16:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:33, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vagabonding.com

edit

Someone's non-notable travel blog. Nekohakase 16:58, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't know how popular it is, you shouldn't be voting to delete it. Do your research before making a decision. - Mgm|(talk) 22:09, 21 September 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, Mailer Diablo 16:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:33, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wolfgang Productions of Minneapolis

edit

Almost no assertion of notability (makes videos for local talent in Minneapolis), most Google queries turn up 0 relevent hits, almost completely unverifiable except for [8] [9]. --Interiot 22:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete Per nom. Borderline speedyable as group with no importance asserted. Making videos for talent in Minneapolis is not an assertion of importance. Irongargoyle 23:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wikipedia is not paper. Markovich292 06:11, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Care to elaborate on how "Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia" applies as a justification for keeping in this instance? I see nothing notworthy of inclusion in a paper or electronic encyclopedia. Irongargoyle 17:45, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • To me, this looks like an accurate article, and it certainly isn't detrimental to wikipedia. People might hear about this company and want to learn more about it, and since we are not limited by space I don't see why it should be removed when it has a potential reader base. It looks like the only criteria for deletion is notability, but it doesn't seem to be in conflict with any policies. Markovich292 18:08, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's hard to say if it's accurate or not without sources. Wikipedia's editors aren't unlimited, are you volunteering to hike out to Minneapolis to find reliable sources for it, and then maintain the article? Unmaintained articles about people/organizations are a small detriment... ask any OTRS user how many slander/libel complaints we get. I just don't see this article being maintained. (eg. the company is defunct... they released a final DVD set in 2005, but there's no mention of it anywhere on the internet) --Interiot 18:31, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hehe that would be a very short hike for me :) The problem is, even if I find a source AFAIK I can't just scan something and put it onto wikipedia as a RS. Anyway, considering the company is not out there ripping people off, slander/libel probably won't be a big problem. Things in the article like that unsourced video may deserve removal, but I don't think it warrants complete deletion. Markovich292 20:53, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • The slander/libel issue is that random people add sneaky vandalism, nobody notices for a while, eventually the people associated with the organization Google themselves, and then get upset when they find the falsehoods here because it's since been distributed to a bunch of different mirrors. The fact that most of the article can't be independently verified makes it even harder to deal with sneaky vandalism. --Interiot 21:04, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Ezeu 17:21, 21 September 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, Mailer Diablo 16:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:59, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tal Cloud

edit

I originally tagged with {{notability}}. May be speediable (per WP:CSD G7 as author does not object to deletion and the only third-party editing has been a link added. That being said, I thought AFD was appropriate given that he was a congressional candidate in 1992. Nevertheless, I feel this does not meet WP:BIO and there seems to be very little Google coverage (granted, he did run in the days where internet coverage would have been sparse). Irongargoyle 22:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Ezeu 17:25, 21 September 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, Mailer Diablo 16:05, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep What's the problem? He was a major party nominee for Congress, that's notable enough. It's source, not vanity, and not promotional. We're not paper. A Google test is not a great measure for a 1992 candidate; obviously there would be many online references to such a candidate today. I frankly wish we had more data like this. I just spent several days compiling data for research on Australian regional assembly elections. Some of the material I could only find on Wikipedia, saved me possibly days of effort. In what way does keeping this hurt Wikipedia? Derex 07:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:33, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

System & Network Solutions

edit

nn company--XIado 17:43, 21 September 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, Mailer Diablo 16:05, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:14, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comprehensive Annual Financial Report

edit

This page was nominated for "Prod" deletion on 11 Sep 2006 with the reason
This is fairly incomprehensible, and the talk page is basically an advertisement. Based on the amount of html previously in the article and still currently, it is likely a copied from somewhere.
The page was deleted 7 days after its nomination under PROD. The deletion was contested on 21 Sep at WP:DRV. It has been restored and is nominated here as a procedural matter. I abstain for now. Rossami (talk) 20:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The redirect CAFR is related. Whether the article is kept or deleted, the redirect should follow the same fate. Rossami (talk)
  • Stubify This is a valid topic but the article is complete crap. ~ trialsanderrors 20:47, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • you said it! It is a valid topic and to censor this would be to participate in the literal cover up of the issue. So Stubify it, put up "wikistandard"s disclaimers, whatever. The article could be better sourced. Having talked with Walter Burien and Gerald R. Klatt(USAF retired). My impression is they would like to see links to their site on here as well as government addresses for the imfamous CAFR reports for all over the country. Klatt's www.cafrman.com has these but they are from 2003.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.209.140.21 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete. Though the report is a real report, I'm not convinced that it is notable enough for its own article. There's no reference to "CAFRs" on major news sites, and the references listed in this article appear to be personal websites with a strong bias. The Google hits don't mean much to me either, since "CAFR" as an acronym can have multiple meanings. So I recommend deleting this article, or possibly merging it into something else relating to State Government spending. --Elonka 04:50, 27 September 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, Mailer Diablo 16:10, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. It's not impossible that this could be made into a real article, but almost none of the current material would be usable for the purpose. I don't think we should wait around patiently for people with a strong POV to come up with something that would make sense to a neutral economist. Best to delete. EdJohnston 01:24, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Here is a typical example of knee jerk anti conspiracy theory bias of wikipedians, these documents are verifiable and do exist. It is not significant at all that acording to Burien's research that numerous news outlets and public officials recieve a copy of many CAFR's reports from the local water and school public corporations to the several state and general government reports and do not do reports on these government holdings? Yall's nose for cooruption potential isnt itching at all? Jessie Ventura's political career is punctuated by his releasing some of Minnisota's government surplusses held outside the budgetary set of books. The Potential for cronie investment shuffeling should be obvious to even a 6th grader. I.E. guide investments to support your friends politically. If you don't know the investments exist in the first place you dont know to look for the deal making and the stategic investments BTW tally up the institutional investment in big companies like Health insurance, Motorola, IBM and MICROSOFT - 60-85% government owned, that is supposedly not Musellini's Corporatism? The artical needs a NPOV, shure, but these issues HAVE to be mentioned or you end up with a bias of ommission problem. Living in the world's remaining superpower you have to demand "show me the money"! Failure to understand these issues is tantamount to crossing the steet when you see a woman getting raped or a mugging in your path and not even dialing 911. I am only left with the two possibilities either there is intentional ignorance of this topic or a lack of ability to grasp the concepts of government surpluss assets. I dont know what else to say except you'll get the govenment you deserve? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.209.140.21 (talk • contribs) 21:55, October 1, 2006
(Comment to anon editor) The main problem with this article is that much of it appears to be what's called original research, which is against Wikipedia policy. Something cannot appear on Wikipedia unless it is has already been published in outside credible sources (personal websites and blogs don't count), which prove that this subject is notable. In other words, it's not enough to prove that the report exists, you have to show that outside sources believe that the report is important. There are thousands of different government forms out there, and the case that needs to be made (in my opinion) is that this report is individually important. If credible references can be provided, I might be willing to change my mind on this article. For more information, please review the Wikipedia policy on Verifiability. --Elonka 18:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've stubified the article and repeatedly removed a set of crap and spam links, and I've also posted a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Business and Economics asking for input, to no avail. I have no interest in babysitting this article, and with the current lack of interest from qualified editors I'm pretty certain it will go back to spam/soapbox status in no time as soon as this AfD is over. So I'm amending my vote opinion to Delete unless someone is willing to keep this article on their watchlist and make sure those links stay out. ~ trialsanderrors 09:17, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is just the proverbial second set of books outside the budgetary process. If you cant see why that is the most significant report of any divison of government then we are doomed as a country. Some of you seem so averse to conspiracy "theory" that if something sounds like one, you trash it even when the proof is hidden in plain sight. I fail to see why the Gerald R. Klatt sites cannot be included, he isnt selling anything and provides links to all the CAFR's that are analysed even if they are abit old. (2003) Some of the newer State CAFR's are difficult to locate (on purpose). When government entities cry we need to raise taxes cause spending is over the budget THIS is the ammo to hit them with; we know how much is in the CAFR ! Sell some stock and surplusses(far above the required assets to back pensions and bonds et c.) There are tonnes of short blurb articals on wikipedia that I have run accross and none of them have to have to be on "watchlists" that I am of aware of. So Walter Burien might end up selling a videotape or two because someone found out that there really is CAFR reports out there. Since he HISTORICALLY re-discovered this accounting trick and exposed it to the world (through AM talk radio in New Jersey) How bout someone put up a biography on the guy; I would but it would last about 2 hours and that is beiing optamystic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.209.140.21 (talk • contribs) 23:16, October 4, 2006
Because they're far away from reliable sources and smack quite a bit of soapbox. If you know any useful sources, e.g. from government websites, that explain CAFR's, that would help the article significantly. Weblinks from "CAFRman" don't. ~ trialsanderrors 09:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Harry Potter (plot) was vandalised; original article ok, please check diffs in future. Plot summary just redirected to book. Speedy close.. ➨ ЯEDVERS 19:01, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Potter (plot)

edit

Also: Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince - Full Plot Summary for the same reasons.

This is a simple soft redirect to a wikibook. No WP articles link to here (some talk pages do. Harry Potter book pages diligently link to respective Wikibooks so there is a minute risk of recreation. Swift 01:47, 22 September 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, Mailer Diablo 16:10, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete both as A1. Each article contains at this time a dead template link, ergo is content free. Just about to tag as such.... --Dennisthe2 17:36, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: OK, so it's more like an A3 than an A1. Also, the other article is locked for some reason. I can only guess. --Dennisthe2 17:40, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Nufy8 02:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dmitriy Bocheko

edit

Does not appear to be notable. No google hits abakharev 00:29, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Nufy8 02:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fisgoon

edit

Fails WP:CORP. ghits: [10] & [11] NMChico24 00:32, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of interesting places in Vancouver

edit

Interesting list, but does it really belong here? And the title is oh-so-POV. Vancouver article is long enough that merging is probably not the best option, but I thought I'd bring it here to see what other possibilities may be worth considering. Grutness...wha? 00:41, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If only that was an actual policy Bwithh 02:11, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not?? Oh gods, no! I've been operating under that for years. ♠PMC♠ 19:05, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 01:43, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ross rifle/temp

edit

subpage in main space (Disallowed uses; few or no links; article exists in Main) --Ling.Nut 01:10, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete by another user - CrazyRussian talk/email 06:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

VStyle

edit

Pure vanity (WP:VAIN), "VStyle has what it takes to create Greatness" Equendil Talk 01:12, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Nufy8 03:01, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory Cowan

edit

Gregory Cowan is a vanity page added by User:Nomadologist who is Gregory Cowan. The subject does not meet the Notable Academics proposed guideline. The vanity page has been created by Nomadologist before, and it was deleted before. Wareh 01:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete by another user - CrazyRussian talk/email 06:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Young Lil LIC

edit

non-notable, likely a vanity article. See also previous AfD debate about this article posted under a different name, with the result that the earlier version was deleted. Ropcat 01:33, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:19, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tsushima Islands/temp

edit

subpage in main space (Disallowed uses; few or no links; article exists in Main) --Ling.Nut 01:27, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was deleted and redirected to Jim's Restaurants; the main article carries all pertinent information. (aeropagitica) 11:43, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Magic Time Machine

edit

Does not meet notablility per WP:CORP. -Nv8200p talk 01:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, those are all themed resturants, and with the exception of medieval times, have only one, where time machine has two, and the hulk hogans one is gone. Joe I 02:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand, then. Please forgive me. You are listing three other restaurants which should be deleted, and citing them as a reason to keep a fourth? I'm seriously asking; not being sarcastic or facetious. --Ling.Nut 02:23, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just listing others in the same field to show established relations on wikipedia, if those to should be deleted, that's up to you. But if not, then neither should this one.Joe I 03:03, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't wanna start a long discussion, but I totally do not buy into that method of argument. The number of mom 'n pop stores and corner restaurants (and high schools and high school chess clubs and ...) in Wikipedia is daunting. It would be trivially super-easy to grab three and use them in the way that you are doing, whilst completely ignoring the who-knows-how-many that have been deleted. Invalid argument. I'm gonna go hang out where the notability discussions are for a while, and see who does what. But I've already voted here; have no desire to argue. --Ling.Nut 03:52, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
oops accidentally mangled joe's post. fixed. --Ling.Nut 03:55, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
oops again, I said I was done, but the full scope of that recursive argument just struck me. One would need to delete *every* single corner Chinese restaurant in Wikipedia to counter that argument -- which is of course impossible, since new corner Chinese restauraunts are being added faster than a thousand monkeys can type. Argument is recursive. Argument relies on inertia rather than principle. I cannot accept the corner Chhinese restaurant argument. Sorry. --Ling.Nut 04:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is not some cornor chinese resturant. Those do not have 2(3) operations, are not owned by a larger franching resturant(usually) and do not get people driving 100 miles or more to eat at. And i'm sure sure the little chinese don't dress up as GI Joe or Shaggy or have an actual running 1930's car as a salad bar. Try comparing it to maybe one of Emerill's resturants(without his cooking of course). There's an atmosphere reputation people pay to be part of. Joe I 04:24, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again Joe.. hey .. please.. I was firmly rejecting your method of argument but not rejecting the restaurant by comparing it to a corner Chinese restaurant. You see, you made a far more valid type of argument just then, when you discussed why the restaurant was, in your opinion, notable. In the second argument, you appealed to facts, stating that people drive 100 miles to eat there etc. I personally -- and this is just me -- wouldn't agree that those facts prove notability. But I do agree that it is 'definitely a valid means of making an argument. Your first argument -- the "corner Chinese restaurant argument" was invalid through and through, and unacceptable as such. Your second argument stands on its own merits. If people are persuaded by it, then it will win the day.
Please let me know if I am making sense. I am not attacking the restaurant you support. I was rejecting your method of framing your argument... does that make sense? Thanks --Ling.Nut 04:43, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Jim's Restaurants and add a section for this particular franchise in it. FrozenPurpleCube 03:22, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. In addition to the outlet's mentioned. There was also a very famous outlet in Austin, Texas, which burned down under somewhat suspicious circumstances. We can certainly expand this article with interesting and informative history about the properties.

Johntex\talk 03:39, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think there is something worth merging, in that the restaurants are interesting enough that the descriptions in the article should be complete enough that somebody could know what they are. FrozenPurpleCube 21:08, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Grandmasterka 07:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roberto Carrillo

edit

Deletion nomination Fails WP:MUSIC, and WP:V, and WP:VAIN. This guy might actually be a musician, but there's no proof that he's an encyclopedically notable one, though there's considerable indication of a rich fantasy life. Apparently his performance venues are usually "informal concerts" in shopping malls "particularly in places where pianos are being sold" i.e. he goes to musical instrument stores and takes over the nearest piano. Sole external reference link is a gushingly positive review article (that stops just short of total adulation and then adds the small print that the critic is supposedly the most feared by classical musicians or something so I guess a 9/10 from her is like a 15/10 from anyone else) which strangely does not cite its original source but is hosted on a spammy article database which apparently anyone can submit articles to with minimal quality checks[15]. This external source is highly unreliable. The article claims that the subject is a direct descendant of a Holy Roman Emperor without any proof (apparently this makes him "royalty" though). The subject also claims noble titles which are from fantasy organizations and countries whose honours are available to anyone- see Grandmaster of the Chivalric Order of Cravant and Great Order of Vikesland. Oh and here's the totally unconvincing website of the Royal Society of Music, which like the Royal Society of Art is part of The Vikesland Ministry of Culture - these societies are supposedly presided over by Carillo. He is also named as the Minister of the Interior on the Vikesland website[16].Fantasy vanity hoax nonsense.

Thanks for the kind comment! Bwithh 02:31, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete and block user On second thought, having seen the other related AfD's, and googling a bit, it this appears to be a pretty obvious hoax. Note that the "royal society of music" website is hosted on a tripod site with the same name in the URL as the single purpose user perpetrating this hoax. Resolute 04:58, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • In my experience, anyone whose major achievement in life is claiming to be descended from some long-extinct mediaeval royal house is a candidate for deletion. Accordingly, delete. --Gene_poole 09:12, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The same could be said of anyone who proclaims themself emperor, king or Prince Gene Poole. Roberto Carrillo is one this centuries best classical pianists, and I implore you to research before posting slanderous materials. Chris Beyette 216.36.157.25 17:55, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • What is your point? That Vikesland and its self-proclaimed Prince are not notable? Agreed. Proclaiming oneself does not make one notable; being proclaimed by others is what gives notability and verifiability. Robert A.West (Talk) 18:09, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Which has been done, certainly in Vikesland's case. They've been published.--Freddulany 20:53, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy Delete as an attack page by User:Vegaswikian. ColourBurst 02:41, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mason Henshaw

edit

Unnoteable The Fox Man of Fire 02:01, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:18, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Florida Power & Light/Sandbox

edit

subpage in main space Disallowed uses; few or no links; article exists in Main) --Ling.Nut 01:58, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Nufy8 03:04, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Laruel Mall

edit

First, the title is misspelled, though that can be fixed. The text is sourceless and unencyclopedically written, and the subject itself is a local mall that is admittedly "defunct". Opabinia regalis 02:09, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Nufy8 03:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jenna Bryson

edit

Fails WP:MUSIC, non notable extra in Sorority Boys. Ghits turn up her Myspace and her Wikipedia article. T REXspeak 02:10, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:20, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marian Walsh/Temp

edit

subpage in main space (Disallowed uses; few or no links; article exists in Main) --Ling.Nut 02:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:20, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carrillo Symphony Orchestra

edit

Nomination for deletion Probable hoax. No hits on google except mirrors of wikipedia[20]. No hits on google books. [21]. No Factiva hits.

I am also nominating the related article Victoriano Carrillo, the supposed founder of the supposed orchestra (note that the Tony Carrillo mentioned in article seems real but totally unrelated). Also see the related afd for Roberto Carrillo. These articles were all created by the same user[22] who also at one point claimed an ancient English dukedom for this Filipino Carrillo family[23]. Bwithh 02:28, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Nufy8 03:10, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Batman: Yesterday, Today, & Beyond

edit

a nice fansite about batman, but is not notable for inclusion on WP. Fails WP:WEB (it's borderline, but I don't think a brief segment on a low-rated cable show and a newpaper citation of a pic is enough). Also fails WP:VAIN as creator of article is an administrator at the site. Alexa rating is 385,477. "batmanytb.com" gets 102 unique google hits [24] Giant onehead 02:29, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Holy fancrust, Batman! indeed. Delete JPG-GR 07:07, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. - Bobet 16:59, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transformation Story Archive

edit

nn, niche, inactive website, probably does not meet WP:WEB, alexa of 222,415 and very spammy article. Google for title phrase gets about 250 unique hits, and most are not about the said site. [25] Giant onehead 02:40, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, though the article does need cleanup. The website is of great historical significance within its niche. It's inactive now but when it first went up it was pretty much the only place to go to for transformation fiction on the Internet and it became a center of activity for the fandom. Looking over WP:WEB, it looks like it satisfies the third criterion - the webzine TSAT republishes content from there. (TSAT is independant of TSA, in case anyone asks - the name is a result of how the initialism "TSA" became shorthand for the entire genre). Bryan 02:51, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hey, I just noticed, what's with that Google link? It's got an offset of 250, not a total of 250 unique hits, and as a result it's only showing rather poor hits. Do this search instead: [26] and you'll see lots of references from other sources that are indeed about the site. A lot more than just 250 in total, too. I note from your user page and contributions that you're apparently on a campaign to seek out and delete non-notable stuff, and while there's nothing inherently wrong with that you should at least take more care that you're not misrepresenting your targets in the process. Bryan 03:22, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment No, I did the google test right, I'm fairly certain. And you don't have to be such a jerk about it, let's hear from some other users about it. The google count is just a small part of why this should be deleted. Giant onehead 04:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was trying not to sound jerky despite the annoyance I was feeling, so I apologize if it still came through like that. But I still think the Google link you posted in the AfD summary is misleading; it gives "Results 241 - 246 of about 11,000" whereas the example I posted above gives "Results 1 - 10 of about 11,000". It's not surprising that the 241st-most-relevant hit Google gives is going to be pretty sucky. Anyway, the page has had a total rewrite now and references have been added that even I didn't know about off the top of my head, hopefully that addresses some of the other aspects of WP:WEB. Bryan 18:11, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Fails WP:WEB. No verifiable reliable evidence of "great historical significance" within this niche. Bwithh 02:59, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep ... although the article's current state certainly doesn't reflect its ability to meet requirements. There are actually connetions to Austrian political drama, besides the niche value. I'll see what I can do; I've been searching for something outside my normal expertise to champion lately. Serpent's Choice 06:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I doubt that any third-party independent sources can be found for this topic. On the other hand, if Serpent's Choice feels he needs more time to research, I have no objection to keeping with the understanding that it will be renominated if no sources can be found. Robert A.West (Talk) 07:02, 1 October 2006 (UTC)Keep, per the argument that non-trivial third-party press coverage is out there somewhere. If that proves chimerical, we can revisit at a later time. Robert A.West (Talk) 20:45, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update-- I put in some research time and rebuilt the article from the ground up, doing away with a lot of the advertising-y feel and generally spamminess. I think at this point the article meets the requirements of WP:WEB, although it is admittedly a difficult call. There are without question two confounding factors that make current documentation challenging. First, age is an issue. The TSA was most influential in the 1996-1998 period and has been inactive (although extant) since 2003. And second, the communities represented by the TSA (furry fandom, transgender, and transformation fetish) are poorly represented in print sources now, much less in 1996 or 1997. That the site maintains an Alexa rating of ~220k three years after the last update whatsoever is frankly a strong indication that it was a significant site in its prime. I do recognize, however, that the references are still shaky(eSCENE is itself defunct, but legitimately published in 1995-1997/8, with ISSNs for its annual publication). WP:RS recognizes that popular culture and fiction topics "may not be discussed in the same academic contexts" as other material; ezines and their ilk, especially with years of (web-)publication history are at least a reasonable step above "[p]ersonal websites, wikis, and posts on bulletin boards, Usenet and blogs". I'll see if more is available as time permits. Serpent's Choice 09:37, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. WP:V/WP:RS restricts use of "bulletin boards, Usenet, and wikis, or messages left on blogs" and cautions against self-published sources "where no one stands between the writer and the act of publication ... includ[ing] personal websites, and books published by vanity presses". eSCENE had an established (and rotating) editor board. Likewise, both of the ezines referenced herein (Anthro and TSAT) have editorial control; these are not self-published sources, nor do they equate to content like personal websites (e.g. Geocities) or blogs. The FPÖ allegations can also probably be better documented by someone who speaks German (as an internal Austrian political issue ibn 1997-8, English-language coverage is essentially nonexistent). Not all articles can or should have citations from conventional news agencies because not all verifiable encyclopedic content is newsworthy and print-appropriate. What is expected from sourcing for an article of such a nature that is not present here at current? Serpent's Choice 02:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ed, I'm not entirely sure what you're saying here, could you clarify? I'm taking your opinion to be that the subject doesn't warrant an article because the archive is currently defunct and has been superceded by other sources, which I don't think is relevant because the site has historical significance within the genre. Bryan 05:58, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The connection to Austrian politics makes it noteworthy enough, in my opinion. If it really was the first site within its genre (admittedly a niche genre, but nevertheless), that adds to its significance. Shimeru 07:56, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, based on Serpent's Choice et seq.'s version. I note that the site isn't defunct because the creator lost interest, there was a whole big thing. To my mind, that something is the first or oldest X is generally a strong argument in favor of notability. In addition, if the fact of the site was indeed a major element in a political campaign or platform, it probably received more than "passing mention" coverage of the sort mentioned at WP:WEB.–♥ «Charles A. L.» 17:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: site has historical significance for development of its genre, and arguably political history significance; it's is much improved after Serpent's Choice's recent edits. --Jim Henry 21:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep and cleanup. – Avi 02:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Korean Pottery: Categorized by Periods

edit

Moved from Korean Pottery: A Compendium of the Colaianni Collection by original author as a result of the debate. I am cleaning up the AFD page and have nominated the resulting redirect for deletion. Robert A.West (Talk) 18:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OR--Dpplx 02:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Don't DeleteThis article allows students of the art and the study of Korean history and pottery true examples to evaluate the different periods of development in Korean pottery from ancient times. The generosity of the of the author's family allows students to include unique photographs of a collection in reports and presentations on the subject. This article enriches this resource of information on the subject. Deletion from Wikipedia will lessen the archive value of this encyclopedia. It would be a loss for Wikipedia. Deletion would be a mistake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MVCOL (talk • contribs)
    • Reply A couple of things: The article is Vanity in that collection was made by a relative of yours (Father? Grandfather?), so posting it on Wikipedia serves to indirectly raise your profile. That isn't fatal to an article by any means, but... it immediately raises the spectre of objectivity issues. There are a LOT of pieces from a perstonal collection in the article. Are the pieces notable? How do we know the captions are correct. I know YOU know, but I don't know myself. Which brings us to the biggest issue of all. The article is named "Korean Pottery: A Compendium of the Colaianni Collection". Is the Colaianni Collection a notable collection? Is it better than, say, a collection I would find in a museum in Seoul or New York? My instinct is no, but if I'm wrong, we'll need to see some backup. You've posted an article with your own last name in the title. That's throwing up a lot of red flags. - Richfife 05:29, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverified (and probably unverifiable) catalogue of an unpublished private collection. Robert A.West (Talk) 06:43, 1 October 2006 (UTC) Change to Keep, but serious rework needed. See comment below. Robert A.West (Talk) 16:53, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, little more than an image collection, and what little text there is violates WP:NOR. JIP | Talk 10:22, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete(one vote to a customer)...a Final Rebuttal in response to the above comments...The article does have value. FIRST: If the title is of concern then it can be changed...the change would be Korean Pottery: Categorized by Periods. This is an important lesson in the study of Korean pottery because each period in Korean history had very distinctive style of pottery. This page clearly demonstrates the differences. SECOND: Is this collection verifiable? Yes. All pieces have been evaluated and appraised by JOHN GILMORE FORD, ASA, Senior Member,American Society of Appraisers, Baltimore Maryland. All captions that are associated with the photographs are excerpts from his evaluation. Sotheby's of New York is aware of this collection. Two pieces from this collection were published in its catalog, KOREAN WORKS OF ART, JUNE 5, 1992. The Carnegie Museum in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, is reviewing this collection for display. THIRD: There is enough text to cover two pages if you look at the information contained in the captions under the photographs. I can move those captions to the main page if necessary. FOURTH: The question about "better" collections being in Seoul or New York; with the title change, they would be welcome to edit the page and contribute to the wealth of Wikipedia as well. Please note, I have already added to the References at the bottom of the page in question.
    • The appraisal is unpublished, therefore unverifiable. The two pieces published in Sotheby's catalog are a different matter, but you don't identify which two they are. I think this article needs serious rework, possibly into a set of articles by period, including commentary only from published sources. Since deletion prevents rework, I will change my non-vote, with the understanding that I may support a renomination if the article remains a collage. Robert A.West (Talk) 16:53, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either merge with the main Korean pottery article or rename to something like Gallery of Korean pottery and keep; or failing that transwiki the images and text to the Commons. Frankly, articles about the arts invite a gallery style treatment. These examples are a valuable contribution, and a way should be found to keep them somehow. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Korean pottery. What is the bar for verifying that photos in Wikipedia are what they say they are? I expect that many (most) of our photos (and other images) would fail verifiability. If these are what they say they are, they should be merged into the main Korean pottery article. If we want to demand verifiability of images, we'll need to dump 90% at least of the images in Wikipedia. The Photon 01:52, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would say that there are three distinct issues for verifiability an image of an artifact: does the image fairly represent the type of artifact described? Is it of an actual artifact as opposed to a reproduction, mockup or a manipulated image? Is the described provenance correct? Readers can perform the first by comparing to copyrighted pictures from reliable sources, which should be cited for the supporting text. The second we really can't verify, unless a major publication takes an interest in the authenticity of Wikipedia images, so we have to take on trust. The last issue was raised by the title: absent a published catalog, how do we know there is such a collection or what it contains? Renaming the article reduces the vanity aspect of the provenance, and so makes it more of a legal issue (is uploader entitled to grant a GDFL license for that image?) than a policy one, and we pretty much act on faith there too. Robert A.West (Talk) 21:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • My plan is to rename the article as mentioned before to Korean Pottery: Categorized by Periods. That should correct the vanity issue in the title. I also plan to expand the text as recommended by Robert West. My concern about merging with Korean Pottery is that I would not like to make such a drastic change to an existing article that is already so well presented. The interest taken by all, in the effort to make Wikipedia an endeavor of value is appreciated. I do have a full time job and therefore need a little time to update this page. What time constraints are we dealing with? User:MVCOL
      • Now that there is clearly no consensus to delete, there is no time pressure. Take the time to do a good job, and others will probably pitch in. Most of us have lives, whatever Wikitruth may say. <grin> Robert A.West (Talk) 03:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I will do my best to update this article to conform with Wiki standards.....I've already changed the title........I appreciate the opportunity.User:MVCOL
  • Delete - as OR. There is a good article on Korean pottery. Those parts of this article that can be sourced can be addedin there. This seems to be an advert for a private collection. The name of the collection on each image is also unencyclopaedic. BlueValour 03:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment BlueValor has a point about labelling. The collection name has to go from the images. If you can't bring yourself to do that, then the images have to go too. - Richfife 16:15, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • GDFL Comment The attribution on the image seems to me to be part of the copyright of the image, and hence should not be removed in order to protect the permission to use under the GFDL. With the article title changed, hasn't the issue been significantly blunted? Robert A.West (Talk) 18:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment - the attribution on the image is independent of the Licence as shown by the fact that hardly any images, elsewhere on WP, carry it. In any case Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document. If the image could not be freely modified then it would not be acceptable on WP under this licence. If the authors decline to modify the images then other editors can and should. The change of title does not address the sourcing issue - the article remains OR - nor the vanity aspect of having this unencyclopaedic attribution on every image. BlueValour 20:12, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Hmmm... I have no doubt that we could, under the GDFL, add a clown cap to any of the images. On the other hand, Wikipedia is clear that it views history as something that we should preserve under the GDFL. I was viewing the on-image credit as akin to that. I suppose that, so long as we have the original version in history, and retain the description of the source of the image, we are fine in that respect. That said, you or any editor can boldly modify the image, so I don't see that as a reason to delete the images. As for the OR issue, and whether the article can be made non-OR, that requires comparing the sources to the content at a level that is beyond my expertise. Robert A.West (Talk) 13:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Apropos whether credits on the image are encyclopedic, my print copy of the Britannica 14th edition includes images with just such an embedded credit, and I think that publication qualifies as an encyclopedia. Robert A.West (Talk) 13:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was SPEEDY DELETE. JIP | Talk 10:23, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Voice of the nations

edit

Repost of speedily deleted material from Voice of the Nations, although the speedy status is not completely clear from the deletion summary. No references and unverifiable. Quite a few google hits for "Voice of the nations", but none seem to be on topic. Add "John Paul Warren" to the search and the results drop down to two. One being the ministry site which is down for construction. Irongargoyle 03:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 10:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Colbert Report episodes

edit

While The Colbert Report is a popular show in the cable universe (take note) it (or just about any other regular talk show) does not warrant its own episode guide. There have been 150 episodes done in the last year, and this page is now 99K. We don't have episode guides for nearly all game shows (like Wheel of Fortune), the tonight show, letterman, the today show, maury, nightline and so forth, so why should a somewhat popular cable talk show get a guide? It also violates various parts of WP:NOT, including Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, Wikipedia is not a soapbox, Wikipedia is not a directory and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This isn't a free webhosting service, if you want to make your own episode guide, make your own site, not sludge this info into WP. Giant onehead 03:06, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep Similar Articles are everywhere including

100 Listed in "Lists of sitcom telivision episodes"
29 in Lists of "Dramedy telivision episodes"
59 in Lists of "science fiction episodes"
22 in Lists of comedy television series episodes
Saying Similar articles don't exist is a lie. Saying this article is not useful is also a lie. This page is similar to many of these, most notably the "list of the simpsons" episodes. From which each episode has its own page, which in my opinion is less navigateable. This leaves us judging the article on "it takes up too much space". I'm not on WIKI an exceptional amount, but I didn't see any policy on "lists with many items not allowed" and if there is one, it should be respected. The simpsons list for instance; however, is twice the size of this one. Where is the threshold for too many items? Is it at exactly 154 episodes that a show has been on the air too often to have a wikipedia article? It's also my opinion that the submitter for deletion didn't do so in good faith and seems offended by the show itself being an "indiscriminate collection of facts" not the article. (69.76.206.124 05:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]

  • Strong Delete per nom for every single reason he's given. --Aaron 03:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete by African elephant stomping (what with all the new ones that have popped up in Africa over the past 6 months, I'm sure they can spare a few). Variety shows shouldn't have episode lists on Wikipedia. Irongargoyle 03:26, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, do the people making these kinds of episode guides know that there are other sites made specifically for this sort of thing? Recury 03:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes. That's not a reason for deleting the article; for pretty much every single notable TV show ever, there's a web site which contains episode synopses. Should we delete every episode of every show ever? "Who Shot J.R.?" Who cares? It's on another web site! There are other sites specifically made to talk about Grand Theft Auto, so maybe we should delete all of that series's articles, too. -- Kicking222 16:13, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Colbert has enough WP coverage as it is. - Richfife 04:57, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and above. Also seems to violate WP:OR. --Satori Son 06:26, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's absolutely no violation of OR for episode guides. The show itself is the primary source. -- Kicking222 16:13, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • That is an overgeneralization of this issue. Some elements of this article are original research, not the entire concept of episode guides in general. --Satori Son 00:35, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Normally I don't feed the socks, but I will give you one specific example simply to illustrate my point: In the comments for Episode 131, it states "This is the first episode that has neither a Wørd nor an introductory phrase." Has this fact every been previously published by credible, third-party sources? Obviously not. The only way for a Wikipedia editor to verify this fact is to sit down and watch all 131 episodes up to that point, which is not only completely impractical, but the very definition of "original research". That being said, however, if this article is kept, as now seems likely, I have the faith that editors with an interest in the subject will get the article up to standards. Thanks, Satori Son 16:05, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Is it the definition of original research? I'm pretty sure that's not the spirit of the policy. The spirit is to have verifiable information.(although clearly one need merely scroll through the table to see that both boxes are empty there for the first time). As you said also anyone can sit down and watch the previous 130 episodes of the show (the show being a source). Won't every person that does sit down and watch it come to the same conclusion? You probably can't verify the colors of all the butterfly families without reading a portion of a probably large book. It is merely organized for use? P.S. not a sock just don't like registering for things when it's optional and wasn't aware it was unreasonable to post that way (69.76.206.124 06:57, 6 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete per above. MER-C 08:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Crush by elephant - per nom and WP:NOT.--Nilfanion (talk) 13:12, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't see any "original thought" or "soapboxing" in the article, and Wikipedia is full of directory-type information, including lists of episodes of many TV series, even separate articles about individual episodes. If there's any "WP:NOT" relevant here, it's WP:NOT paper, so it's irrelevant that it's 99K. Margana 15:15, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Eusebeus 15:46, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep I'm a very staunch advocate for episode synopses, and The Colbert Report is an incredibly popular show (both in its niche and in general). So there are a lot of episodes, and so the page is huge. What's your point? Why are these deletion rationale? In my opinion, there is no piece of WP:NOT which applies to this page. I'll certainly disclose that I've contributed a good amount to this page, but I've only done so because I feel that it is a valuable article which should be improved as much as possible. The Colbert Report is certainly a notable television show, and the vast majority of notable TV shows have episode guides (if not articles on every individual episode), and I don't see why this show should be any different. -- Kicking222 16:13, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is nothing very different about this compared to other fine wikipedia articles such as List of The Dukes of Hazzard episodes, List of Pokémon episodes or even List of Barney & Friends episodes and videos. Episode lists are one of the things that wikipedia does well and Colbert has the notoriety to deserve the full wikipedia treatment. The nom has miscited wp:not, none of which applies to this type of article. --JJay 16:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have a really hard time understanding some of this reasoning. There is a big difference between an episode guide for this and a network show like The Dukes of Hazzard. Dukes of Hazzard had like 25 episodes or so a season, and has much more established notability and ran on a network, meaning that more watched the show and recall it years later. This show has been on a year, is on cable, gets above average ratings, and with it's format, airs around 150-200 episodes a year, if it stays on the air. And that's just your opinion if the show is extremely popular, it averages around 1.5 million viewers, good for cable, but would be cancelled in days if on a network with those ratings. Just because you like the show or a few critics praise it doesn't assure that the show is massively popular. I'll stop, but there is just no reason for this page to be on here. Giant onehead 18:33, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Firstly, I can't say if I like the show because it's not broadcast in the country where I live. Even if I did like it, that would be irrelevant. Just like your apparent dislike of the show does not matter either. There is no limitation at wikipedia to network shows. That sort of network/cable distinction is increasingly meaningless today. Secondly, the number of episodes broadcast is not a determining factor. We can not unfairly stigmatize the show for broadcasting a lot of episodes. However, given how often Colbert is in the news for one reason or another - certainly far more often than Barney or the stars of Dukes of Hazzard - I think we should be detailing his show's episodes. --JJay 18:50, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I never said anything about hating the show, nominating this article had to do with that it just isn't suitable for Wikipedia, not that I think the show is overrated or such. There is a big difference in doing an episode guide for a primetime network drama than a daily talk show. Giant onehead 18:53, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I wouldn't mind a list of episodes if it only had 13 episodes (or some other manageable number) in a season. The Colbert Report has so many episodes each year that this would be an immensely long list after only a couple of years. I'd say this violates WP:NOT a free webhost or an indiscriminate collection of information. --Coredesat (talk) 18:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Mr. Billion 19:50, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if only because I don't think individual episodes should get an article, yet it wouldn't be a good idea to not have the information. Using examples like game-shows is not using an equivalent media subject, as it doesn't make much sense to cover something that varies only by what puzzle is on and who is solving. Oh, and what they spend. And I don't know about you, but I wouldn't mind a collection of who has been on the Tonight Show or the like. Sheer potential size isn't much of an issue, IMHO, since we've got things like the List of Playstation games (6000+ entries). Yeah, at some point, you might want to break things up by season, but that's a convenience issue. FrozenPurpleCube 21:27, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Comparable to lists of television stations: i.e. List of myNetworkTV affiliates (which went through an AfD, one user pointed out that WP:NOT states that Wikipedia has reference tables, the work of 100 editors that was sourced by a notable broadcasting magazine in the months to its launch last month, and more detailed than the category with the same information), List of television stations in Arizona, and lists of television episodes (List of Futurama episodes and this, and when it gets too large, split it like what is being done to List of Pokémon episodes, splitting it by season or year (the latter would be the main criterion for a talk or news program which does not have defined seasons)). Plus, Colbert is more in the news than Futurama or Pokémon. One news exploit came right here to Wikipedia, even. (This is my longest AfD rationale in history!) A note from Colbert fan Shin'ou's TTV (Futaba|Masago|Kotobuki) at 22:00, 1 October 2006 (UTC) for this AfD nomination[reply]
Comment I don't see how any of those lists you mentioned can be comparable to this one. Futurama is/was a weekly network series and had around 80 episodes. Even a low-rated episode of Futurama had its ratings several times more higher than the average episode of this show. I've said this before, if you want to keep using this guide and put it somewhere, why not make your own webpage for it? WP is not a webhost or a soapbox. I knew there were going to be a few hardcore fans of this show trying to clutter the vote just to get their show more attention, but I wasn't expecting it to be this bad. For the admins, please consider that when you make a decision to keep/delete the article. Giant onehead 22:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No, I'm not trying to be pro-Colbert, but The Colbert Report has the notability that Futurama, Pokémon, and such shows have. If it's notable, and it has enough episodes to deserve a guide, I think it should have such. Wikipedia is not paper, but has reference tables. Have you read WP:NOT lately? Please. I'm trying to be NPOV and you're making my argument POV. Please stop. Shin'ou's TTV (Futaba|Masago|Kotobuki) 01:01, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I refuse to stop. That is the most asinine argument I have ever heard. You are comparing apples to oranges. You're comparing a daily talk show to a cartoon series. An episode of a network cartoon series like Futurama is far more notable than 99% of episodes of this show. I have read WP:NOT and I am 110% certain that this article violates a fair amount of those provisions. I won't stop, <personal attack removed>. Giant onehead 01:18, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:NPA, WP:CIV, WP:AGF. Those are requirements for participation here. --JJay 17:16, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, sub divide them into seasons eventually. Wikipedia should not have bias against or for itself. People Powered 22:08, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete per nom — We really don't need this on WP --Deon555talkReview 23:02, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; I generally oppose listcruft, but this is not listcruft, and episode guides of notable television series with large audiences have wide support on Wikipedia, especially if (as here) they are treated encyclopedically. I don't think these should be a bias against The Colbert Report merely since it has c. 150 episodes a year instead of 13 or 26. --MCB 23:49, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I never said anything about hating the show. I'm just questioning it's notability. Instead of making a blind guess as to how I might feel about the subject, why don't you actually read my reasoning first? Giant onehead 01:57, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: notable show with recurring elements and characters, much like a drama or comedy, for which we have tons of episode guides there. The argument against this article could have worked if the show was three or four weeks in and not likely to be successful, but as it is an extremely successful show and not a flash in the pan, the article must be kept. Calwatch 04:01, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. May eventually need trimming down or splitting (I'd suggest only having a summary for the "significant" episodes, where memorable phrases get coined or where important guests come on, but am not familiar enough with the show to get specific) but it's not like Wikipedia has limited space. Considering how much we've got on Pokemon or Gundams this doesn't seem overly large. Bryan 06:19, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, Colbertcruft. Applaud Calton's nuke from orbit idea: it's the only way to be sure ! Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:18, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per precedent. If you don't want episode list articles on Wikipedia then I recommend going through channels to get the related Wikiproject discontinued. Otherwise I see no reason why this can't be treated any different. 23skidoo 12:50, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and split into seasons. DCEdwards1966 13:57, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I haven't seen the show at all, and in fact I've never even seen an entire episode of The Daily Show (we don't get it over here where I live). However, it seems like a perfectly legitimate page, and of value to many readers. --DeLarge 14:57, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - No one is soapboxing here, and the show varies significantly on a day-to-day basis. If you question its notability, look at the amount of hits on Google for the Colbert Report vs. the kings of Wessex. Why shouldn't we have the first list if we have the second? Irregulargalaxies 23:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment . If there are a lot of raw ghits for colbert-report, there are five (one, two, three, four, five) gbooks hits. For my randomly selected (and dead for over 1300 years) king of Wessex, there were around five hundred. See the difference ? Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The difference being that this king of Wessex has had 1300 years in which to have books written about him yet only has five hundred, whereas the Colbert Report has been on the air for roughly a year and already has five? :) Personally, I don't think benchmarks like Google hits or book numbers are very good means of comparing relative "prominence" of subjects, beyond a basic "yeah, other people have heard of this too" threshold. Too many confounding variables. Bryan 23:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - The reason of suggesting deletion has no ground. you claimed the guide violated various parts of WP:NOT and yet you failed to come up any evidence at all. 1)Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought - This article is not. 2) Wikipedia is not a soapbox - This articale's not. 3) Wikipedia is not a directory and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information - This article's not, plus with at least 10 editors contribution this is hardly "indiscriminate collection of information". If any of the above claims is true, then by your definition every TV episode guide on WP should be deleted. The most pointless arguement of all, which is the number of episode, is simply irrelevant. Since when WP has a guideline states how "few" episodes of a program should be eligible for a guide of its own? Sorry your arbitral magic number doesn't work here. Samic 07:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete -- where's Wikipedia:Not The TVGuide when you need it? JPG-GR 07:08, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Then go ahead and try to delete every single TV episode guide on WP... To answer your question: because there is none. Stop trying to make Articles for deletion page into your personal soapbox Samic 07:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This collection of information is very short compared to e.g. the very extensive entries of Family Guy episodes where each episode has its own extensive article. Here in the case of Colbert each episode is summarized very economically. Spebudmak 07:48, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep I find this page very useful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.34.78.25 (talk • contribs)
  • Strong Keep Maybe it could be split into seasons. But, I see no "soap-boxing." Is this page ruining lives? Is it dividing America? No. Is it a little frivolous? Sure. What the hell! Swatson1978 20:02, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I've found this to be a hugely useful resource - it'd be a shame to see so much work deleted - So long as other TV shows have episode guides so should the Colbert Report.MagicBez 21:04, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - The Colbert Report is not, at heart, a "talk show" like Letterman. It's fiction, with Colbert playing a fictional character. His interview subjects are more like "guest stars" in a situation comedy. The existence of this list to keep track of the show's mythology is very justified.86.53.54.14 22:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Highly notable show, very divergent episodes. Most importantly though, it's a watercooler show and this page provides people with information on what story was on what episode. --Jirrupin 22:25, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Very good resource, and not unlike many other show episode lists. The work put into this page shouldn't be put by the wayside. Dhp1080 00:28, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep You do have some good reasons for deletion but taht doesn't change the fact that this is a very useful page. Granted the optimal solution may be to have this content elsewhere on the great WWW but that is not the case. I think Wikipedia has enough resources to maintain an informative and useful page of information that would likely be forgotten otherwise. I find myself using this page frequently for reference. I would like to see this broken up into pages per season at some point in the near future though. Fsamuels 05:19, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This is the most comprehensive Episode List for the show. Removing it would be unproductive. Please keep it.
  • Delete per nom. Although I couldn't watch this show even if I wanted to, it's not appropriate, sourcable (you'd need to find a third party who compiled the list and donated copyright), or notable, even if the show is notable. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies. We do get Comedy central. It's still not sourcable. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are numerous other episode guides on Wikipedia which are not being nominated for deletion. If the page is too large, it can be split by season. --BOARshevik 04:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep It is clear that the Colbert Report Episode Lst is being singled out due to the episode frequency. Just because something happens often should not disqualify it from wikipedia. The episode blurbs are short and to the point. This has NOT become a fanpage. A lot of notable people appear on the Report and it covers many current events. This guide provides an efficient way to quickly reference who/what has been covered and when. This information is not only useful for fans, but also for those researching the relationship between the Report and the news media, current events, notable individuals, political events, etc. If such a guide were available for the O'Reilley Report it would be useful in the same way.Sturmovik 04:33, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:20, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Paul Warren

edit

Copy-paste job from user space to go with Voice of the nations which was copy-pasted from the deleted Voice of the Nations. He seems to have some association with the company mentioned, but the other claims aren't backed up. Violates WP:VAIN, WP:SPAM. Fails WP:V, WP:RS and probably WP:HOAX Irongargoyle 03:21, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:18, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blane Covert

edit

Nonnotable teacher and author of unpublished book, The American Standard, also nominated here. NawlinWiki 03:32, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Better Know A District

edit

Technically, it's a WP:NEO violation, but more to the point, it's just Colbertcruft, one of a number of articles created to make The Colbert Report seem more popular than it actually is. Google shows almost no examples of the term being used outside of references to Colbert and/or his program. Aaron 03:34, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Pare Down and Merge to main article. Too much information! - Richfife 04:50, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, relatively well known segment on a well known show. The segment has recieved a lot of media attention due to Colbert's continual "manipulation" of the words of well known politicians. For example, Wexlar's comment on prostitutes and cocaine has been mentioned on the Los Angeles Times[28], Geraldo at Large [29], Good Morning America [30], and Fox News [31]. (note the last three links are on youtube, where the news report videos are hosted)--TBCTaLk?!? 05:56, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A series of interviews with 434 of the most important prople in the US is definetly notable. (I hate to admit this, but I missed a few interviews, and I came here to find out who it was I missed..)EnsRedShirt 06:55, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Is cruft, doesn't need it's own article or space. Yes, this is one of a long series of articles/entries that try to make this show look more popular and notable than it is. Giant onehead 07:12, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's defiantly not as crufty compared to having over 450 articles on every single Pokemon character in existence. Also, how does having more articles make a subject "look more popular and notable than it is"? Using my previous example, there are more Pokemon related articles than there are Buddha or Einstein related articles, but does that make Pokemon any more notable than either Buddha or Einstein?--TBCTaLk?!? 07:59, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But the scope/audience/popularity of Pokemon is much larger than this show. Yeah, maybe you can't really do 100 articles with Einstein as the main focus, but those articles on their own will always carry more weight and be more viewed than a pokemon character. Giant onehead 08:53, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like you just don't like the Colbert Report. While you have the right to that opinion, it doesn't mean you can delete all the articles about the show. - Lex 01:53, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable enough per TBC and EnsRedShirt, not particularly "crufty"; "WP:NEO violation" rationale unclear and not a cause for deletion. Please don't just assume that articles are created to make something look more popular than it is, claiming that without concrete evidence isn't serious. Merging it elsewhere might be good, but would probably just clutter articles that are already long. --Gabbec 08:50, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (but needs serious cleanup). NYT article for reference. Meets verifiability requirements. Agree that it's cruft, but a 90% cruft-free article is possible here with some pruning. Fagstein 09:11, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It probably IS a WP:NEO violation, but I would say this is a good example of WP:IAR. Notability isn't an issue as at least one of these segments has been aired/reported on by more legitimate news programs, not to mention the notability of the guests themselves. The Colbert Report (at least currently) has a significant pop cultural significance, and this recurring segment involves a large variety of elected officials. I'd say keep now and review relevance again in a year. -Markeer 14:46, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I am enjoying the new "articles created just to make it seem more popular than it is" meme, though. --NapoliRoma 14:59, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. High-profile interviews, better than Barbara Walters in many cases. Billy Blythe 15:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. as above - Deathrocker 15:56, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep while list and fancrufty, passes notability threshold and is therefore not really a neologism. Eusebeus 16:10, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep It's perhaps the most well-known portion of a notable television show, and is important enough to have 30-some-odd Congressmen appear. I really don't think "created to make The Colbert Report seem more popular than it actually is" is a proper reason for deletion. -- Kicking222 16:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak merge with Colbert Report. --Dennisthe2 17:50, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep and it is in dire need of some well-delayed cleanup. The influence that the BKAD segment has on society is definately there. If Pokémon can have its 450 trading guide up on here, then BKAD has a place here as well. (Thankfully, Wikipedia already comes with all those articles on the U.S. Representatives.) - The Lake Effect 18:17, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Margana 21:44, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep It's been verified thanks to Fox News's and GMA's inability to interpret satire. It's also a major recurring theme of a show that has already involved some thirty members of Congress, each of whom are independently notable.-- danntm T C 22:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; neither listcruft/Colbertcruft nor a WP:NEO issue. Simply because something is new, or is a coined term, does not make if the type of neologism or protologism that Wikipedia excludes: as a (silly but accurate) thought experiment, imagine that the President of the United States, in a policy speech, announced the creation of a new agency called the Ministry of Truthiness. Believe me, it would justifiably have a Wikipedia article the next day, or more likely, within an hour.) --MCB 23:56, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per everyone. - Lex 01:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, MCB's argument by assertion and tortured analogy notwithstanding, this is EXACTLY listcruft: finely detailed information, of limited to no interest to non-fans, concerning a portion of a larger topic. And bring ing up the Pokemon Fanboy Argument doesn't justify Stephen Colbert Fanboy articles. --Calton | Talk 05:42, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Calton. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:19, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep another part of civics lesson - our govt is strong enough to handle satire, and is composed of 435-ish districts. - satire1 12:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - I'd prefer to see it merged with the recurring segments article, but that article is long enough as it stands, so it might be better to keep it seperate. Also, as other users have stated, these are interviews with notable politicians. -- Cielomobile minor7♭5 07:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas larkin

edit

Originally tagged as a CSD by Heimstern Läufer (talk · contribs · count). The author of the article (Stranger101 (talk · contribs · count)) contested it and gave (what I consider to be) a semi-valid reason on the talk page. After this, another editor Kaustuv (talk · contribs · count) contested it, and reccommended it come to AfD. Personally, I'm sitting on a weak delete, subject to change either way. Daniel.Bryant 03:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Don't Delete: He is indeed quit known to the Youtube community, but he provides people with a normal persons propesctive on the veiws of the world today. Quite frankly, I see no harm in letting him have his own wiki page. He does not have any harm towards the youtube ommunity, and also, he is only increasing in popularity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by XvXAlucardXvX (talk • contribs)
  • Delete I would argue that Thomas Larkin is moving toward notability on YouTube, but his notability is marginal there. I do think that we should be more liberal in accepting these popular YouTube entries, but this case has not yet stood the test of time. He is a new user and not known outside of YouTube.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

International School of Management (ISM)

edit

There are many schools called "International School of Management", which have no connection to this one (for example this German school called International School of Management). This one, however, is NOT accredited. Its claims "accreditation" from World Association of Universities and Colleges, which IS NOT recognized by ANY government as legitimate. In fact it will accredit for around a $100 USD. Thus, without this being accredited or a public school it must meet WP:CORP and have WP:RS. Arbusto 03:39, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1) Note the use of the word "ideally" in the sentence you quoted. Perhaps, once this is deleted it should be removed from the List of diploma mills too. 2) Feel free to nominate unaccredited institutions that fail notability. Just because there may be unnotable "unaccredited schools" (I say may because you failed to give examples) that is no reason to give every questionable instituion an ad space on wikipedia. Arbusto 23:27, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is really like arguing with a child. If YOU think the list of mills should be put up for afd then YOU do it. If YOU think this is notable YOU should give sources. Arbusto 01:19, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Not a child, although it is a bit childish to start shouting or bolding your comments. I think if we are going to do lists of non-notable diploma mills - and let's admit it, they are all non-notable, meaningless and obscure - we should have articles on those diploma mills so we know what we are talking about. Doing lists of non-notable subjects is a waste of wikipedia time and space. The non-notable diploma mill list needs articles on all its underlying components, per the list guidelines, or it should not exist. --JJay 01:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then put the list up for afd, and let's see if anyone agrees with you. Before you do see the reasons it was kept: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of unaccredited institutions of higher learning. Arbusto 01:39, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't waste my time nominating articles for deletion. I'm interested in expanding the extent of coverage at wikipedia, based on existing guidelines. However, copying diploma mill names from government websites in order to construct a pseudo-official diploma mill list at wikipedia that goes no further than the name of the school, and then deleting articles on the underlying diploma mills, does a disservice to the users of this reference work. It provides no better information than can already be found in outside databases. It violates both the meaning and spirit of the list guidelines. In my view, it is a sad waste of resources and editors' time. --JJay 01:57, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That a serious claim perhaps you better deal with it then if it "violates both the meaning and spirit of the list guidelines." I guess if you don't deal with it then the claim is WRONG and smokescreen for you to attack me in another afd nominated by me. Arbusto 02:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If anyone needs proof JJay is doing this for WP:POINT see his comments on a copy and pasted list at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of ...for Dummies books (2 nomination), which happened to be nominated by me as well. Directly taken off a publishers webpage and the list does not contain wikipedia articles. Arbusto 02:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am "dealing with it" by voting to keep this article, just like with the unrelated list you are hammering on about, just like with the vast majority of my participation here. As I said, removing information on topics of interest to wikipedia users, such as this article, does a disservice to users of this reference work. It should be avoided when at all possible. --JJay 01:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn diploma mill. Eusebeus 15:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. To respond to JJay; the arbitrary inclusion of an institution on a list is not an argument for keeping an article about it, since anyone can write an article about a non-notable institution, add the institution to the list, and then argue to keep the article based on it being on the list. That doesn't make a lot of sense, and it seems to me that the article should be judged on the encyclopedic merit of the institution itself, which appears to me to be an unremarkable degree mill. --MCB 00:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • See the list guidelines. We have entire lists of these types of institutions, "unremarkable diploma mills" in your words... They are either worthwhile subjects for listing and, as per the guidelines, articles, or they are not. In that case we should not be wasting our time doing lists of diploma mills- almost all of which are obscure, non -notable, non entities. They all fail wp:corp--JJay 01:14, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Nufy8 03:43, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hot Girl Magic

edit

No sources listed, plus it sounds an awful lot like Yung Joc's "Dope Boy Magic". Sounds like a hoax to me. Tom Danson 03:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Nufy8 03:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Free Haven Band

edit

Fails WP:BAND. De-prodded without comment. -IceCreamAntisocial 03:46, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Nufy8 05:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vango Adventure Farm

edit

This article was already deleted once, see this for that debate. Although it's no longer crystal ball-ism, it's still NN.Dismas|(talk) 04:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete --Robdurbar 11:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

American Federation of Colleges and Seminaries

edit

I originally created this page thinking this was more notable than it was. However, this is an unrecognized "approver" linked to 6 unaccredited and unnotable schools. It was started by a operator of an unaccredited school in an attempt to give his school legitimacy. I get 67 yahoo hits for "American Federation of Colleges and Seminaries", and that includes wikipedi and its mirrors. Possible accreditation mill and lacks verfiblity. Arbusto 04:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 10:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Godavari Express

edit

An article that lists the stops for a train along its route. Non-notable listcruft. Valrith 04:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus to delete it. "Keep or merge?" is an editorial debate — continue it on the talk page. — CharlotteWebb 21:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kicaster Creek

edit

Minor geographic feature. Nothing that asserts notability -Nv8200p talk 04:15, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was baleet. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:17, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bamburgers

edit

Deprodded by an anon, with no comment. Couldn't find any references to this term or the people who are claimed to have coined it. "References" is just a list of books that don't seem to exist either. The Bethling(Talk) 04:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:24, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stargate Atlantis DVD

edit

Wikipedia is a not dvd shopping guide websites--Andd 04:26, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Information contained in article is already duplicated in the "Straight Outta Lynwood" article, so no merge is needed. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 04:05, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do I Creep You Out

edit

Was not released as a single and is non-notable. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canadian Idiot for a similar debate. Delete as nom. Michael Greiner 04:27, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The songs in Polkarama! are all singles that were released as singles, got a lot of radio play, and did well on the charts; otherwise, they wouldn't have been selected for the polka. Of course, feel free to try to expand the article. I understand there might be a music video for it soon. --Maxamegalon2000 17:03, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
the video is on the album(dvd side) and is all over youtube Barcode 20:06, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If by "all over youtube" you mean that there's one video of a fan singing it and one copy of the official video, then you're probably right (this is in relation to Polkarama). Similar comments can be made about this song as well. BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 22:56, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Virus removal

edit

How to articles do not belong on Wikipedia. This one doesn't belong anywhere, as the advice is unlikely to help with any real virus infection. This could be a speedy deletion candidate as an advertisement for Hijack This. Mr Adequate 04:49, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. - Bobet 16:54, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rocket Arena

edit

Article gives no indication of satisfiying WP:SOFTWARE, WP:V or WP:RS Whispering(talk/c) 04:50, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Let me explain: this certainly is a long-standing, often played, well-known modification. I never play Quake or Unreal, but I have heard of this mod many times. There are even references to a magazine in the article (and this has been covered in many magazines). Therefore, more should be added, I agree, but that is NO reason for deletion. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 08:14, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not if there's no dissension about anything. See also the WP:Auto section. Besides, there are plenty of other magazine articles on Rocket Arena. FrozenPurpleCube 22:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:24, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abraham Levy

edit

No verifiable sources, probable hoax, providing "back story" related to Raul Julia-Levy (alleged first born son of Raul Julia). The "top landowner between the 1940s to the 1980s", one of the 5 richest men in the world, co-owner of Levi Strauss - but no google hits or any published source to back up any of these claims. Article's creator deleted a "prod" attempt. Rick Block (talk) 04:53, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:24, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Coilhose Pneumatics

edit

Company advertisement, with no references verifying notability. Article does not pass WP:CORP, and a previous attempt at deletion was just deleted from the page by an anon user. --Elonka 05:08, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Nufy8 05:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cedar Street Family Medical Clinic (Simcoe, Ontario, Canada)

edit

NN business, fails WP:CORP. Dismas|(talk) 05:51, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FreeCNC

edit

Fails to assert notability. Contested prod. MER-C 06:17, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tresta

edit

Fails to assert notability. Contested prod. MER-C 06:24, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete. Robdurbar

Propensity

edit

Not an article - CrazyRussian talk/email 06:46, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Nufy8 23:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whac Off! 106

edit

Either very non-notable unlisted company or completely made up. No google hits, news articles or anything else to indicate it's real and significant Peripitus (Talk) 07:05, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the creator of the article I'd say that this is a vanity effort also - Peripitus (Talk) 07:09, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not the place for things made up on You Tube one day. If this should be kept, the vandalism should be reverted, though. Robert A.West (Talk) 07:32, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - vanispamcruftisement. MER-C 09:28, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - YouTube cruft.--Nilfanion (talk) 15:32, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn youtube production group. --Dennisthe2 17:49, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response My company is real and has been official for 9 years. The YouTube thing is only a recent addition to Whac Off! as it has only existed since the start of the year and the only thing that was specifically made for YouTube was the Matty And Deveski YouTube Show, and was created for non-profit purposes only and was made for fun nothing else, which is why I haven't advertised it offically on Google etc. The person who vandalised my page was a lonely loser who used my reputation for his own reasons, as he has no talent or motivation to suceed other than being a telemarketer loser, and being highly competitive and envious of anyone who isn't 27 and still living with their parents. Anyone who wants copies of the Whac Off! series which is free can email me on edrnet@hotmail.com, and I'll send it. With the world is disarray, comedy is our only thing which makes it livable. Thankyou Joel --trema_inc 17:49, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete. Robdurbar 11:05, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Astor

edit

NN bio. No Google hits seem to refer to a dramatist. No Google hits at all for the alternative name "Gerald Astoria" Nehwyn 07:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 14:13, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Norfolk County municipal election, 2006

edit

A county municipal election is not notable enough for me. If there is a guideline for this, I couldn't find it. Dismas|(talk) 08:01, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. W.marsh 16:14, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Metti

edit

3rd party candidate of little note. Unlikely to win any election, and seems to have little national coverage. ghits: [41] NMChico24 08:12, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per: Terjen (Has several pages of Google references, has run for office four times previously. Wikipedia is a strange place, where there are Featured Articles about video games and an article about a candidate for U.S. Senate in the most populous state in the USA is listed for deletion less than 24 hours after being created. It seems to me that sufficient verifiable information about this candidate (Wikipedia:Candidates and elections) might emerge during the campaign and someone might add this to the article. This is borderline for me, but seems premature). --Paul 09:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Clear precedent indicates that being a failed candidate does not in itself provide grounds for notability. Usually, candidates for major office have achieved notability elsewhere; definitely not in this case, however. Eusebeus 16:15, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No notable independant news sources, few ghits, fails WP:BIO and the hundcred year test. No independant verifiable sources. Maybe he can get an article when he does something noteworthy. Ultra-Loser Talk | BT sites 06:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per cited failed candidate rationale and failure of WP:BIO. Erechtheus 08:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep running for Senate on a recognized party ticket is notable. It's not that easy to get on the ballot. California voters interested in an alternative to the Democrats and Republicans, or any number of others interested in politics, might find a Wikipedia article useful. It would be far from neutral to delete all U.S. third party candidates as non-notable, as editors above seem to be proposing. It would be useful if editors who think the guy fails WP:BIO rules on candidates (itself a guideline not a policy) would explain why. Kalkin 19:26, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • His party affiliation has nothing to do with this nomination. He seems to have accomplished little of note other than launch a futile campaign for Senate. If he is elected, or does something else to garner national coverage and recognition, then he would merit an article. Simply running for office doesn't cut it. --NMChico24 20:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Has thousands of ghits[43]. Likely to get several hundred thousand votes in the upcoming election. Comparable third-party candidates in the same race with entries in WP includes Todd Chretien and Marsha Feinland. Substantial verifiable material can be expected to emerge during the campaign. I suggest suspending the AfD process until after the November 2006 election. Terjen 17:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I haven't been following this Senate race, but Metti seems notable enough. —Sesel 23:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus, so keep for now. (aeropagitica) 09:13, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brittany Chan

edit

The case doesn't make any claim for the cases' notability. If this changes then I'd be delighted. There doesn't seem to be any notability criterion for law cases. JASpencer 08:30, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any notability standards on court cases? JASpencer 16:22, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not that I know of. If I had to make a general statement, though, I'd say that cases which make national or international news would usually be kept, while ones with only local attention usually wouldn't. Of course, if any of the participants are notable, it could be mentioned in their article. For example, the Nick Nolte article mentions his drunk-driving arrest even though it was by no means a major or important crime. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:22, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So the test is essentially (at least for recent cases) how much media coverage they produce or whether they have a notable party? It seems to work - although the issue of precedence is important. JASpencer 18:35, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:38, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peake Apparel

edit

Seems to have no importance. Only external link is to the company website; nothing links to it. I have tidied the page, but see no reason for it to remain in Wikipedia. Emeraude 08:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:38, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Corkman Irish Pub, Carlton

edit

An irish-themed pub located in Melbourne, Australia which isn't notable for anything of an encyclopedic nature. Was previously listed for deletion in March 2006 and kept, which I noticed after this listing at AfD. Still, I don't see any encyclopedic significance in this hotel. -- Longhair\talk 08:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Perhaps nothing has changed. That said, there's 50+ hotels in my home town of Geelong (an hour from Melbourne) that are "historical", ie, constructed during the 1800's. I'd not dream of ever creating an article on any of them unless something of note surfaced about their history. They're simply hotels. Wikipedia is not a pub guide. -- Longhair\talk 10:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If it's true, the relationship of the pub to the local area and especially to the Carlton and United Brewery would make it reasonably notable I should think, at the very least at a local level. I don't get why this article has been nominated for deletion again after already surviving one vote - that's not on if there is no additional reason why deletion is warranted (unless supporting sources can be shown to say that the article's contents are bogus... in which case deletion is more than warranted). So please tell us - why delete it? I don't think people here value local history very highly. Yes, the article needs a cleanup, but deletion, no. I'm sick of people nominating articles again just because they don't like something on here. Can you please outline why this should be deleted now when the first AfD debate held an overwhelming consensus? (JROBBO 10:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Comment: I've told you once in the nomination, but I'll tell you again as you've obviously missed it. "I don't see any encyclopedic significance in this hotel". The wording in the article makes a claim that isn't supported, like "probably aided in the consolidation of the brewery". Probably could mean it's probably true, or probably not. We're not here to decide. Ignoring those claims in the article and judging the rest, to me it reads like a pub with no claim to notability whatsoever, and Wikipedia is not a pub guide. -- Longhair\talk 10:32, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not arguing against "Wikipedia is not a pub guide". It's not worth it if it were just an article about a pub. It well may be, but you have not established that. I am asking you about those claims, as it is these that establishes notability of the pub, not the rest of the article. I have said that there MAY be merit in examining the claims about the connection with the CUB Brewery. What you have given on this AfD is merely your own opinion that "I don't think it's encyclopedic." However that is not a reason for deletion on WP if it is your opinion that it is encyclopedic. Did you do any research on the pub besides running a Google search and check whether it was worth deleting or whether the historical claims had any notability at all? I gather you haven't. All I am asking is that you establish a definite claim to non-notability before you nominate an article for deletion that has already survived one debate. If there is no evidence that it is not notable it shouldn't be renominated. I think there are a lot of worthy articles with local history that are deleted just because people in another state or country have never heard of them. International interest is not the only thing served on this site, you know. (JROBBO 05:36, 5 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]
You might have missed my comment below: "Suggestions that it has high historical value appear to be unsupportable, as it does not appear on the Victorian Heritage Register or the Victorian Heritage Inventory." I think that qualifies as the kind of research you're talking about. Snottygobble 05:43, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Why do I need to do the research? Evidence of any notability should already be included in the article. If there's anything notable about this hotel that surfaces, then recreate the article, including evidence of that notability. It's that simple. For now, it has no notability whatsoever IMHO, just unsupported claims. I'm all for local history - but not when it's just a random collection of unproven facts. As someone else has already said below, "not a lot of thought went on in the last AfD", and I agree. At least this time around we're giving the article some scrutiny - and still, no evidence whatsoever of notability has surfaced. -- Longhair\talk 05:58, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am with JROBBO on this one. We will never know whether our learned friends put much thought into the last AfD as we only have their comments to go on. Either way though the outcome was clear - 2 delete vs 15 keep. I think we are treading on dangerous ground if articles can be re-nominated AfD (when there has been no material change to content and the information has not been disproven) just because we don't agree with the previous outcome. This seems like double jeopardy. If, as the article suggests, this is an Australian establishment with 150 years of heritage then it has local history value even if it doesn't get the right Google hits or it isn't listed on the VHR. I do agree however that some further work may be neede to uncover notability and a rename is required for it to come up to standard. amitch 14:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please see WP:CCC. AFD is a verification and quality control process for encyclopedia articles not a criminal trial for human beings, so double jeopardy doesn't apply. Bwithh 22:10, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I just don't see it as notable enough for an article. --Roisterer 10:18, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The first AfD seemed to build consensus that this building has local importance. I believe establishments like this are part of the historical fabric of inner city suburbs and would be of interest to readers. I do think the article needs some work (as per WP:LOCAL), references, a picture and a redirect to Carlton Inn (which it was called for 150 years). amitch 13:37, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as in last AfD. Billy Blythe 15:06, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete as per nom. Very limited discussion in the previous afd - arguments in favour were that the pub has a website and gets some google hits; it's quite old; and let's believe what the article says at inflated face value. I don't see any evidence of encyclopedic notability or even claim to encyclopedic notablility. The claims to fame boil down to 1) it was one of the first pubs existing outside the city centre in Melbourne. No claim here even that it might be one of the very first pubs in Melbourne. No verifiable evidence given that this building is historically notable for its architecture. 2) a theory about the connection with Carlton beer and the suburb Carlton which the article states has been disproved 3) Speculation ("probably") introduced as historical fact that the pub "aided" the early business of a local brewery (I doubt that one brewery can survive just depending on one pub, and even if the relationship was that crucial, this is hardly encyclopedic). 4) the first pub owner was a postman at the university (not notable) 5) a local football club held their reunion in the pub in 1995 (not notable) 6) students and staff at the local university like it (not notable) Bwithh 15:15, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn pubcruft. Eusebeus 16:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn pub. As much as I enjoy drinking, there doesn't really seem to be anything particularly notable about this place. Lankiveil 00:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete. Per Eusebius. Rebecca 06:39, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. 117 ghits, most of which are pub guides that simply list the address. Not alot of thought went on in the last AFD, as far as I can tell. Ultra-Loser Talk | BT sites 07:06, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Suggestions that it has high historical value appear to be unsupportable, as it does not appear on the Victorian Heritage Register or the Victorian Heritage Inventory. Snottygobble 00:41, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --Peta 02:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A friend of mine, sadly now deceased, used to manage the place. But that doesn't make it notable either. --Robert Merkel 13:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Bobet 16:56, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Asimov

edit

At best, article fails notability, and some versions were negative and poorly sourced. If the article could be left as it stands, (just date of birth, son of Isaac Asimov), I guess it would be a harmless nonnotable spot on Wikipedia's hard drive, but I fear the stub will be a springboard for more poorly sourced negative edits. Rich 08:53, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Except that LHO actually did something. Those three were just victims. The end-all and be-all of Ron Goldman's notability is that he was killed at a famous crime that was famous because it was allegedly commited by a famous person.--Prosfilaes 10:07, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree with those above who believe that some of the negative information in the article was well sourced or fairly well sourced. Most important, the quote was attributed to an unnamed officer. That is pretty hard to falsify, especially given David Asimov's low notability. A newspaper (or possibly reckless mouthed officer) is on safe ground. I mean, if he had been the son of a famous active politician with supporters and rivals, various parts of the press would cared enough to do further digging, which would give partial braking action on the unattributed quote. By the way, I think that "average" offspring of famous people rarely get press coverage, hence notability, unless the famous person is an active politician. Rich 00:06, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since this is the sort of thing that comes up in interpreting WP:BLP, it's worth a little bit of analysis. I don't know if it's my post you're referring to above, but basically there were three negative items in the previous version(s) of the article: (1) that the subject was charged with a crime; (2) that a police officer commented on the nature and quantity of the evidence against him; and (3) that he was convicted of a crime, possibly as a result of a plea bargain. Item (1) was uncontestedly well sourced, via a reputable newspaper reporting on verifiable matters of record. Item (2) is well sourced as to the fact of the officer's allegation, but not necessarily as to the fact of the matter referred to. Under WP:BLP we probably should not use it even as to the allegation, unless corroborated. Item (3) appeared only in tertiary sources, that is, quotes from news reports that were not sufficiently identified to permit verification, and at least one was from an attack/advocacy site which is manifestly not a reliable source. This is the type of analysis that, I believe, BLP requires. --MCB 01:02, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Merge verifiable information into his father's page. Badbilltucker 21:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As has been pointed out in a number of AfDs, "merge and delete" is not a permitted option in AfD, since the GFDL requires retention of the edit history of the previous article. Thus, if an article is formally merged as you suggest, a redirect to Isaac Asimov would need to be left in place. As a practical matter, the information in the sub-stub is already there, so this article can simply be deleted. --MCB 23:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, my apologies, I should have used other, less official, wording. I was trying to imply that the creator of the page could put in some reference to the now-deleted arrest/conviction into the father's article if it were phrased in a non-objectionable way. But at this point, given the single event of notability of the son, creating a redirect would be pointless, particularly if his father's page is the only one he would be mentioned on anyway. Badbilltucker 13:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. - Bobet 16:55, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Senuti

edit

Software advert, does not meet WP:WEB criteria. Nehwyn 09:14, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the deletions. Didn't know about it. Sr13 10:24, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A question- Should Senuti be an article at all because of deletion guidelines (Senuti is Web content)? Sr13 10:31, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I didn't make this article to sell something- just an informative article about a Mac/PC application. This product is not widely known yet; giving a good reason why I don't have much info. But it's out there. Sr13 19:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Articles for deletion archivesThis is an archive of a closed deletion discussion for the article Chris Chamberlin. Please do not modify it. The result was delete, however the article has was re-created as the subject now meets the WP:MUS requirements. The article has again be deleted at the request of the author. The actual discussion is hidden from view for privacy reasons. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ebionite Restoration Movement

edit

Non-notable subject Alecmconroy 21:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: This seems to be a very small religious group. After an extensive discussion, the content was removed from the "Ebionite" article for lack of notability, and was transferred to its own page, with the understanding that after a period of time, an AFD nomination would be made to see if the content merits inclusion in the encyclopedia. After about a month, I haven't seen anything that convinces me that the group is sufficiently notable. --Alecmconroy 21:08, 19 September 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, Bobet 10:12, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Problems of fame and faith

edit

This 'subject' does not seem to me to warrant an article. The information in it could possibly be added to the articles on the individuals named. Nothing links to this page, and I fail to see how anything could. Emeraude 10:17, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't usually like deleting articles, but I have to agree that this one (which I created, though I didn't write it) doesn't fit. It was originally an appendage to another article (which has since been deleted), where it stuck out like a sore thumb, so I moved it here. But I won't be sorry to see it go. David Cannon 12:09, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep - today's featured article. ➨ ЯEDVERS 11:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask

edit

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This amounts to a plot summary of a video game, and video games are not notable.--James M. 11:09, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 16:13, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Harken, Inc.

edit

This appears to be a simple company advertisement (spam). I'm not sure whether it should be deleted or not - so I thought the best way forward was to put it up for discussion at AfD MidgleyDJ 11:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. I beg to differ, because any business that isn't of Microsoft proportions that has a page here then is arguably spam. This company is very well known internationally among racing sailors, and I was surprised to see it didn't have an article. Anyway, I can see removing the "dominant" part (even though that is factual...definitely for AC boats, and I'm 99% sure for Olympic non-1D classes), or taking out the logo's slogan (not sure if part of original logo--from site), but outright deletion seems...odd. Anyway, if there's any specific promotional bent to it, definitely feel free to correct it. Antije 11:37, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It's worth looking over the guidelines for WP:Corp and WP:Notability. I'm unsure whether Harken, Inc. meets the criteria for listing in WP:Corp, but this isnt my area of experience. MidgleyDJ 11:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Thanks for taking the time to point that out to me, I was actually just trying to find more on the policy. Anyway, I am fairly certain it meets the first of the criteria. I remember seeing at least product reviews in Sailing World magazine or something of that ilk, and I've heard or read the story before (got most of the included details from the web though). Just looking at their site though briefly, looks like they've won the WI Governor's business awards a couple times, as well as the "Company of the Decade" award 01 for the marine industry. Either way, as I said, it's a highly recognizable name in racing sailors and probably the majority of crusiers as well. Of course I'm biased since I just spent a bunch of time putting together the article, but it seems pretty clear-cut all the same. Antije 12:06, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Harken may not be a household name, but it is globally recognized in the sailing community. Young sailors just starting out will notice their boats are most likely Harken equipped and for older, more experienced racers it is often the brand of choice when they seek to equip their boats. That being said, please note that I am not employed in any way by Harken or the maritime industry. Although I'm not 100% sure I also strongly suspect that Harken sponsors regattas and other sailing events in communities around the world. I think it deserves an article on Wikipedia. Quintana 11:00, 1 October 2006 (Eastern Time)
Comment:Taking cues from above--I should note that I have been employed in the marine industry, but it was the retail end and over 10 years ago. I am not an employee of this company. Anyway, I will leave the rest of the discussion to you guys, unless clarification is needed. I will however, include some links of "multiple [published] independent sources." Some mentions could probably be classified as trivial, some not. (For example, it is consistently listed in boat reviews as the selected hardware. Individual articles are probably trivial, but it's clear they are a major player and noteworthy brand.)
"Harken brothers-Sailing World Hall of Fame"
"AC Cup mention (SW)"
"AC Cup mention (SW)"
"~57 mentions in Sailing Mag articles"
"One of many Sail Mag mentions" Also see Blue Water Sailing Mag and 48 deg North.
"'"The Harken" regatta - International Youth Match Racing Championship" (Also, yes, I can confirm they are major and regular regatta sponsors)
"Harken Observatory, non-sailing philanthropy"
"Harken's Innovation Created International Market for Sailing Gear"
"One of several Practical Sailor/BoatUS publication gear reviews" Antije 19:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: After reviewing Brad's memo on Corporate Vanity I feel that the argument for keeping the Harken article is strengthened. The article does not seek to deface, insult or slander Harken, and at the same time it is not a marketing ploy to promote any of Harken's products. I feel that the article is more informative and educational on how Harken was founded, company history, and where Harken products are used. If the article needs to be edited further to remove any apparent marketing pitches please proceed, but I do not think it should be deleted if we are to follow Brad's guidelines and the Wikipedian spirit. User:Quintana 11:44, 1 October 2006 (Eastern Time)
  • Delete. The article reads too much like an advertisement, and I believe it won't have much general appeal. Sailing is interesting, but specific makers of sailing equipment don't seem very interesting. This company appears to make good stuff, but you don't expect to get product advice from Wikipedia. EdJohnston 15:20, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this doesn't read significantly like an advert to me and they appear to be notable in their field. I would like to see a few more third party references though. Thryduulf 15:40, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Petros471 15:36, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Atheocracy

edit

Neologism about a concept that is better dealt with at state atheism--T. Anthony 05:42, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus to delete these, merge possible. W.marsh 16:07, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Golly! Ghost!

edit

obscure none notable game will never be anything beyond a stub--M8v2 02:20, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus to delete these, merge possible. W.marsh 16:08, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Golly! Ghost! 2

edit

Obscure none notable game will never be anything but a stub--M8v2 02:17, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Merge and delete is not a valid option, so as I couldn't find anything that was significant in this article to merge I've gone down on the delete side. Petros471 15:45, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of the Muslim Empires

edit

Two full fledged and fleshed out articles already exist which cover the same material Timeline of Muslim history & Muslim history. Tigeroo 12:44, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Petros471 15:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

M.U.S.H.A. Aleste

edit

Well this article hasn't improved in long time. Also doesn't seem important enough to meet Wikipedia's standards! Also it does not contain enough information. ShadowKinght (Talk?!?) 03:56 1 October 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oprius Software

edit

May fail WP:WEB. Alexa.com shows rank as 255,365; not too bad, not too good. Company appears to be expanding by graph, though. Patstuart 03:45, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Company and product is new, but starting to gain a lot of attention. It is featured on the front page of TurboGears here. Also has some independent blog posts written about it. You can see the start of the climb on Alexa.com FooManChu55 9:08, 29 September 2006 (PST)

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pseudo-Avars

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 was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Theodore Pappalardo

edit

No assertion of notability, just of high affiliation. Djcartwright 05:47, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What does that DumbBOT "imcomplete/listed" post mean? (Yes, I'm a newbie, I'm sorry.) Does that mean the article is still marked for deletion? I've added further facts and citations. Is there anything else I can/should do, or will the article be deleted in X number of days regardless?

Thanks .... Toniskids 16:30, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Toniskids: It's a procedural thing; articles nominated for deletion need to be listed on a couple pages, and the nominator forgot one or more of those steps. Zetawoof(ζ) 21:56, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't "forget" anything. It was speedy-deleted in mid-process, and then restored later. I didn't bother to finish trying to delete an article that didn't exist anymore; wasn't counting on the possibility that it be restored later. Djcartwright 01:39, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wirthing

edit

Rather incoherent, most of the links on this page redirect back upon themselves, no context provided, etc Lankiveil 23:58, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep but sources are required. (aeropagitica) 20:40, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aina Erlander

edit

Article about a person who has no notability outside of who she married. Fails WP:BIO. Valrith 11:57, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: As the wife of a prime minister who served for 23 years, she was a well-known, public figure. Category:Spouses of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom seems to supply some precedence for this type of article. up+land 12:31, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Uppland. MER-C 13:23, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If she was that much of a well-known public figure, more than 133 people would be talking about her. I don't know much about the swedish press, but I don't think that many of those hits are from independant verifiable news sources. Ultra-Loser Talk | BT sites 07:24, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As a Swede, she's notable enough for the original article in Swedish Wikipedia [48]. --Mereda 10:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which is also entirely unsourced. There can't be any notability without verifiability via reliable sources. Valrith 20:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fair comment. But there are reliable sources to verify her existence as a PM's spouse, including a photo at [49], so there are two questions. Is being a famous spouse sufficient? In this case, I think so (per Uppland's comment and the indicative fact that the Swedes haven't nominated the article for deletion) - let's see if there's a consensus view on that. Separately, does her chairmanship of a national organisation [50] meet WP:BIO? I'll try asking someone who reads Swedish to have a quick look. Mereda 08:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Uppland. In addition she seems to have been active in a number of relatively high-profile posts. There isn't that much about her on the internet, but that is true of many notable persons who lived before the WWW became popular. The article does need sources, but many articles need sources; there is no special reason to think the information in this one is false, and so a "references needed" tag is more appropriate than an "afd" tag. Thue | talk 08:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, agree with Uppland. Mereda, I can't find Aina E at your "Unga Örnar" link, but I would hardly expect to, as Unga Örnar is a youth organisation and the site is aimed at young people and children. The 1957–1966 chair wouldn't be a hot topic in that context. A Swedish Google search finds 173 pages, some mere blogs of course, but many in fact independant verifiable news sources. From the first Google page, these two are archive bios from highly respectable daily newpapers: Dala-Demokraten, Sundsvalls Tidning. Bishonen | talk 12:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Restitution Transfer and Recoupment

edit

This is some libertarian's pet concept, with a grand total of 4 unique google hits including Wikipedia [51], excluding Wikipedia it gets nothing. It seems to be a model for a private police force and legal system, although it's hard to be sure: the article is written in technical legal language and a listy format. As far as I can see, 'RTR' has never been put into practice or discussed in any published work. In short, this article is original research, unverifiable and non-notable. I have also prodded the principal contributor's other main project Las Portadas for deletion as a non-notable proposed micronation. Nydas 11:09, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per above. --Richard 04:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as copyvio. "Permission granted by the patentholder and noted on original publication." is meaningless. Permission could only be granted by the copyright holder. (Also delete as WP:OR.)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete a7. Luna Santin 00:34, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beneath the Burning Pyre

edit

This entry fails to meet the criteria of WP:BAND. speedy tag removed by article creator. Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 13:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Business Desktop Deployment

edit

This entry fails to meet the criteria of WP:SOFTWARE. Content was removed along with the prod tag. Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 13:09, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete as a non-notable band, WP:Music refers. (aeropagitica) 20:37, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Man born blind

edit

This entry does not meet the criteria of WP:BAND. The nobility claims are not sourced, and even if they wereI don't they would quality - the college radio chats and rotation on a single station (vs radio network). Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 13:18, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Bobet 16:43, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mebious.co.uk

edit

This entry does not meet the criteria of WP:WEB. The changes after the prod tag were an improvement, but does not elevate the entry to the required criteria. Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 13:21, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - the article admits it is an 'obscure reference', 'briefly flashed onscreen'. The website itself (in reality - not sure if it's meant to be connected) is a grey background, with the words 'mebious.co.uk'. In neither the article nor the site is notability affirmed. --Mnemeson 15:24, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Although I do concur in that Wikipedia's entry on mebious.co.uk does not warrant its own article, the argument that the notability of the page (grey background, etc) is not valid because the the notability of the site doesn't lie in its straightforward content. As the arcticle's author (if that means anything), I've no problem in the arcticle being deleted. However, I do feel the infortmation is useful enough to be reworded into a sentence about Lain's equiment in the Serial Experiments article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandwich-pirate (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 was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:52, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PDF Zone

edit

This entry does not meet the requirements of WP:WEB. No changes were made after deletion of the prod tag by an anon. Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 13:23, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Ooh, I'm going to have to hold on to a copy of that memo! Thanks for pointing that out, Bwithh. (Note to Brad Patrick: Revert back to the original system of handing out admin tools - remember that line of Jimbo's about how "Getting adminship should be no big deal"? - and maybe you'd have the workforce you need to handle this sort of thing.) --Aaron 23:31, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:52, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Star Trek: Reborn

edit

Non-notable fan fiction. (Not a fan series like New Voyages, but just scripts/stories) Mnemeson 13:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:52, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rostek Horn

edit

Non-notable Star Wars character, from a "fictional" Star Wars universe. Prod removed by anon Wildthing61476 13:57, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:52, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uaw local 900

edit

Wikipedia is not a directory. This article contains nothing to justify a place, and potentially every UAW local could have a similar page. Possible merge into UAW article if anyone wants to make a section there on UAW branches. Emeraude 14:12, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was deleted by William M. Connolley as "junk". Zetawoof(ζ) 21:59, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fith Dimension

edit

The page is nonsense, contains too many errors to be worth correcting (including spelling in the title!), has not been linked, is not linked to. This article is not needed. There is perfectly good article (Fifth dimension) which does the job. Emeraude 14:30, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep/withdrawn. W.marsh 21:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Temple Hardy

edit

This article, as far as I can tell, fails WP:HOLE. I can't tell why we need an article about a minor British captain. Thanks, Luc "Somethingorother" French 14:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC) Nomination withdrawn; the article now clearly fufills WP:HOLE. Thanks, Luc "Somethingorother" French 21:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Result was Speedy Delete. Gwernol 20:14, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The great toolset disappointment of '06

edit

This is a disputed prod. Originally prodded as an unencyclopedic joke article; suggest deletion per WP:NFT. Muchness 14:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete as unverified without sources. (aeropagitica) 20:35, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Ups and Downs

edit

Nominate per, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. No verifiable sources given. Рэдхот 15:46, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedily deleted as spam by Vegaswikian. MER-C 09:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

World Wide Design Directory

edit

No assertion of notability. Delete per WP:WEB. Haakon 15:55, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

World Wide Design Directory is a respected industry resource. It was noted by such magazines as How, Print, Computer Arts and many more, featured on BBC (Click on Line), and listed by many online resources, for example in DMOZ Best of the Web directory DMOZ Best of the Web directory. --Falkond 17:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How can you label something as spam that fast, did you bother to go to the web site? That directory is most inelegant way on the internet to find a design company, and Hundreds of people use it daily and find it useful. You list other niche directories on the List of web directories, why this one is not good enough? There are years of work and selection behind that directory, and you can make a decision in a few seconds that nobody needs it? --Falkond

It's probably a useful and nice service, but it has to fulfill notability criteria for it to be included in an encyclopedia. --Haakon 07:23, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) 20:29, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Ska

edit

This article fails WP:BIO. None of the 42 unique search hits augments notability to encyclopedic levels. Erechtheus 16:14, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a new member, I am inspired by feedback to make productive changes to the article in order to follow the guidelines and to help in my learning experience. I have made changes to the article to keep it within the rules for biographies of living persons. • Verifiability • Neutral point of view • No original research I would be happy to take on other feedback; I am doing this as a learning experience for future projects for my position. I have direct contact with the individuals the page is about, and I have their permission to publish the page. I have checked the facts in the page with what they have published about themselves, and with what is common knowledge. I found their biographies intriguing because of their large fan base, fan listing or "cult" following. I am still learning about how to set up the cite sources and should have more to add in the future. Please review the changes I have made prior to deleting and let me know what further links I need to read to make the corrections needed. Thanks Enamoredgirl

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

The result was delete as unverifiable with sources. (aeropagitica) 20:25, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Italian Hanger

edit

Apparently unverifiable from any reliable source The Anome 16:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom--Jusjih 16:43, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This position is obviously possible. The only questions are whether (1) it is notable enough to get its own article (2) whether the name "italian hanger" has any sort of general acceptance. Point 2 in particular should be applied to various other sex position articles. --Strait 18:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merged information to Fiscal year and deleted page. (aeropagitica) 20:04, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Accounting reference date

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 was Delete as a non-notable ___location. (aeropagitica) 19:51, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Letterkenny Shopping Centre

edit

Advertisement for non-notable shopping mall. An earlier version of this article has previously been through afd and deleted. Pathlessdesert 16:43, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • well it is the largest shopping centre in donegal. is that not notable???????--Candelwicke 20:24, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • how can it not be notable because of its size. what about all those dublin shopping centres about the largest out of town shopping centre and so on. this is the largest shopping centre in donegal. not in the town of letterkenny the whole of county donegal. i think i've made my point--Candelwicke 20:37, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Find a reference to it being the largest shopping centre in County Donegal.Afn 08:38, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You've made it, but it's wrong. The shed in my back garden is the largest shed in my back garden. Anything can be the "largest X in Y", for suitable Y. Our WP:CORP criteria are thus not based upon such things. They are based upon people having written and published non-trivial works on the subject, which means that even small things are notable if they have been the subjects of enough non-trivial published works. Please cite any published works on the subject of this shopping mall, if they exist. Uncle G 11:39, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

go ahead, i will be back do what you wish i tried my best i will fight |--Candelwicke 18:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thank you at last someone agrees with me. but i'll need some time to get a picture.--Candelwicke 19:58, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i added some more. more will be added later. why complain i see other articles about shopping centres and they don't have anything notable and are like 2 sentences long. this articles is long enough. case closed. let me take care of the article and ye can worry about more important things. thank you for your assistance...--Candelwicke 21:25, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: If you find any other unencyclopedic articles about non-notable shopping malls, you are free to post them under articles for deletion too. I have no idea why you think you need to "fight for Letterkenny", or why this process seems to involve creating pages about shopping venues in the town. I am sure that Letterkenny will survive without your help in this particular area. You should also consider using a single account in order to edit the Letterkenny-based articles, assuming that these are also you: Together&forever, The Big Brain, Qwertyuiopasdfgh vfen. Also, has it ever occurred to you that you could start your own website about Letterkenny? You could write whatever you like without interference from anybody. When you edit on wikipedia, you have to resign yourself to the fact that your material could be altered or scrapped. Pathlessdesert 21:58, 2 October 2006 (UTC) I hadn't realised that you had actually been blocked before for copyvios and obnoxious edits. I have tagged you as a sockpuppet. Pathlessdesert 22:33, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as nom. Demiurge 19:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Notable, after all it is the largest centre in Donegal--Water100 19:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What--Candelwicke 19:49, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Courtyard

edit

Advertisement for shopping mall. See also The Letterkenny Shopping Centre. Pathlessdesert 16:46, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i do my best i spend my days editing wiki and by god i will never give up. so you can wipe your up or whatever ye people do but lets get one thing straight i will never back down. i will fight for the town of letterkenny.--Candelwicke 20:00, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Candelwicke, grow up. You're not fighting for the town, you're embarressing it. Afn 10:07, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Shopping centres are businesses. The relevant standard is therefore WP:CORP. Like the last one, there is no assertion in the article that it meets the WP:CORP standards. Such an assertion would need to be sourced to reliable sources that are independent of the shopping centre. The article contains no sourcing, so is also a violation of WP:NOR, however I presume the latter is readily repairable by citing the shopping centre's advertising. GRBerry 02:44, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of English words of Bengali origin

edit

Appears redundant. There is no list, despite the article being created 2 March 2005. There IS a link to a list in Wiki Dictionary, which contains but 3 words. Shame: I expected there to be something worthwhile and interesting here, but alas..... Sorry, but I can see no reason not to delete. Emeraude 16:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Petros471 15:52, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Niehenke

edit

Not notable per WP:BIO. Leibniz 17:02, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless expanded. From the article on de it looks like there is more that could be said about him, my German isn't good enough to tell if it is sufficient to warrant an article here though. Thryduulf 15:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. All the publications listed in his German Wikipedia article are in German. Amazon.com does not show any books of his that are available in English. Since we would not be able to show any English-language printed references in our own article, I think he fails notability and verifiability for us. (If he were a truly major figure we would overlook this). Plus the article is very sketchy and not too interesting. EdJohnston 15:46, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 16:02, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism

edit

It is a POV fork if I ever saw one. The whole purpose is try to distinguish anarcho-capitalism as something other than a legitimate form of anarchism. Even the title implies that anarcho-capitalism is not a type of anarchism. There is already a Criticisms of anarcho-capitalism article, so why the need for another POV fork? Any claims that anarcho-capitalism is not "legit" anarchism should go in there. DTC 18:00, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This isn't a fork, but instead a related article, concerning not criticism of an-cap but a discussion of an-caps position within the wider anarchism movement. --GoodIntentionstalk 06:11, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Because saying an-cap isn't a form of anarchism isn't strictly speaking a criticism but rather a description. --GoodIntentionstalk 06:20, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's a discussion of the question of an-cap's place in the wider anarchist movement. It's the most NPOV discussion of this problem on WP! --GoodIntentionstalk 06:20, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment And isn't legitimate form of anarchism coming close to an oxymoron? JASpencer 20:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The degree to which this is untrue, or rather insufficient, is the problem this article was (painstakingly, I might add) written to address. There are two arguments against accepting anarcho-capitalism as anarchistic, which are similar to why one might not call Zimbabwe a democracy despite the claims of the Zanu PF. Firstly, the "an-cap is an oxymoron" argument states that because capitalism (and in particular an-cap) supports the authority of ownership absolutely what would be achieved under an-cap wouldn't be a lack of a state but a series of private states, thereby a non-anarchy. The other argument is to point out that anarchism is more than a concept but a historical practice and a body of theory, one being entirely, incontrovertably anti-capitalist. This article sets out to address this, and shouldn't be deleted but made the cornerstone of the WP approach to an-cap-as-anarchism. --GoodIntentionstalk 06:07, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"If the article is supposed be about whether anarcho-capitalism's claim that it's a form of anarchism is a false claim". It isn't this - it is a discussion on that claim but especially on the relationship between the an-cap movement and the (universally socialistic) anarchism movement that predates and rejects an-cap. It is concerned only with an-cap-as-anarchism, and is not a discussion of the criticisms of an-cap at all. --GoodIntentionstalk 06:07, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Since when does a form of anarchism have to be like other forms of anarchism?" When the point under discussion makes the two mutually exclusive, like the support for capitalism in this case. To those who view an-cap as non-anarchism say anarcho-capitalism is like enviro-strip mining. --GoodIntentionstalk 06:20, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Lectert 12:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is an important issue within anarchism. the article presents the issue thoroughly and clearly from many viewpoints. i vote for improvement rather than deletion. Blockader 18:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It looks like a useless article to me and I don't really care whether it's deleted or not, but at the very least the title should be changed to something like "Anti-capitalist anarchism and anarcho-capitalism" or "Social anarchism and anarcho-capitalism." The title as it stands now seems to indiciate that Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism are two different things which, in my opinion, they're not. So it's a POV title.Anarcho-capitalism 18:31, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Isn't this a fork, and expressly not allowed? A user got banned for this on the anarchism article. This article is also heavily POV. - MSTCrow 01:02, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Anarchism and capitalism, the sensible place to describe the relationship between capitalism and various varieties of anarchism. *Dan T.* 03:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a very real source of debate between traditional anarchists and anarcho-capitalists, and it doesn't belong either directly in the Anarcho-capitalism article or in the Criticisms of anarcho-capitalism article, since it is ancillary to both. A merge with Anarchism and capitalism would also be a mistake, since this is a dispute between anarchism and the political philosophy of anarcho-capitalism, not just with the concept of capitalism itself. The article does need to be revised since it is clearly POV, but it still provides significant information. --Academician 10:01, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment There is no such dispute between anarcho-capitalism and other forms of anarchism in academia. It's simply some editors on Wikipedia debating over it and that's why there shouldn't be an article. You too seem to be assuming that anarcho-capitalism something other than anarchism in your wording that "this is a dispute between anarchism and the political philosophy of anarcho-capitalism." Anarchism is an umbrella term than includes various kinds of anarchism. A debate between anarchism and anarcho-capitalism makes no sense at all and is inherently POV because the POV being pushed is that they're two distinct philosophies. DTC 16:18, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Blatantly untrue. Real scholarship on anarchism is rare, most cited works are simply broad works on philosophy and politics that mention without any real analysis what people say. Proper scholarship on anarchism is by anarchists - Chomsky, Peter Marshall, Paul Avrich, Howard Zinn, etc. Proper scholarship on "anarcho"-capitalism is virtually non-existent, aside from its own proponents. It's been nearly 100 years (1910) since one of the most respected works of reference, The Encyclopaedia Britannica, requested that Kropotkin write the section on anarchism because they recognised that the hostility against its ideas blighted virtually all other sources. This remains true, those who truly analyse and document anarchist ideas are anarchists themselves, thus the dispute between anarchism proper and "anarcho"-capitalism is central to the primary academic discussion of anarchism. Donnacha 16:31, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment I can assure you whether anarcho-capitalism should be included under the umbrella of anarchim is not discussed in academia. If anyone needs sources from a wide range of scholars taking for granted that anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism, look at my Userpage for a large list. This is a dispute manufactured by some people on the internet that does not exist in academia.Anarcho-capitalism 16:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Although I can see why some say "just put the contents into CRITICISM of..." I disagree with the POV proclaimers -- because a LOT of the content is not pro- or anti- but instead is just comparing to / contrasting with individualist anarchism (many people equate the two -- see esp. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism_and_anarcho-capitalism#Anarcho-capitalism_as_a_form_of_individualist_anarchism ) so perhaps THIS article could have any alleged POV content removed/edited, and the rest stay as-is and linked to from the "criticism" article?199.214.27.205 21:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This looks like a bad faith nomination to me. If the nomination instead was based on that it gives undue weight to ancap then it would perhaps be another issue. // Liftarn 12:49, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. POV fork. Davey Lloyd George 18:37, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greco-Roman deities and their Norse counterparts

edit

No source is mentioned, which is logical inasmuch as the value of these equivalences seems very doubtful to me, for several reasons.

The chart gives equivalences between Greek and Norse gods but:

  • there was no such “equivalences made in ancient times”, because pagan Greeks had no contact with Scandinavians, and because later Scandinavian writers of the Middle Ages had a mostly Latin, not Greek, cultural background;
  • I’m not sure these equivalences have very often been “proposed by modern scholars”, at least over the last century. Interesting comparisons can be made only between religions who both share important Indo-European features, which is not really the case of Greek paganism (cf. Georges Dumézil’s work, who hardly ever dealt with Greek myths).

A few equivalences exist though between Norse and Roman deities, made both in ancient times (cf. Tacitus) and by modern scholars (cf. Dumézil again), but they’re far from being as numerous as in this chart, and far from being as obvious too. For instance, Odin is given here as the counterpart of Zeus / Jupiter, but he’s sometimes given as the equivalent of Mercury (cf. Wednesday) or Mars.

Finally, most of these equivalences are very much questionable: for instance Gefjun / Tyche, whereas Gefjun is generally connected to Diana (sometimes Vesta), or Járnsaxa / Athena: Járnsaxa is not even a goddess, but a giantess. I could give several other examples of deities who have nothing, or hardly anything, in common.

That’s the reasons why I think the few interesting facts should be mentioned in Interpretatio romana, and the rest should be deleted. Sigo 18:05, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sigo asked me to comment and as it happens I agree with him. This rather looks like original research and should be merged into interpretatio romana. That article could use some beefing up, though. For example the interpretatio romana of (early) Thor is Hercules but the interpratio germanica of Jupiter is Thor. Haukur 18:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep per cleanup. (aeropagitica) 19:47, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Police v City of Newark

edit

Delete per WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. Jersey Devil 18:17, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:24, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fossy

edit

Urban dictionary neolgism, fails WP:V and WP:RS. Irongargoyle 18:21, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:24, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chevrian statistics

edit

Delete. An article about an analytical method developed by some high school students. It does not give any sources, nor does the term show up on Google (and I even checked Google scholar just in case). Prod tag removed by author. ... discospinster talk 18:23, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus to delete, scope of the article or possible move can be discussed on its talk page, doesn't seem like there's a consensus to delete it just yet. W.marsh 16:00, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Web application development

edit

Somebodies private essay article, with strong how-to aspects, covering an area that is already heavily covered. Artw 18:29, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First, it's not a private essay article. I did gather some information on the subject. I started this article because I don't think this topic IS heavily covered, and I would like to see some community input. For example, what development methodologies do people developing web applications use? I couldn't find this information on Wikipedia. There's plenty of information on web design. And there's plenty of information on software development. But I haven't seen much about web application development.

Now, I'm making the distinction between web design and web application development. Are you making the same distinction between web design and web development? If so, maybe we could merge these articles, since I don't see nearly enough useful information on the web development page. DRogers 18:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move to Wikibooks per nominator. -- RHaworth 03:09, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and clean up. What other articles cover this area? Web application development is certainly related to (or a subset of) software development, but anyone who has worked on both traditional software and web app projects will tell you that each has distinct challenges. Kla'quot 06:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and clean up. If we decide to keep it, we should first determine what is and isn't in scope and what level of detail is appropriate. There's a bunch of info on here about software development, but not how it relates to web app development. DRogers 04:15, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It has the flavor of a how-to article, and is not able to go into detail anywhere. The result is an article that just sounds like common sense. EdJohnston 15:05, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Emotionics

edit

Original research, neologism and advertising for public speaking workshops. Author is head of the "Collective". Didactylos 18:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

REUNITE!

edit

Hoax, no Google hits, the official page of the artist does not include information about this single. I have already tagged the image as an attack, but the article can't be speedied as far as I know. -- ReyBrujo 18:49, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy Project

edit

The user didnt edit this article in months, leaving the 'Methods' setion pretty much empty. Their is no link to the site, they say they are going to implement that govermental system in a decade, and the neutrality is already disputed. Alan Talk - Contributions 18:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nomination.
  • Delete per nomination. Lack of notability and references, and a fragmentary article. The name 'Legacy Project' is reused for everything in sight, but the one founded by Zephir can be seen here:[58]. Google finds just two inbound links to that address. EdJohnston 03:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Keep, bad-faith nomination. Naconkantari 01:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OS-tan

edit

DELETE WP:OR, WP:CRUFT, WP:SPAM Iufd 19:15, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, probable single purpose account. As for the nomination, the topic itself has 7 intrawikis, including the japanese one. I get 135,000 hits at Google for "os-tan", although the only notable mention is at Kotaku, here. However, the fact that a japanese intrawiki exists (and with so many different contributors) leads me to believe it is notable enough (otherwise it may have been deleted time ago from there, as any non-notable english topic would be deleted from the English Wikipedia). -- ReyBrujo 19:46, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep I find it awfully suspicious that the nominator's first (and only) edits are to nominate this article for deletion. There's nothing spammy about the article, but the OR and cruft concerns could be taken care of. Nevertheless, smells like a bad-faith nom to me. NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 21:34, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seconding what NeoChaosX said. --Theredstarswl 00:49, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep This article may have its flaws, but it is interesting and informative! Plus it has several pages that depend on it. I do not know what the guy trying to get it deleted is thinking.--NewYinzer 01:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Highcore

edit

Prod removed one week ago, but no improvement since then. Article does not state the importance, is just a list of bands that one unnamed man feels are one genre, although it isn't said what makes them different from other bands not included. Neologism by unnamed person with unclear definition, so fails WP:OR, WP:V, and WP:NOT Fram 19:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Butt Nugget and the Silent Cane

edit

The article is deceptively long but it's still about an unnotable Myspace-band that self-produces its music and whose claim to fame is being in the "top 50 general comedy chart" on soundclick.com, hardly a reliable measure of his importance. The creator of the page is 84theman (talk · contribs) which brings in a problem of vanity (as "The man" seems to be the artist's self-chosen nickname). Ghits at 1300 but actually, that's 42 unique hits [59] pretty much all sites that freely host anyone's music. Pascal.Tesson 19:41, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, and probably valid, points all around. Forgive me for not reading the notability guidelines before posting. While it is true that BNATSC has not had any major commercial success, as far as "internet" bands go, BNATSC is, in my opinion legendary. A look at the artist's statistics on mp3.com, purevolume.com, myspace.com, soundclick.com, and download.com will reveal that BNATSC has received well over 120,000 listens, something most "myspace bands" never accomplish. Add in the fact that, BNATSC does not tour or promote his music regularly, and you'll see that the sheer volume of his popularity is quite impressive for being a result of heresay alone. A quick search on youtube.com will also reveal several fan videos of BNATSC songs.

Regardless, does this entry stand up as valid in light of the notability requirements for musicians and bands? I do not believe so. Though it does stand up against the vanity argument. My name is Todd and I am a long-time fan of BNATSC from Littleton, CO. I wrote the article to suit the interests of myself, the artist, and other devoted fans like myself.

I will not delete this article, but, in the light of my comments, feel free to do so. 84theman 13:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fybertech

edit

Article describes a website, its proprietor and a fictional project hosted on that website. None of these things appear to meet our standards of notability. The website does not have an Alexa rank, and nearly all relevant Google results are from the proprietor's LiveJournal, etc. This article appears to be promoting a project known to a small group of people, rather than reporting on something that is already notable. FreplySpang 20:10, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fluff in Brooklyn

edit

Article does not pass WP:WEB and should be deleted. A thorough Google seach turns up thousands of hits for hundreds of profiles and directory listings, but no non-trivial independent coverage (quick mentions in blogs I'm counting as "trivial"). Among those directories, profiles, and blog links, the overwhelming majority are not even about the comic, but rather the related podcast. For background, the article appears to be a vanity creation by the webcomic's creator, judging by the contributions of the account and IPs involved: Thecarla (talk · contribs), 146.151.33.67 (talk · contribs), 64.115.119.154 (talk · contribs), 72.225.219.230 (talk · contribs), and the licensing tag on the image in the article (Image:Island9modified.jpg). It is also effectively an orphan article, as it is only linked to from the articles of a small collective of affiliated comics, and the linking all appears to have been done by the above user and IPs. Wikipedia is not for advertising is a principle that applies. — Saxifrage ✎ 20:11, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. (aeropagitica) 19:28, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edison Courts

edit

Non notable apartment complex, prod removed with no reason, Delete-- Jaranda wat's sup 20:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • KeepNotable as first low cost public housing with solar water heat, per New York Times article cited, 1939.Edison 21:23, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Claim to notability should be moved to lead paragraph. Pan Dan 21:27, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - given the language used in the New York Times title, the houses "to get solar" rather then "have got solar" and the image provided does not appear to have solar roof panels I have to question the only claim of nobility as being acurate. Since the source provided only can be accessed by subscription, I have to wonder about the verification of the claim. Unless further source is provided, I will have to vote delete.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 22:01, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Just so you know, given that it is the New York Times, there are plenty of ways to read it, even old issues from the 30s. Possibly even at your local public library. Yeah, you might have to do some legwork to read it, but it's not that much. FrozenPurpleCube 01:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentSome readers may have access to NY Times online via their public library or school library, so I provided the link as a convenience, but it available on microfilm at any large public library. I hope providing a subscription online link doe not disqualify a reference as verifiable.Edison 16:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentPossibly more notable than every song by every rock group, every high school, every numbered road, every character in a video game, or every bus route in the world, all of which seem to have articles.Edison 16:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't think I don't agree with you. Opabinia regalis 03:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep with only two votes, both for retaining the article. (aeropagitica) 19:23, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BrainBread

edit

Has been nominated for deletion before and closed with a "no consesus". The only keep arguments put forth were "is widely played" and "first zombie mod for HL". Fails WP's policies on verifiability and reliable sources as well as proposed software guidelines. Delete as such. Wickethewok 20:27, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, as BrainBread is a considerably notable Half-Life mod. The mod is continuously in the top 20-25 ranking of all Steam multiplayer games and mods being played at any time (Official Steam Stats); it was picked by Valve to be listed in Steam's store, both on the official Steampowered site and through the program itself, as a free mod to download (See its listing at the Steam store, also note that only 24 mods, out of the hundreds and hundreds available, are listed); and it is one of the more popular Half-Life mods today. For example, Brainbread is, even to this day, consistently in the top 20 downloads of the week at HL2Files.com, which is, quite interestingly, a major site in the FileFront network dedicated to Half-Life 2, not Half-Life. It has currently amasssed over 115,000 downloads on this site as well. As it was hand picked by Valve Software themselves to be listed in Steam, and it is one of the most popular Half-Life mods around, I believe that Brainbread is notable enough to keep. MarphyBlack 21:17, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Steampowered is not just some mod site. It's Valve Software's official homepage for their Steam program. They made the site and they made the program. And they are also the ones that made Half-Life and Half-Life 2. If someone is playing Half-Life 2, Counter-Strike: Source, Day of Defeat: Source, etc, then they have Steam. Wouldn't the developers of the game that the mod is made for be considered reliable? It's not as if Valve is arbitrarily deciding that any mod made for one of their games is worthy enough to be officially listed through their own content distribution program. MarphyBlack 01:26, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - OF COURSE this mod exists, it's listed by Valve Software itself along with only a handful of other Half Life Mods, and steampowered.com is about as reliable and verifiable a source for the existence and notability of a half life mod as you're ever going to get. --Aim Here 01:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This fails WP:V#Burden_of_evidence which directly states "If an article topic has no reputable, reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on that topic." This does not have any reputable, reliable, third-party sources, thus, there should not be an article. Wickethewok 14:33, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would like to mention that the listings on Steampowered contain little more than a couple sentence summary and links to the mod's website. While clearly it shows existence, almost all information in the article remains unverifiable without original research. But, yes, you are quite correct in stating that the notability of the mod has certainly not been proven. Wickethewok 18:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You talk as if being officially recognized by Valve, quite possibly the most authoritative source around on the subject of Half-Life mods (they made the game, after all), is merely something to scoff at. Anyway, I think that you fail to grasp the concept at hand here. Valve is not simply just listing the mod on their site (although this in of itself is an exceptionally high honor), but they're actively helping to distribute the mod by directly advertising it through Steam. The same can only be said of about 20 or so other Half-Life mods.
  • If you want more "reputable, reliable, third-party sources", Brainbread was also Mod of the Week (Or month, depending on how you look at it) at Planet Half-Life, a very notable, insanely well-known, and nearly definitive Half-Life news site run on the GameSpy network. If for some reason you wish to question PHL's notability, check Google's first result for a search of "Half-Life". MarphyBlack 22:18, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:31, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Firearms (computer game)

edit

Has been nominated for deletion before, and was kept because only of vague arguments about the fact that people play it. As it is, the article has never shown any reliable sources or shown any verifiability. Delete as such. Wickethewok 20:35, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • speedy keep - The nominator has suggested that there were only "vague arguments about the fact that people play [Firearms]." In reviewing the previous nom, I quickly came across this: "This was the number 3 mod after CS and TFC for halflife 1 until DoD came out. It was on contract with valve for distribution with all new HL cd's I believe starting with game of the year edition. It was featured in PC Gamer magazine. Won mod of the year from PCGamer and runner up game of the year for 2000." A re-nomination really should be done on the basis of considerable concern over the validity of the previous result, not because the article has not been improved. If that's the concern, then improve the article. -Harmil 21:43, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable, if only historically. Was an extremely popular mod, won several awards, was published by valve on their GOTY and CS retail releases, and an appreciation of its characteristics has direct relevance to upcoming HL2 mods such as WaW and FA:S. It also debateably introduced a number of features which are now common to FPSs such as stamina, reinforcements, territorial control game mode and going prone. Admittedly the article isnt in a very good state atm, and could probably be regarded as a stub, but that in itself not grounds for deletion, just for improvement Modest Genius talk 22:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As per Modest Genius's reply. --Falcorian (talk) 02:49, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is so lazy. You're nominating a mod that came with the official retail release of Counter-Strike. - Hahnchen 00:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, very notable Half-Life mod. MarphyBlack 22:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Your reason to delete it is even more vague than the arguments put forth in the first deletion process. We've covered this before. It isn't the greatest article in the world but that means you help it become something better, not help it become something worse. Or in this case, nothing at all. Natrapsmai— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.1.139.16 (talk • contribs) 11:39, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was withdrawn due to new information. Wickethewok 18:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dystopia (computer game)

edit

Doesn't seem to meet verifiability or reliable sources. Was previously nom'd before, which triggered massive sockpuppetry. There have been no attempts to make the article compliant with verifiability policies since. If there are reliable sources (which I haven't found), the article makes no mention of them. Wickethewok 20:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Previous result was keep, after discounting sock-puppetry. Not much has changed since. If the nominator feels that the article has portions that are unverified, then the nominator should edit them to resolve these issues. However, the topic itself was determined to be notable enough for an article. -Harmil 21:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't really understand what you're saying is unverifiable? In case it was the download count, I've gone through the sites which have download counts shown and used this as the new number. Can you please be more specific about exact what parts of the page you consider to be not verifiable through reliable sources? (full disclosure; I'm the project manager for Dystopia. This is also the first edits I've ever done to the Dystopia entry) Fuzzwah 05:28, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Is it possible to protect this article from further AfD noms? I believe we've proven beyond reasonable doubt that Dystopia is notable, verifiable and worthy of inclusion here. (To be honest I'm still not sure why it was nom'd in the first place!) The Kinslayer 10:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy deleted by me. This is one of a number of articles that are either a hoax, vandalism, or the product of psychosis. See User:Johnfox2007 for more. - Richardcavell 02:04, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Fox MP

edit

Part of a series of hoax articles made by User:Johnfox2007. This Member of the UK Parliament does not exist, nor does his ministerial post Minister for Making Poverty History, which I am including in this nomination after the prod was removed without comment. Nydas 20:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alana Moore

edit

Vanity article for a non-notable porn actress. Attempt to bring sources and notability into question was simply reverted without comment. Harmil 21:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candace Von

edit

Non-notable bio. Prod was removed by original author without comment or resolution of the concerns. Harmil 21:30, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Nufy8 22:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Door from hell

edit

Non-notable YouTube movie. Unlisted in IMDB. Can find no reliable sources talking about the movie or the blog it's now associated with. Prod contested by anon editor. Article's creator is Doorfromhell (talk • contribs), so a likely vanity article. eaolson 22:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 15:58, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Riblja čorba

edit

Prod removed but I cannot establish compliance with WP:Music. Delete. Bridgeplayer 22:30, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus, so a default keep for now. (aeropagitica) 19:17, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strata (band)

edit

A non-notable band. Detect VanityGreen hornet 22:33, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - They have an album on a notable label and their work has been featured in notable movie and video game releases. May not meet the letter of WP:MUSIC as far as having TWO releases, but seems to meet the spirit of what Wikipedia is trying to accomplish. The inclusion of the article feels written in more good faith then these kind of AfDs are. PT (s-s-s-s) 23:02, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -The label is more of a "anyone can produce their album" here kind of label. Their sole notability is as a local band that occasionally plays at small clubs. There is a reason for the WP:MUSIC policy. It is important to keep Wikipedia a serious encyclopedia, rather than a catalog of pop culture references and pages about our friends bands. Until they release a second album they should use myspace as a place to post their band info and promote their album. Wikipedia is not for promotion. The band does not have enough notibility to have had a page authored by someone who isn't a fan or acquaintance. If a member of the band, an acquaintance, or fan authors a page about someone it is possible vanity. Delete on grounds of non-notability of music band per Wikipedia itself, as well as Vanity, and self-promotion rather than informative content. If everyone puts up a page about themselves or their favorite local band against Wikipedia standards then Wikipedia will cease to have any order and serious content.Green hornet 23:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The band's site makes a vague reference to an international tour: "Sept. 6, 2005: The past year or so has been a lot of fun - touring in support of our album, shooting videos for 'the panic' and 'never there' - getting out there and meeting all of our fans, friends and supporters across the US and Canada." More specifically, please see http://www.stratadirect.com/sections/tour.html and http://www.stratadirect.com/sections/tour_previous.html for a list of venues where the band has played, which I think is sufficient for WP:MUSIC --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 08:50, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per their tour page, they've done many national tours with many notable bands. That more than passe WP:MUSIC. -- Kicking222 11:58, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia. Put Elvis in there. You can even put Rev. Horton Heat in there. Those fellows were famous. They had a lot of music released. This band isn't notable according to Wikipedia policy. They have one release? How did it chart? Did it chart at all? Because anyone can have a cd out these days on certain labels. International tour? Maybe Canada is technically international. Its within walking distance of many American cities though. And playing all-ages venues that fit 50 people is a far cry from the kind of international tour that an actual notable like U2 puts on. Let's keep Wikipedia clutter free.

I am Friedchicken88 18:19, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, no reliable sources confirm this band's claim of notability: we can't really assess if their tour was significant enough per WP:MUSIC since it is only mentioned on their own website. MaxSem 18:41, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per TT. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I live in Los Gatos near where the band is from, and I follow the local music scene. This band isn't that big even in the local scene. Non-notable. friedchicken, maxsem, and hornet are right about reliable sources and WP:MUSIC. I just read them. Mj the deletionist 17:45, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:NOTE, WP:RS and WP:MUSIC. Daniel.Bryant 01:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keeep. Claims to notability are valid, notable label, notable game, and the tour is just one more thing that achieves WP:MUSIC. A search of band strata on google yields plenty of results. Themindset 22:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I did the google search and the results included their wikipedia article, which would be an absurd result to justify itself, as well as their own webpage, which anyone can have and will come up in google, and then a couple hits for the same local entertainment paper for a city that I had to look up. I don't think that google can be an exhibit of notable-ness unless the standard for notable is very low. I looked my own name up and came up with dozens of hits for myself, and dozens for other people with my name, despite its uncommonness. In the case of Strata also, many of the hits did not directly pertain to them, but pertainned to other things 'strata' since it is also a common word as well as their proper name. Google is easily misconstrued as a clue to notable, which it can never be- anyone can show up dozens of times. Try typing in your own name. Likely you will find comments you made in usenet, or a review of your high school football skills from 1989, or mention of you in the local Rotary chapter's web newsletter, or your myspace page. etc. Bluetie46 01:39, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per PT. - Lex 05:49, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:54, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

30uv1437

edit

This article is for a non-notable speedrun, about which the claims made just can't be verified. There's no reliable source claiming that this is the fastest ever, nor will there ever be, since the reliable sources that cover video game world records don't cover tool-assisted speedrunning (or much speedrunning in general, for that matter). This may be a world record, but it's a world record in such a narrow category (tool-assisted human-controlled Doom II speedrunning) that it's never going to be verifiable.

This was prodded but was deprodded with the justification that it's difficult to verify such things in reliable sources. I argue that things that cannot be verified do not belong in this encyclopedia. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:36, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Samoa Joe's winning streak

edit

Nothing but fancruft and listcruft Patstuart 23:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Bobet 16:38, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yatti

edit

Fails WP:NEO; "Yatti marijuana" on google comes up with nothing worth noting Patstuart 21:35, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of verifiable knowledge, not a how-to guide on getting high, which is how that article reads. Furthermore, the image seems to imply that its submitter is in possession of illegal paraphernalia and drugs- a crime in Canada that could fetch 5 years in prison.Mj the deletionist 23:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

but there are other entries in wikipedia itself that read like how to guides for drugs so you argument for that is irrelevant (such as, the shotti page, the bong page, and even the coke page is way worse) and the fact that you don't even understand the legal charges that invole the possession of illigal paraphernalia or pot, would only get you around a month or less in jail, a fine, or they might just let you off. It seems to me like you are just being difficult in this situation for no reason, but if your webpage is supposed to be this great encyclopedia, well then excluding one page while allowing others in the same category is wrong, maybe the page does not get the hits you think it requires, then tell the page creators how to change that, and if you do not believe that the popularity of yattis is not on the rise you are wrong, I live in Canada as well and I have herd of them, I garuntee in 5 years it will be all over the place and with this page your site will be ahead of everone else, either way you should not be attacking the page the way you are, treat all people the same no matter their background, all are equal, thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.173.164.121 (talk • contribs)

no, the problem is not how many hits the page gets; the problem is that the term "yatti" appears non-existent on the internet; in other words, the term gets no hits on google at any other site either. Which means it's a neologism, and any other articles in such a category are flagged for deletion as well. I hope this clears things up. -Patstuart 21:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

poor editing and inappropriate content on other pages are no excuse! because the comment by 129.173.164.121 did not log in with a user name I am forced to respond here, but I would like to remind that person to more directly address their own reasons for keeping or deleting the article here and direct the extraneous criticism of my viewpoint, in a manner that does not directly pertain to the AfD, to my talk page. I would do the same, but it would not reach someone not signing in without a username. Canadian drug law has a maximum sentence of 5 years for marijuana possesion. It *is* the maximum, and would not be used for a first offense, but it does agree with my statement that it could fetch 5 years in prison. See Controlled_drugs_and_substances_act and drugtext.org. Furthermore, yes I should be attacking this and any other page that doesn't meet the standard of quality I expect from wikipedia. And it is in way about treating people in any manner regarding background. I stand behind my vote. Please sign your comments! neologism and an encyclopedia should report about drug use not instruct on how to!Mj the deletionist 09:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. -- Steel 20:24, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of bands with punctuation marks in their names

edit

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and this seems too much like "bandcruft." --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 23:52, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps List of everyone named Bob? Delete per nom. JPG-GR 07:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You see, if only I'd thought of that..QuagmireDog 09:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A discursive article sounds an interesting prospect, but this is unlikely to form the basis of it. Warofdreams talk 16:22, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It doesn't seem to me like any cruft so much as a reference point, useful because it links throughout the site. I could argue that the list serves as a platform for interested users to link between these bands and see what they have in common. At least it's useful for checking to make sure you know how many exclaimation points there are in Gravy Train!!!!. Electronique 14:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Global reality

edit

Nomination for deletion Article is vague, contextless and unencyclopedic. Fails WP:V/WP:RS. Concept appears to be related to obscure trance spiritualist medium New Age thinking centered on Jane Roberts as described in Personal reality - but there is no assertion of encyclopedic notability here. The use of a common phrase for this concept makes google check difficult. But there are zero hits for "Global reality" and "Transformational Processing" (a high level term from the website in the article's external link) on google, googlescholar, google books [60] [61][62]. Nothing for "global reality" + "jane roberts" [63][64] on gscholar and gbooks. Only ~125 hits on main google[65]. While I also find it highly questionable, I am not nominating the Personal Reality article at this time as there are much more substantial results from a google search incl. Jane Roberts. The connection between PR and GR also stopped me from prodding. Bwithh 00:09, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Uninformative and vague. --Mr. Billion 00:38, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The article says almost nothing, there are no references and the content is not verifiable. EdJohnston 03:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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_October_1&oldid=1116878322"