Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 October 10

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log
< October 9 October 11 >

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. —Quarl (talk) 2007-04-28 07:42Z

Stunts performed in Jackass: The Movie and Stunts performed in Jackass Number Two

edit
Stunts performed in Jackass: The Movie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Stunts performed in Jackass Number Two (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is a list of descriptions of scenes from a movie. It is both unencyclopedic and trivia. An earlier AFD resulted in a decision of "merge", however nobody has bothered to do so; indeed, adding these many descriptions to the otherwise good movie article seems hardly feasible. See also this. >Radiant< 13:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Merge to Return to Castle Wolfenstein. I created a disambiguation page to deal with the possible other uses. Yomanganitalk 18:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wilhelm Strasse

edit

Minor character that only appears in one game. Not even worth merging into parent article. Virogtheconq 00:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: the extraneous-ness (is that even a word?) of the character is why I nominated it for deletion in the first place. So redirecting it to one of the real locations (perhaps a dab instead?) would be appropriate - the current content of the article doesn't matter. I have no opinion on if it should be redirected to those locations or not. Virogtheconq 00:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Those suggesting redirect are pointing to something (a street in Berlin) that has nothing to do with this-here (a character in RTCW). That's what I was trying to explain. --Davecampbell 19:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I realise that. It just seems a lot more likely that people entering "Wilhelm Strasse" into the search box would be looking for Wilhelmstraße than the game character. ergot 13:52, 13 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 09:04, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trolltalk

edit

Horribly fails WP:NOR and WP:V, among other policies. Article subject (a single story on Slashdot) is not notable. --- RockMFR 00:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is the 2nd (or 3rd time?) this has been nominated for deletion. The previous discussion (NO CONSENSUS) can be found here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trolltalk

Numerous other Slashdot-related articles are currently up for deletion, for reference:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Recurring jokes on Slashdot
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slashdot trolling phenomena (2nd nomination)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slashdot subculture (3rd nomination)
  • Delete getting ill with all this /. crap Danny Lilithborne 00:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete basically a subforum of Slashdot, unknown even to most regulars. This is the fourth awful Slashdot-related article in as many days, and frankly it's getting tiresome writing reasoning for them all, so let's be brief: Fails WP:WEB, fails WP:V, no reliable sources, etc. etc. etc. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless reliable third-party sources are provided. — TKD::Talk 01:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Arbusto 03:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. Vectro 03:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We all know this will never be sourced. It's disappointing that a previous AFD was successfully defeated by a mass sockpuppet attack. SubSeven 03:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above. Resolute 04:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable, etc. Choess 05:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not notable. Wikipedia is not a Slashdot encyclopedia. May deserve a brief mention at Slashdot. Delete, or redirect at a pinch, fascinating though it is to read about the contributions of nonnotable people to a nonnotable forum. Vizjim 06:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom and above. Ok as a mention in the main slashdot article if reliable sources are found. Bwithh 15:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:V, WP:WEB, and the myriad of good reasons above. I love /., but this is so unimportant it is nearly ridiculous.--Isotope23 16:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Almost worthy of a mention in the main /. article, but there is no reason for a seperate article. --Maelnuneb (Talk) 17:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While interesting to read (to me, at least), the lack of verifiability means thumbs-down. --Neo 06:03, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Just in the past 14 days, trolltalk has received over 3500 comments, making it among the most active discussion forums on the Internet. Though posts are deleted after 14 days, it's received probably half a million total posts in its lifetime, many orders of magnitude more than any other Slashdot story past present or future. 4.253.47.43 11:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Uh... the thing is, we can't just take your word on it. We could if Slashdot would have a complete archive and automated statistics system, and someone would have done extensive chronicling of the place. By purging the history automatically, it kind of digs its own grave on the verifiability department; what we have is "current" situation. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 15:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, I admit it, I clicked on the link you provided. As far as I can tell, all the content is just copy-pasted text from public ___domain sources (the bible, old dictionaries, etc), all presumably posted by a bot or some posting script, and given the lack of variety, more than likely all posted by the same bot. So if all the posts are generated by bots, with no actual discussion going on, who cares whether it gets a thousand "posts" a week, or a million, or a trillion? They aren't even actual posts, and without any discussion going on, it isn't even really a forum. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:45, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • As mentioned in the article, Trolltalk has been attack almost constantly since May 2005 by a sophisticated crapflood script that renders it practically unusable. Generally, nobody posts during the crapflood because their post would get buried, despite the efforts of the Trolltalk Digest (which FAILS IT miserably). Sometimes the crapflood crashes for a few days, and human activity will return until the crapflood is fixed and restarted. Some people still skim through Trolltalk even during crapfloods looking for other human posts, but it's usually an exercise in futility. Surprisingly, however, Trolltalk got more posts before the crapflood: the number of genuine human posts in the past two weeks was often well above 5000. Most of the former users have been driven away by the crapflood so Trolltalk probably would never return to its former glory even if the crapflood were stopped for good. In fact, the crapflood was stopped for about two days in order to announce these AfDs, but nobody seemed to care. Because of that two days without posts, the Trolltalk post count is actually about 500 less right now than it would be if the crapflood had continued during that time. 4.253.43.96 20:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Also, the crapflood does not use "copy-pasted text from public ___domain sources". The crapflood uses a number of different process threads that operate in different manners. One is a crapflood uptime report. Three use the Unix Fortune (program) including the standard databases and a number of collected & customized databases. Four use Markov chains to generate random but sensible-looking text based on four different sets of input text. One of these replies to existing comments in order to fuck up the anti-crapflooding efforts of the Trolltalk Digest. Then there are others but you get the idea.
      • p.s. I'm not the Trolltalk Crapflooder; I'm going off of public information here & analysis of the crapflood over the past 1.5 years in an attempt to track down the Trolltalk Crapflooder's identity. I am in no way connected to the Trolltalk Crapflood; in fact it's widely believed that the Trolltalk Crapflooder doesn't even read Trolltalk anymore. 4.253.43.96 20:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Even though Wikipedia doesn't consider the number of posts as a measure of notability, it would be good to point out that ~500 posts/day is fairly good evidence that a forum/website is FAR from being large enough to be notable. Realize that places like GameFAQs have HUNDREDS of individual boards with that amount of activity per day, and they certainly don't have their own articles here. --- RockMFR 23:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A mention of the thing is material for main Slashdot article; the rest is just uncalled for. Not really any more remarkable than any other feature of the site; subforums must be really really exceptional. It's not a good sign if the article has to drop down to "we've had this sort of discussions before" level. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 15:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC), Slashdot user WWWWolf (#2428), "Oh, we have this sort of thing too? Yeah, I have vaguely heard of it..."[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 15:36, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gurgen Askaryan

edit

Notability appears to be questionable. Referred to in papers, but appeared to have published in a very limited manner, if at all. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 00:48, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Askaryan was indeed the inventor of the light self-focusing, reference now given in the Article. This is well-known and widely accepted in the scientific community. Apart from that he was the inventor of what is now called the Askaryan effect. To emphasize the broad range of interests and topics investigated by Askaryan, I included a list of 50 selected publications from 1954 all the way to 1997. Note that most of the papers have been published in Soviet times in domestic journals, which limits the access somehow for the general public. All the publications can be found at www.isiknowledge.com To show the importance of the light self-focusing in fundamental science (particularly non-linear optics) as well as in its later applications in laser optics I will soon provide more references. This has now become a classical textbook material in optics. In fact, this can easily be found simply searching in google. As a person belonging to the laser optics and laser spectroscopy community, I will try to mainly contribute about Askaryan's works in optics, but I am sure much can be said about his contribution in plasma physics/chemistry and high-energy physics. This will be done too. Vahan Senekerimyan 09:00, 11 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 redirect just redirecting but people interested can merge any appropriate content. W.marsh 22:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Error Code Purple

edit

This is an article about a non-notable computer problem that may have an impact on a number of computers made by one manufacturer if certain things happen. In response to the notability template, the creator acknowledged the questionable notability but indicated that people would think it is notable if it was happening to them, suggesting that this should be here for those looking for troubleshooting information (check talk to verify my interpretation). That isn't what Wikipedia is for. 18 search engine hits verify the very limited scope of this issue and provide no reliable coverage. Erechtheus 00:50, 10 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 Merge with and Redirect to List of Star Wars companies. -- Satori Son 13:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Taim & Bak

edit

Star Wars fancruft. The article even comes out and admits it's "relatively small". Crystallina 00:56, 10 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. Cuddle withdrawn. El_C 07:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cuddle party and Cuddlebuddy

edit

Same rationale as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cuddle puddle - CrazyRussian talk/email 01:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw Cuddle Party - CrazyRussian talk/email 02:22, 11 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. Sr13 01:44, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cobbers

edit

I can't find any evidence on Google or Lexis-Nexis that a gang called "The Cobbers" exists in Virginia (or in Anne Arundel, see page history). Prod removed by author. Pan Dan 01:04, 10 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. Please note that 'delete or merge' is self-contradictory. 'Merge' means 'keep', first so the material can be merged, then so the article can be converted to a redirect (with edit history preserved for the GFDL). AfD does not govern merges anyway. --Sam Blanning(talk) 14:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personas of The Undertaker

edit

Wikipedia isn't a guide to everything wrestling. An article for personas is pure fancruft. From the looks of it, Undertaker is the only one that has a personas article (for now at least). Useful information should be added to his page, and this article should be removed. RobJ1981 01:10, 10 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 both per A7 and G11. Luna Santin 03:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ms. Divine's Tee Hee Heure

edit

I don't believe a public access show is notable enough for Wikipedia. Joyous! | Talk 01:16, 10 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 09:05, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Danica Heller

edit

Delete. Google searches for Danica Heller, "Danica Heller", Heller murder baltimore and Danica Heller 1976 yield no search results relevant to this topic (the second only yields two search results overall). If this murder is as notable as the article claims, there would certainly be ample material available outside wikipedia, but since this appears not to be the case I am led to conclude that it is a hoax. Vectro 01:26, 10 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 16:08, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rene Clausen

edit

I don't think Clausen is all that notable. Also, the creator of this article has repeatedly removed the notability tags I have inserted without expanding the article or demonstrating that Clausen is notable. MatthewUND(talk) 01:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I believe that the article should not be punished for its creator's misconduct.--Húsönd 02:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
True. All I meant was the author's actions seem to indicate that he/she is unable to provide a reason to keep, but wants to keep the article despite this. Wavy G 02:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Could be. But for what I found I believe that the author just didn't want to bother. If this person's notability is asserted, then there's no need to delete an article that someone else is likely to create.--Húsönd 02:53, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Also, if the subject is a notable composer, how come no compositions are listed? Anyone can make arrangements - I would expect any music teacher to do that - but that should not be a qualification for putting every music teacher in an encyclopaedia. Emeraude 12:45, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would like to call to your attention that René Clause clearly meets WP:MUSIC, a Google search clearly confirms that. Please do not be tempted to delete the article just because its creator didn't do a good work with it. Expand instead.--Húsönd 15:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This book (Strimple, Nick (2005). Choral Music in the Twentieth Century. Amadeus Press. p.261. ISBN 1574671227) says, "Prominent educational composers at century's end included ... Rene Clausen (b.1953), who mastered a lush impressionistic style...." Also, an Amazon search found 20 discs containing his compositions, 11 of which are currently available, 2 of which are kept in stock at Amazon. Those are facts I can quickly produce. BTW, I know of him only as a composer, whose music I've performed on a number of occasions. The fact he's possibly a non-notable educator is irrelevant. I'm no expert, and won't think of including my opinion in the article, but I believe he is unquestionably a notable 20th century sacred choral music composer. I'm confident that a little more digging could document this better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quintote (talk • contribs) 15:09, 11 October 2006
  • Keep per Quintote. Vectro 17:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Husond and Quintote. - Lex 17:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - Passes WP:MUSIC, notable composer. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 18:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable composer. Keep and expand. Sr13 05:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and develop.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 09:05, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prepare to Live

edit

The article reads as an advertisement. Swpb 01:42, 10 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 16:12, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Organisation of Young Free Algerians

edit

At least one of the claims in this article was unverifiable and the subject of the claim complained about it (apparently), so I removed it. The other claims don't seem verifiable either. I found very few references to an organization with this name even existing through web searching. Someone de-proded because the article is also on the French wikipedia, however, that article is just a translation of this one (including all the dubious claims). If someone can find reliable sources then we can abort this AFD. —Quarl (talk) 2006-10-10 01:58Z

  • Delete A google search proves inconclusive evidence of the group's existence. Moreover, most of the links in this google search has similar content as the one in this article. I believe, these sites are mirrors of Wikipedia and if they are not, the article here is a clear copyright violation (correct me if I am wrong with this analysis). Even if this is not the case, the article is unverifiable at the present. --Siva1979Talk to me 02:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC) Changed my opinion to Abstain after considering all the facts presented by the other users, especially the counter comments made by Quarl. But I wish to add that this article is properly being referenced currently, a major improvement over the past few days. --Siva1979Talk to me 20:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree with Siva that the article is unverifiable at present. The article is also on the French Wikipedia, but as Quarl observes (above) it was translated from the English original! Later commenters in either language seem to have improved the style (and removed one of the incidents) but not injected any new information from printed sources. Unless someone wants to read some French or Algerian newspapers or histories to get more info, I think we should delete. Otherwise we're just propagating an unconfirmable rumor.. Changing my vote to Keep. See the article from Humanité found by Emeraude (below) and the UNHCR article. *Plus* see the web site www.algeria-watch.com. Although this site has a POV they are full of pointers to actual books and articles in the regular French press. See a bunch of info that I added to the article.
IF someone can use this info to write an NPOV article then I'd say we should Keep but not otherwise. I rewrote about half the article, using references. Please improve it further if you can. EdJohnston 18:20, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably keep A search on google.fr for "Organisation des jeunes Algériens libres" and restricting to web pages in French only returns 65 hits (including the wikipedia article). Browsing the first half dozen suggests that the organisation did exist and was/is notable. For example: [[2]] and [[3]] both from the website of the French newspaper l'Humanité. I don't know enough about the issue to say for certain whether OJAL should be deleted or not, but on balance would suggest it is not until someone with more knowledge than I can check out some more of the references from Google.fr. Emeraude 13:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also found this, from the UNHCR website in French [[4]]:The OJAL is a militant group that supported the army in its battle against the Islamists and which perpetrated attacks against the Islamic communities. It was founded in 1993. (My translation).Emeraude 13:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, the organization probably exists, but that doesn't address the other unverifiability concerns. So far we'd have an article with the text "OJAL probably exists." —Quarl (talk) 2006-10-10 20:17Z
  • Keep but Change Subject is worthy of an article, but at present the article is a copyright violation (text taken directly from answers.com). -- P.B. Pilhet / Talk 16:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Answers.com, as well as many other sites, are copies of Wikipedia (usually legitimately), not the other way around. —Quarl (talk) 2006-10-10 20:12Z
  • The new evidence found is even more disturbing. We have one source which says the group exists, founded 1993, etc.; another says that it did not exist and was invented by the Algerian secret service as a cover-up. So now we know the organization was claimed to exist but not whether it really existed. Also the article had many unverifiable indirect claims ("OJAL killed foo who was bar", but we can't verify that foo was bar). If this article is to exist, someone will have to completely rewrite the article, spend time doing serious research, and making sure the article doesn't imply any of the claims/hypotheses are facts. —Quarl (talk) 2006-10-12 06:57Z
Comment I agreed with your original nomination of the article for deletion, due to lack of verifiability. Now that we have relatively good sources, and don't leave our readers stuck without any resources to click on, I think we've done our job. If the quoted people, like Samraoui, disagree with one another, we can't help that. But so long as we trust that Samraoui was quoted correctly, I think we're OK. Let our readers decide from the evidence we collected what is most likely to be the truth. A diligent person could probably collect more references just by Googling on the people's names in the current article, but this may be enough. (Another option is to search Le Monde whose archives seem to be open). I encourage the reviewers who have found more references to add them to the article. EdJohnston 22:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep there is only one gnews archive result, from L'Humanité 31-Mar-94, but there is information here, abstracted from the Journal of Arabic, Islamic and Middle Eastern Studies, and more here (Canadian Govt: Immigration and Refugee Board). I think that the JAIMES and the Canadian Govt can be considered reliable sources. The facts of the matter may be uncertain, but cleanup and referencing can fix that. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:35, 12 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 patent nonsense. Turnstep 13:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Giantenemycrab

edit

Original Research, Not notable, and unverifiable. Vectro 01:58, 10 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 09:06, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vemo

edit

This article seems completely bogus. No sources are cited to substantiate anything in the article. I can't find any evidence that this asserted category of music exists. Wookipedian 02:26, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to remark above: Funny, I tried that and I can't find any such references. I found a person whose nickname is Vemo, with no explanation of the what the nickname means, but that's about it. —Wookipedian 19:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to comment: Take a look at the User Talk page and edit history of the user who created the article (User talk:D4rk0). This person seems to be a persistent vandal. I wonder if they are trying to promote the term just to see if they can get other people to use it. Perhaps they plan to start adding the term to other pages with links to this page. Note that seven months ago the person was scolded there with the remark "Please stop adding your own inventions to Wikipedia". Or perhaps "Vemo" is just a term used by this person and a small group of their friends, but not a widespread and noteworthy accepted thing. I also wonder about the choice of bands that are listed as examples of the alleged genre — for example, considering the description of the term, does Seether really fit? Also note that the only "supportive" edit to the article made after its initial creation was by an anon IP address that is associated with similar vandalism (User talk:203.114.137.10). —Wookipedian 19:21, 12 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 uhhhhhhh...no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 16:14, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Niles McKinley High School

edit
  • Keep. The school's football program is illustrious, as well as their speech team. Plus if someone wants to make a page for their school why should it matter to you guys. If it bothers you then just ignore it.

Not notable per WP:Schools. Vectro 02:34, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: William McKinley, did apparently not go to this High School, so this can be struck (he was born in Niles, but moved at an early age to Poland (the city in Ohio, that is :-) ) [5]. Fram 15:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Actually, it is never imperative that anything be kept while awaiting verification. That is, in fact, a vioation of one of Wikipedia's core policies. The burden is on the editor to verify what is written before the article is created/edited. Resolute 15:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is a gross overstatement to claim "near-complete agreement" that all high schools deserve their own encyclopedia articles, regardless of how ordinary they are.Edison 15:42, 11 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. Xoloz 01:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Travis Van Winkle

edit

Actor who has made single episode appearances in several TV series. BanyanTree 02:45, 10 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 09:06, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopaedia of Turkey

edit

Defunct web project or just spam? --Peta 02:50, 10 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 09:06, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heart of Pargon LARP

edit

A live action role-playing clube; no evidence of notability. --Peta 02:53, 10 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 09:06, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scottsdale Worship Center

edit

Church, no evidence of notability, delete --Peta 02:56, 10 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 flagged as copyvio from [6]. Speedy doesn't apply because this article has been here for months. MER-C 07:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Raggademente

edit

Article has been tagged for lacking notability for some time; talk page suggests he dones't meet MUSIC. --Peta 02:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - from where? MER-C 03:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here. T REXspeak 04:51, 10 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 09:19, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Propylon

edit

No real evidence of notability provided; fails CORP. --Peta 02:58, 10 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 09:19, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

J.M. "Moot" Truluck III

edit

Relatively minor public servant, who I don't think meets WP:BIO. Previous AFD reached no concensus. Delete--Peta 03:01, 10 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 - consensus is that it violates WP:NOT and while there are arguments to keep, the majority centre around the existence of other similar lists rather than making the case for the continued existence of this one. - Yomanganitalk 10:00, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Brahmins

edit

A list with a extremely broad criterion for inclusion and no context. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection and this is just a list of names, with a few POV issues in the entries. A Category structure would make much more sense for members of this (and other) castes. Nilfanion (talk) 21:50, 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, Avi 03:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete And following Tariqabjotu's comment above, those lists ought to go as well. Emeraude 13:27, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I had very little idea what they were supposed to be, so a definition in the introduction would be helpful. I have added a one sentence definition from the Brahmin article, so readers who are not followers of the Hindu religion will have a clue. (When I saw the name of the article, I thought of rodeos.) If a number of them are notable enough to have articles on their own merits, there is utility in having a list, a category, or other means for linking the articles. The Brahmin article says they are at least 2% of the popuation of India, which would be 20,000,000. If the most important present 1% of them were listed, it would amount to a list of 200,000 individuals, leaving off those who lived in the past. What criteria can be used to include or exclude individuals? Edison 15:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as indiscriminate collection of information, per WP:NOT. Sandstein 17:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is not an adequate criteria for inclusion to prevent it being an indiscriminate collection of information, violating WP:NOT. GRBerry 01:56, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If we delete this article then articles such as List of Christians should also be deleted.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, barely avoids being a G11 speedy nowadays. Xoloz 01:51, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Snap survey software

edit

Fails to assert notability. Contested prod. MER-C 03:08, 10 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 Disambiguate (and I would warn against any WP:POINT nominations of other surnames as this doesn't set a precedent). Yomanganitalk 12:15, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Parekh

edit

Non-notable surname. Wikipedia is not a geneology guide. Contested prod. MER-C 03:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep -I feel its one of the most efficacious Wikipedia articles with authentic sources and corroborations to the same, being found out easily when one coducts a few simple internet searches. The point of deliberation shouldnt be as to whether it qualifies for here or not, but about the authenticity of this great article on Parekhs. If Wikipedia were to delete it from here, then same should be the case for all surnames listed Wikipedia.org . There are "Parekhs", "Gupta", "Jain", "Shah", "Patel" some Indian surnames and countless other English surnames too which are currently enjoying an encyclopedic status at Wikipedia, where the roots of these surnames have been traced, and notable people with them have been included at their respective pages. So what's wrong with "Parekh" . If, in particular, Gujarati Surnames, "Shah", "Patel", and the likes can enjoy wiki status and encyclopedic articles on them which have existed since long without deletion, then why not "Parekh". Its just another surname like the hundreds listed here at Wiki, with accurate informations and notable people having the same. Its a remarkable research filled article on Parekh, I mean that's the way I see it and therefore see no point or end to this bit of debate. Neither is the article Licentious/profane/abusive/sexually perverse or anything that Wikipedia abhors, bans. It is perfectly within the standards of Wikipedia. Perhaps, it might need a little brushing over again, but that doesnt qualify it to be deleted completely. That'd be sad. And if that were to be, then I'd propose deletion of all other wiki articles on each other surname listed here. There are by the hundreds, each tracing roots of that particular surname and listing notable people with it, as in case of "Parekh". This is not a small issue. Calling for deletion of this article, calls for immediate deletion of each wiki article which defines a surname and traces its roots. I could say the same for "Patel" or "Gupta" or "Shah" here at Wiki. They too are mere surnames , and again not fit as encyclopedic articles, if the debate were to expound further. A little refurbishing is all that needs to be done . And definitely this article should remain, in lieu of other hundreds of such articles on topics of 'surnames', if this were to go, rightly should the others follow suit too. Lastly, I believe its Wikipedia's policy to ban or warn such members here who abuse or deem others inferior in public, such as user "Vizjim" has done in his last post, calling others here as "sock puppets". This behavior is severely banned in open places/forums of Wikipedia .I would also like to call upon the attention of the administrators to immediately seek apologies from Vizjim of having open castigated other fellow Wikipedian's who've commented on this article.

Coolkeg908 11:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Coolkeg908 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply]

  • Erm, I denigrated nobody by name. If the cap fits... Also, you say The point of deliberation shouldnt be as to whether it qualifies for here or not: our survey says "Wrong! That is exactly the point of deliberation here at articles for deletion!" Finally, I agree that numerous other articles are problematic and should be nominated for deletion. That has no bearing on whether this particular article should exist in Wikipedia or not. I think that that is all the arguments above covered. Vizjim 11:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Incidentally, you might want to look at this page - WP:NOT. It is the official policy of Wikipedia that it is not a genealogical database (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_directory). Vizjim 11:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's the point. If this article were to be deleted, then so should hundred others which have references to; or are encyclopedic articles on surnames. They are by the hundreds here, as I keep searching wiki's index. They are "Parekh", "Gupta", "Shah", "Reed", "Straley" and a whole exhaustive bunch of them. All surnames, which have encyclopedic pages dedicated to them, which are huge. And ending with famous/notable names with that particular surname as in Parekh. Parekh, I reiterate again, is a wonderful article. And in anycase, it makes no sense deleting such a well researched, well polished article--for again, if that were to be, then I'd be sorry to see hundreds of other articles,only on "surnames" go from here. Rules are rules. Rules applicable to one article should be stringently followed for the other. The Bottomline,if "Parekh" is deleted, then so should hundreds of other articles here at Wikipedia.org which list only 'surnames/end names' of people of virtually every origin.

And Vizjim, no that does take away your abusing people and fellow wikipedians here. Your calling them 'sock puppets' doesnt make you the leader of the lot. They are all important people here in this argument, leaving their valuable time and comments on this particular article as I see. Did wikipedia give you the right to call them 'sock puppets' and clearly deem them inferior doing the same. Wikipedia needs to take serious action against this particular comment of yours on other worthy wikipedians here in this discussion, as you've called them 'sock puppets'. Atleast a humble apology from your end to all users here would suffice, before Wikipedia intervenes.Coolkeg908 11:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I humbly apologise to all people here who are not sockpuppets or meatpuppets for, erm, not calling you anything. You may wish to read WP:FAITH. Vizjim 12:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • In a more serious vein, I promise you that if Parekh is deleted, thus setting a precedent, I will nominate for deletion every other "surname" article that you have mentioned, plus any others you care to suggest (I won't do it before this particular discussion is finished because of WP:POINT, but once the precedent is established then we can go ahead and get rid of the rest of the genealogical entries). Vizjim 12:53, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Unless we are going to delete off wikipedia every list i.e people who's names are Bob, the article for Bob itself, or people who came from Timbuktu, or countries that breed marmots, (exaggerated examples) which I would be happy with, then IMHO there is no option but to keep it. Khukri (talk . contribs) 11:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Disambig as per comments below. Khukri (talk . contribs) 16:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep until Khukri you are right. I have also deliberated upon this in discussions above. Unless each article containing 'surname'or personal 'name'isnt deleted at Wikipedia, it would be wrong to delete "Parekh". If "Parekh" is deleted, then what about those hundreds and thousands of other 'surnames' which have encyclopedic articles written about them here at wikipedia. Should wiki delete them all. Who would point them all out to wiki in the first case. They are just too many. We could at the most point out to a 100 more of them existing and see to their deletion. But even still, thousands would remain in wiki's database, unnoticed and it would be unfair that whilst a few 'surname' articles are deleted-thousands more would remain. Unless, Wikipedia itself doesnt define a clear cut policy for this 'surname' article issue, that would imply to all 'surnames' here, there's no point deleting "Parekh". The moment "Parekh" is deleted (which'd be really sad , as its a fantastic article and a beautiful research on the word), it should in fair sense imply, that every other 'surname' here at wikipedia is deleted, without our having to point the same out to wikipedia-or without our having to research in great inexhaustible detail as to which other 'surnames' are prevailing here. Wikipedia itself should take action against every article with 'surname' itself, and remove all these thousands from its database. Which I think would be sad, because of the rich depth and content of these articles, compounded with the several hours of legitimate research that might have gone into creating these articles.
A final conclusion to this mighty discussion. That in fair sense, "parekh" should remain, and be brushed up a little, if it doesnt meet the perfectionist wiki standards. We can all unite to brush and polish it. But in no circumstances, should it be removed, as that would lead to a mass 'exodus' or virtually every other 'surname' and 'name' being deleted from here. A great loss that to the spirit of wikipedia and these great articles created. Let "Parekh" live, the bottom line. And Vizjim thanks for the apologies to all, in future I hope you restrict yourself to open abuse of words such as 'sock puppets' in open forums and other places. They only show your airiness and your deeming of other users here as inappropriate and belittling their views.Coolkeg908 13:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: user has already voted. MER-C 14:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • All surname entries are against the WP:NOT guidelines. This specific entry is against the WP:NOT guidelines. A surprising number of contributions to this discussion are from people making their first contributions to Wikipedia, which makes it highly likely that some or all of these are sockpuppets. My vote remains to delete. Vizjim 13:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete And for what it's worth, I would support deleting ALL surname/name entries as well. Emeraude 13:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Vizjim, you are again resorting to open public abuse by addressing all other users as 'sock puppets'. Your behavior is really absurd. On one hand you apologize as above and now again you are on the ranting and condemning other users. So what if they're a first time. Perhaps, they are trying to enter other discussions as well here at wiki. And even if they're first timers, who gives you the right to condemn them or abuse them or belittle them for that matter. This is serious. I must report this to Wikipedia immediately. They should be taking action. Emeraude, yes you are right and as I'm also saying above, if this 'Parekh' is delete , then alongwith it every 'surname'/'name' wiki article should be deleted. And that should happen instantaneously from the database of wikipedia. It shouldnt be that "Parekh" is deleted first and then time/months pass before other 'surname' articles are deleted. If the deletion of this article has to happen, then on a fair basis, every other wiki article with 'surname'/'name' should be deleted simultaneously. If that isnt done and only this one is given the stick, I feel it would be highly unjust. And we users would never be able to reach out to every 'surname' article here at wiki and inform wikipedia about the same, b'cause there are thousands of them out here , which we'd never be able to tap. Also if they arent deleted simultaneously, all of them with 'surname' , then I dont think justice would prevail. Anyways, in the end, I would leave it to Wikipedia to give its final verdict, all that I would finally like to iterate again is that "Parekh" is a brilliant article in all respects. It should be given its credit for the countless hours of research that must have gone in building the page up.
If it calls for deletion, then so do the thousands of other 'surnames' and 'names' here at wikipedia.org , and that too simultaneous deletion of all these thousands of articles, not that this one goes first, and then the rest take ages to go, just b'cause we users would be virtually unable to point out to them.Coolkeg908 14:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: user has already voted. MER-C 14:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambig: remove all (genealogic) info from the page, and turn it into a disambig page for the few notable people named Parekh. I would normally vote delete, but having a disambig is the usual way to go in cases where there are famous name-bearers. Fram 15:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambig and remove genealogy per above and per WP:NOT a genealogy database. Zunaid 15:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambig per above. Good idea. Eusebeus 15:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambig- Agree with you Disambig. Because of 'noteworthy' people and name-bearers involved, let the page remain, dont delete it. But turn it into a 'disambig' page. The page shouldnt be deleted at any cost, b'cause that gives birth to many more controversies, invoking the immediate deletion of thousands of other pages of 'surnames'/'names' for a fair basis. So I feel, this option works out best and avoids the deletion of several thousands of other related pages. 220.224.21.251 17:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambig I think Fram has the best plan. The disambig page might also help prevent future inclusion of genealogic information. --Maelnuneb (Talk) 18:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment-Since this page was proposed for deletion on Oct 9, I feel that by Oct 14, ie. 5 days later, a final decision would be taken regards its deletion, as there's a time frame of 5 days involved, in which wiki listens to debates. As far as this one goes, well its pretty obvious then that the page would stay and wouldnt be deleted. Good for the Parekh's notable ones, involved here and the very brilliant depth of this article. We'll soon come to know within 2 days or so if I'm not mistaken, about the final status of this page. I'm sure now after all these debates as above that it'd stay. Sadly, if deleted, it'd invoke thousands of other pages to be deleted as well containing 'names' and 'surnames' which are wiki encyclo articles currently. Coolkeg908 18:10, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: not assuming to know the way the closing admin will see this, but the current consensus among the regular editors seems to be to get rid of the current article and to replace it by one that says: "Parekh may refer to: -Link to name1 -Link to name2 - Link to name3." Please don't expect that because most people don't support deletion, this will mean that the article will just stay as it is. It will look something like Farquhar or Hannon, probably. Fram 19:28, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- Well if that is so, that if this page were to be replaced by something as you suggest, with just links to the notable people, with the other stuff being removed, that be it. But then, Wiki should do that on a fair basis for thousands of other pages here with 'names'/'surnames'. It shouldnt be one-sided and only for this page. This has been discussed above. That should be fair enough then. If this were to be converted into the way you are implying, then so should countless others be, similar to this. So I feel, that Wiki would let the article remain, rather than changing thousands of other articles . Coolkeg908 05:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to be quite clear, the logic employed here would lead to the deletion or radical pruning of the following articles: Smith (surname), Clan MacKay, Li (surname), among many others. I'm quite happy with that and will clean up those articles or delete them if the precedent is set here. Vizjim 08:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No problem with the removal of most of the material on Smith (surname). The Clan is more of a political / sociological entry, similar to a tribe (no offense intended towards either tribes or cottish people), so I think that an AfD there may justifiably give a different result. I have nominated for deletion a lot of Indian clans (ghotra's) as well, but reached no consensus. If a name is clearly more than just who was your father and what was the occupation of some greatgreatgrandfather, but indicates a "tribe" (for want of a better word), with political, geographical, ... implications, then more people will be willing to keep the article. This is of course a fuzzy boundary, and it won't be clear on every article in which category it falls (see Habsburg for an extreme example on the "keep" side). I don't feel that this article (Parekh) has enough reason to keep it, and furthermore has a complete lack of sources (thus failing WP:V). Fram 10:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we've come back to squre 1. Its not just about the deletion of surname 'Smith' or another particular surname. The question here is about the deletion of all 'surnames' and 'names' irrespective. That is, if "Parekh" is deleted, so should thousands of them others , particularly 'surnames' should be deleted from Wiki on a fair basis. So, lets not argue on a particular deletion of a 'surname'/'name' alongwith deletion of "Parekh". Lets conclude in a generalized statement, that if "Parekh" is deleted, then on a very fair basis, Wiki should immediately delete all other 'surnames' wiki articles alongwith the same. That's why I've been reiterating that let "Parekh" remain. If there's problems, lets work at updating it or refurbishing it according to Wiki standards. But the bottomline, let "Parekh" remain, in order to avoid the immediate deletion of not just one particular other name/surname, but in order to avoid deletion of thousands of other articles with 'surnames'. Because each Wiki article with surname is like "Parekh" , in conjunction with "Parekh". So you have to be fair in deleting all of them, if the question is about deletion of "Parekh". A surname is a surname. There's nothing special about any surname. They are just encyclopedic articles on each one of them, like the article on "Parekh". Also, the whole absurdity of the situation here is, that whereas someone suggested "Parekh" for deletion in the first case, that someone didnt care about this aspect of several thousands of other surnames being here at WIKI and their simultaneous deletion with "Parekh". If that someone had thought of the same, then he/she wouldnt have suggested or nominated this particular article for deletion. Or whilst nominating this particular article for deletion, would have definitely on an ethical and fair terms, also suggested the deletion of thousands of other 'surname' articles, doing a thorough research on them, and pointing out to them individually by their names. I feel I have nothing more to talk about this. What's fair is fair. Lets adhere to that. That if this goes, so should thousands of other 'surnames'.

Coolkeg908 08:32, 14 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 09:20, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Del Rancho

edit

Small resturant chain, fails WP:CORP. --Peta 03:10, 10 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 per WP:CSD#G11. While the company and its products may be notable, the article is too full of PR-speak and thus would require a substantial re-write to bring it close to a neutral point of view. -- Merope Talk 18:45, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spyrus

edit

Appears tohave been written by the company; no independent claims of notability. --Peta 03:13, 10 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 snowball keep after expansion. No hard feelings towards nominator. The initial draft was indeed suspicious for the Western world. `'mikka (t) 00:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sukhomlinsky

edit

A bizzare biography that fails to demonstrate how or why the subject was notable, delete -Peta 03:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Sounds more like a school essay about a teacher. Sr13 03:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. It's an essay. MER-C 07:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. No sources, no evidence of notability. Emeraude 13:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but re-write. Sukhomlinsky was a very notable educator, one of the minds behind theory and practice of Soviet humanistic pedagogics. The article in its present form doesn't do any justice to this person. I added what I know and could find—hopefully this is sufficient to keep the article.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:V and WP:BIO. Eusebeus 15:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you get a chance to review the materials I added before voting? Sukhomlinsky was awarded a high-profile Soviet title and wrote a book which was awarded a State Prize. That alone should be sufficient to satisfy WP:BIO criteria.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (this began as a weak keep, but I'm now sufficiently perplexed as to be unable to draw a conclusive conclusion) I've long argued that, where a subject is notable but where there is little salvagable encyclopedic content in the article apropos of him/her/them/it, stubbification or deletion (with, concomitantly, a listing on WP:RA) is in order, but there appears here to be sufficient content, especially in view of Ëzhiki's additions, that the concerns as to the bizarre, essayistic quality of the article ought to be allayed; there remains, to be sure, much culling to be done, there is a not insignificant amount of text that might be kept or substantially reworked. As to WP:BIO, whilst I'm not at all certain that one's receiving a Hero of Socialist Labor or the State Prize of the Ukrainian SSR confers notability, I think it likelier than not that Sukhomlinsky is notable in view of his prominence as a pedagogic(al) philosopher, which prominence is evidenced, I suppose, by his having been the exclusive subject of one book (and a referenced subject in fourteen more, as may perhaps be sufficient per WP:PROFTEST) that is, AFAICT, the subject of at least one independent, non-trivial review (so as to suggest that the book, at least, is perhaps notable); whether as an author the subject is notable is a closer question. I was prepared to suggest that reliable sources exist toward his notability, but I don't think the single book to suffice [notwithstanding its having been written by a professor at a notable institution; the professor seems wholly non-notable), especially insofar as (further complicating things), it appears from the August 2004 HD archives that the much of the text for the article was contributed by the book's author), and I can't find much beyond this article in a reliable if non-notable source and this article given as a teaching resource by the Russian, Eastern European, and Central Asian Studies Department at Harvard. It appears that all of the other relevant Ghits are from mirrors and forks. For those who disfavor WP:NN in favor exclusively of WP:V, keep would likely be in order, but I'm not amongst the former number, so I remain altogether conflicted, most significantly in view of the concerns raised by those supra w/r/to the verifiability of that which would confer notability. Joe 17:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    To add to this, Great Soviet Encyclopedia does have an article about Sukhomlinsky (in Russian, of course).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, but re-write. A known Soviet educator, recipient of numerous prestigious (even though Soviet) awards. He is mentioned in the Great Soviet Encyclopedia and contemporary Russian encyclopedias. Indeed, the article looks like an essay, but it doesn't mean he is not notable. And guys, if you never heard of a person, it doesn't mean he is not notable. E.g., I saw a DYK article the other day called Raising the flag over Iwo Jima (sorry for possible mispelling), which CLAIMS that this is the most recognizable image in the world. I've never seen this image in my life until I visited the US. How's that for not notable?? KNewman 17:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep, close the vote and get to work on the article. The person is certainly notable. --Irpen 18:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per above. An award is an award. The fact that it was given in the Soviet Union does not make it less of an award today. As to notability, how many other educators have (in English) a commemorative coin with their face on it?. Vasyl Sukhomlynskyi is a keep.--Riurik (discuss) 19:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Others have adduced much better sources than those I found, and they of course make plain that the subject is notable. I'd intended to ask an editor able to read Russian to weigh in, as I imagined that many more references were available solely in the Russian language, such that a simple Googling wouldn't be dispositive as to notability, but several editors seem already to have taken up that task, for which they are to be commended. As to the awards, btw, I didn't mean to suggest that the fact of their being conferred by the Soviet Union and the Ukrainian SSR thereof ought to be understood to diminish their significance; rather, as I've expressed elsewhere, I look somewhat dimly on our considering as necessarily notable those who have received similar state decorations (even those that are particularly exclusive, such as the Bharat Ratna), but I've come, in any case, to rethink that view. Joe 20:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rewrite - he was a notable theoretician and book author abakharev 00:41, 11 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 09:28, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Madison Kane

edit

A winding unverified vanity piece; delete --Peta 03:16, 10 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 09:28, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Brennan

edit

Artist and academic; notabilty not demonstrate din either field. Delete --Peta 03:19, 10 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 under G4, A7, G11. I won't salt for now, but have no objections if someone chooses to. Luna Santin 04:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

King Entertainment

edit

This article has been recreated by Mr.andrew porter after deletion following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/King Entertainment. Tagged for speedy under G4 but tag removed by King Chavez who was the creator of the previous version of this spam/vanity/hoax article. King Chavez is likely the same person as Mr.andrew porter or a meat puppet. I suggest speedy delete under G4 and protect against recreation. Húsönd 03:21, 10 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. —Cryptic 00:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RAW Family Reunion

edit

This is purely fancruft. The event was just the season premiere of Raw (which happens every year). This isn't a wrestling wiki that needs to list every season premiere and/or 3 hour edition of Raw. It also should be noted: the results of this are already at WWE Homecoming, since this is the 2nd year a Raw event like this has happened. There is no need for redundant pages. RobJ1981 03:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I wouldn't merge it with WWE Homecoming as all Homecoming was was the 2005 season premiere, not the general name for all of RAW's season premiere's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dubhagan (talk • contribs) 22:51, 9 October 2006
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:18, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Louise Harrison

edit

Actress who does not meet notability guidelines. IMDB shows most of her work is uncredited, and does not provide a photo either. Neither of the pages for shows she was in reference her. Vectro 03:36, 10 October 2006 (UT)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:SNOW not withstanding, this nom appears to have been made by a single purpose account unfamiliar with our notability standards. RFerreira 01:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maxi Mounds

edit

Was listed on Speedy Delete then removed. Requires discussion. Individual does not meet Wikipedia notability standards, is a minor pornographic star with little presence outside of personal internet site and mirrors. Recent activity may indicate article created as vanity by Maxi Mounds herself. Popular target for Josh Whedon vandals linking to Wonder Woman (film) KingCobra666 03:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC) — KingCobra666 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Cryptic 00:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fiend Club

edit

Non-notable fanclub that only existed for four years in the 1980s, would have been a possible A7 but it was founded by a notable person, the lead singer of The Misfits, and it's been around for a while. I don't think a merge is valid as the misfits article is very long already Delete-- Jaranda wat's sup 03:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • A merge is still appropriate; the issue of whether to break The Misfits up into multiple articles is a separate one (though I agree, it is too long and needs editing down or breaking into sub-articles). Alba 04:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Eusebeus 15:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - These AfDs are getting more and more ridiculous. PT (s-s-s-s) 17:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I take umbrage slightly with this dismissive and borderline uncivil attitude. What, exactly about the Misfit's fan club warrants its own separate entry as opposed to deleting this and letting it be included at the Misfits? Does every fan club warrant an entry? Why is this one so particularly notable that it warrants a fork from the band's page? I am sure you can provide good and possibly compelling reasons for your decision to keep, but citing WP:OSTRICH seems in this case outside the Point. Eusebeus 17:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Definitely dismissive, certainly incivil. Nothing personal against you, but there has been a crop of bad, bad AfDs lately, and I think this is one of them. I think there are just some people out there who don't like music, aren't fans of music, and don't want to see music articles on Wikipedia, so they're putting up as much as possible for AfD. There was recently a bunch of food articles speedily deleted by a misguided editor, and that demonstrates the point I'm trying to make - why should someone have to argue for an article on Nilla Wafers to be kept? Many of us know what they are, do we really need to take the time to argue about it? Similarly, Fiend Club is pretty well known, and if some misguided editor hasn't heard of it, guess what... there is an article there for them to learn! Unless, of course, they delete it before reading it. PT (s-s-s-s) 17:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Article contains no assertions of notability, and provides no credible, third-party sources. --Satori Son 00:59, 11 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 09:29, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jellopy

edit

Item in an MMORPG, delete --Peta 04:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fancrufty, or transwiki to gaming if one can be found. I can't imagine how this could be notable enough for a general-purpose encyclopedia. Alba 04:11, 10 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 Redirect to Kennedy assassination theories. I have left a message on the talk page requesting anything from the original article be merged to that article. Yomanganitalk 12:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James Files

edit

Disputed prod. Author removed the unsourced tag as well. Article of conspiracy cruft about a living person based almost entirely on a single website with no mainstream reliable sources. Delete. Gamaliel 04:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Falsely accused of lack of resources and dispute over neutrality. References section has been in place since day one. Made clear that information posted has come from subjects statements or from researchers, and not of my own opinion. Made clear that article is not to please majority, but to collect statements from subject and researchers. Accusations of conspiracy is conclusion of accusers, and has been the sole purpose of deletion. Tried to edit any sections that did not have a neutral POV, or lack of reference, and have yet to find one. Challenged accusation on neutrality, challenged accusation that subjects story is minority view, and challenged accusation that govt. doesn't believe story, with ANY REFERENCES. Have yet to see any. Author believes that accusers are unhappy that I did not shadow article with doubt. I believe that would be dishonest to my readers. This article stays. Goldwings 04:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Grab the links, as well as anything with verifiabiility, and add to Kennedy assassination theories. Then delete and redirect there. Alba 04:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect per what Alba said. Also, here's an interesting page disputing the confession [9] --- RockMFR 05:53, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per nom & Alba, merge and redirect; looks like there's not much to merge once WP:V kicks in though. Eusebeus 15:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Added link to the references section. I've tried the best I could to find any mainstream sources, and I've only found one. I WILL NOT be deleting and redirecting, because this page is about James Files as the subject, not scrutiny over his claims. Everyone has attacked the article thinking I'm trying to shove a big conspiracy down the readers throats. This is not the case. That is exactly why I put "Files states...." or "Files claims...." in all sections. Because thats exactly what they are, they are claims and statements. Some of the statements came from the DVD "Files on JFK", which must be purchased. I'm going to come out and say, maybe he's lying, maybe he's telling the truth. I do not know, that is for the readers to decide. I am using the work of several respected researchers, primarily Mr. Wim Dankbaar and Mr. Bob Vernon (but not exclusively), because they've done the hard research, as opposed to others that, say, may have read an article and sprinkle their opinions in a commentary or something. The best I could do was google some more websites to add to the references section. Goldwings 06:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The simple fact of the matter is that the vast majority of "respected [JFK] researchers", even those who are conspiracy-oriented, consider James E. Files to have all the credibility of Wile E. Coyote. Wim Dankbaar's website is close to being the sole reference point for this article and is cited no fewer than twenty times. The article is riddled with pro-Files bias, in spite of the author's claims, and ought to be deleted forthwith; at the very least, it ought to be merged into the JFK Conspiracy Theories section and should not be allowed to stand alone. RogueStates 11:01, 10 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. —Cryptic 00:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

VisualKore, OpenKore, and ModKore

edit

Bots for playing Ragnarok Online; no evidence of notability; delete --Peta 04:05, 10 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. --Sam Blanning(talk) 14:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AEGIS (Ragnarok Online)

edit

MMORPG cruft, no evidence of importance or encyclopedic valuse, delete--Peta 04:06, 10 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. If anyone seriously wants to transwiki this, list it for a temporary undelete, but transwikis to non-Wikimedia wikis are outside the scope of afd. —Cryptic 00:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sage (Ragnarok character class)

edit

Guide to a MMORPG character class; WP is not GameFAQs, delete --Peta 04:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just keep it:/ its not that big of a deal. Nothing to cry about, the more information on WP I see the better. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.11.82.90 (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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 16:20, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bitter:sweet

edit

Non-notable band, has only released one album to date. No reliable sources. Contested prod. MER-C 04:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Having released only one album does not necessarily detract from the notability of a band. Take for example, the Australian band Wolfmother. --Felixir 04:26, 10 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. Although Acaosr asserts without contradiction that they might be notable, right now in the article there is only a couple of sentences here and the tracklisting of a compilation album (which doesn't really belong), so if there might be enough outside coverage and other notable bands to write a real article on them, then surely someone can do so. As he says, this deletion doesn't prejudice such an article. --Sam Blanning(talk) 15:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Big Scary Monsters Recording Company

edit

Independent record label that appears to have only made one release; fails CORP. Delete --Peta 04:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. MER-C 07:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment They have released loads of records. I dont know what to vote either way here but fyi, they are one of the medium to bigger UK independent labels and have limited distribution to record stores. their ex act, Get Cape Wear Cape Fly was signed to Atlantic this year and another of thier acts, Yndi Halda is probably notable enough for inclusion. They are pretty well known amongst uk indie music. (can't sign on as I'm at work, username is User:amists
  • I'm giving this a Weak keep. I don't think giving Get Cape Wear Cape Fly his first releases is enough of itself but they're home to two or three full-time international touring acts and some of their recent releases have enjoyed the attentions of the BBC and The Guardian. A record label can only ever be as notable as its artists and this label is a borderline case but just (and only just) on the right side of the border for my cash. Ac@osr 17:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Keep this page! The label has released many great bands, not just Get Cape. Wear Cape. Fly. See www.bsmrocks.com for evidence of that. An important UK indie label. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.5.170.203 (talk • contribs) 10:36, 12 October 2006 — 82.5.170.203 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Comment - the quality of the music isn't being discussed and isn't relevant. I hate Coldplay but I don't deny their notability. There are plenty of bands/labels I love but wouldn't attempt an article for. The question is whether or not the label is, at this time, of encyclopedic value. If it isn't now, it may be in six months time so a delete is not fatal and binding forevermore. Ac@osr 16:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Vectro 00:33, 18 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 16:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pitboss 2000

edit

No evidence that this group meets MUSIC. --Peta 04:21, 10 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 09:30, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sandra Miranda

edit

No evidence that this lady meets BIO or that her business meets CORP; delete --Peta 04:22, 10 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 no assertion of notability Guy 07:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oriel Harwood

edit

No evidence of notability. Delete --Peta 04:26, 10 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 by Grandmasterka. MER-C 08:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fat mudflap girl

edit

No evidence of notability. Delete --Peta 04:26, 10 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 09:30, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Jersey Citizens for Constitutional Reform

edit

This article was written the day the article was launched. Prod tag was removed by original/only author. I see no reason why this group is any more notable than any other group of "concerned citizens". Not notable and not verified by outside sources. - Che Nuevara 04:48, 10 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 redirect to Variant Magic: The Gathering formats. Mangojuicetalk 18:01, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reject Rare Draft

edit

A non-tournament-sanctioned, casual alternate play format for Magic: The Gathering. I have actually played it before, but it is simply too non-notable even within the game's fan base to have an article. Andrew Levine 04:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ehrm. For future reference, C&P moves are generally frowned upon, as they erase the contributor history required by the GFDL; moving the RRD article would probably have been better. Oh, well, not a huge deal. SnowFire 23:01, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with that is that it would give far too much weight to a single format, and that just didn't sit right with me. But heck, the article probably needs a rewrite from the top anyway. With a whole article, we can do at least a paragraph on each notable format, not just a sentence. FrozenPurpleCube 00:57, 14 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 09:29, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

East Valley Bible Church

edit

Church, no evidence of notability; delete --Peta 04:57, 10 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 16:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hershel Dennis

edit

Do College footballers meet WP:BIO? --Peta 05:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - no. WP:BIO requires "third party verification from a reliable source outside of publications by sponsors of the sport or activity should be provided to demonstrate that the subject is widely recognized as performing at the highest level." This is not provided. MER-C 05:29, 10 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 09:40, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peace Child International

edit

Ad for a not-for-profit; no evidence of encyclopedic value. --Peta 05:04, 10 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 09:40, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Caitlin Campbell

edit

Insignificant media coverage for incorrect spelling of you name does not satisfy WP:BIO; delete --Peta 05:05, 10 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. Mangojuicetalk 18:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Silas Garfield Cool

edit

Delete per WP:Not a memorial. --Peta 05:06, 10 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 09:30, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elvis & Stutz

edit

Indecipherable and probably unencyclopedic, delete --Peta 05:09, 10 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 by Grandmasterka. MER-C 08:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Konwrath Enterprises

edit

Appears to be an ad, Delete --Peta 05:10, 10 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 16:22, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dancing baloney

edit

Original research and an attempt to create a neologism, delete --Peta 05:22, 10 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 09:41, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WWE Homecoming

edit

Pure fancruft like RAW Family Reunion. All it was was RAW's 2005 season premiere. Only thing notable was the fact that it was RAW's return to the USA Network. Anything notable coming from that show isn't deserving of it's own page and should only be with WWE RAW. --James Duggan 05:25, 10 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 merge to Little Einsteins. Mangojuicetalk 18:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Little Einsteins episodes

edit

Partially redundant with content on Little Einsteins, data on this page should be included on that page and episode-specific pages FelineAvenger 05:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should be a merge, then, rather than a delete.Fitzaubrey 08:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is good stuff. Please keep it. Even if you merge it, please list the episodes. My daughter really liked the tulip episode and google pulled up this page. Thanks!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.4.140.2 (talk • contribs) October 18, 2006

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

The result was speedily deleted by Grandmasterka. MER-C 08:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CharityFocus

edit

Unexceptional not for profit; delete. --Peta 05:35, 10 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. —Xezbeth 14:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stickman: The Movie

edit

Prod removed be creator; article lacks context and does not explain why this movie is notable enough to appear in an encyclopeida. --Peta 05:42, 10 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. Mangojuicetalk 20:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

God: Conservator

edit

Google search for "God the Conservator" comes up only with this page on Wikipedia. This article is written from a specific point of view and most definitely consists of original research. As such it breaks current policy and should be deleted. Vizjim 06:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have read it in my books about RC theology. I do not know the exact term in English because I studied it in Czech and in German, but this could be solved by moving the article, if the term Conservator is wrong. BTW the article cites its sources, so I thing that it is enough to prove that the idea is well established.--Ioannes Pragensis 09:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes but they describe the concept. I am not sure about the term in English - in Czech it is Udržovatel and I found many www references related not only to the Christian God, but also to Vishnu and other deities. In English I found this, but it does not use the title as well. - What I wish to say is that the title of the article may be wrong, but the concept is established and IMHO encyclopedic. And a bad title of the article is not a deletion reason.--Ioannes Pragensis 10:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Until someone researches the issue and provides a sourced, useable title that's not a seeming neologism, it sounds as thought this article belongs only on the Czech Wiki. Vizjim 11:27, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please, do not use too much irony against fellow Wikipedians. Wrong title is really not a deletion reason. - Now I found it - the proper English term is Sustainer and not Conservator. Try to google "god creator sustainer" - I've got 250,000+ hits. So I change my vote to "keep and move to God the Sustainer".--Ioannes Pragensis 11:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No irony intended, I do assure you: there are terms which exist in one language and do not have equivalents in another. A Google search for the exact phrase "God the Sustainer" brings up 182 unique hits [10], divided about 50/50 between Islamic and Christian uses of the phrase, so this looks like a workable article name. Nomination withdrawn on condition of article move. Now, how do I close this debate off? Vizjim 13:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait for an admin unless you are one. :-) - The obvious problem of the article is that it is concentrated only on Catholic theology, but the concept of God Sustainer is present also in other Christian denominations, in Islam and other monotheistic religions, and even in Hinduism (Vishnu). It should be broadened. Greetings--Ioannes Pragensis 15:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have seen discussions which ended for withdrawal without being unanimous. But it does not matter much. The important thing is that this is not OR - you can find the notion about God the Sustainer in many books and articles (e.g. http://www.stnews.org/Commentary-2389.htm). And it is not a NPOV violation, because the article just reproduces the Roman Catholic POV and correctly says it. Of course there are other viewpoints which can (and should) be there, but this is not a reason for deletion.--Ioannes Pragensis 20:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This looks like a description of the Holy Spirit to me. The Spirit is often described as 'Comforter' or 'Sanctifier'. Certainly not OR, I think, but not something that demands a new article either. I think merge is best. -- Bpmullins 20:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Islam does not believe in Trinity (and Holy Spirit), but still does believe in God the Sustainer. Therefore I think that the article should be kept and broadened, not restricted to the Christianinty only.--Ioannes Pragensis 21:19, 10 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 a7 web. "The website is relatively unknown, but it is gaining popularity very quickly." NawlinWiki 17:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tattiche difettose

edit

Non-notable webcomic. No ghits. Nehwyn 06:37, 10 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 - discussions as to a possible redirect or merge can take place on the talk page. Yomanganitalk 11:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Ventersdorp

edit

Event described is not notable (insignificant civil march not a battle), no pages link to it. Deon Steyn 06:44, 10 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. —Cryptic 00:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relative Color Principle

edit

A technique for enabling users to change the colours of a web (or other) page by altering just one "seed" colour. Original research. The phrase was unknown to Google until this article was written and none of the third-party refs and links propose the concept. Secondary objections are: verging towards an how-to guide and just an advert for the author's website at oxomoxo.free.fr/rcp . -- RHaworth 06:44, 10 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 16:23, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sterling J. Smith

edit

Tagged as db-bio but author asserts the subject is notable. A quick Google turned up very few mentions for Sterling Smith with any relevant finance keyword, but it was only a quick Google. Guy 06:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note and Question from Author of the Article: First, it should be noted that he did not write this article. The problem may be with the way in which I wrote the article. I did not mean to simply write a resume but I did not want it to be a commercial either. I wanted it to stick only to the facts of the person and give the general information which people have been interested in finding out about. Granted, unless you are involved in the futures industry, you may not be familiar with who this person is. But, due to his commentary on the subject, he is fairly well-known of in this field. Again, this is most likely my own error. I modeled it after some bio articles I found on here such as that of the new CEO of the Ford motor company, etc., as I imagined those would be properly written. Would anyone here be able to suggest what to do to change it so that it does not simply look like a CV - while at the same time maintaining an unbiased and fact-only content so as to stay in line with the integrity of Wikipedia's purpose? Or is it actually ok in it's current form?

Fair enough. Here is an example: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/09/20/business/main2025399.shtml?source=RSSattr=Politics_2025399 This is a link to a recent piece of independent press coverage. See caption under picture in bold.

  • Delete Vice-president of a brokerage firm, like hundreds (thousands?) of others. Very nice, but hardly makes him exceptionally notable. Fan-1967 22:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A lot of firms do business with him, so he is definately legit. I also believe he is a webcaster on a futures news program (checking into URL). Could be the start of something much bigger - maybe keep him around?
  • Delete Article contains no evidence of meeting WP:BIO standards, much less does it use independent sources to establish meeting those standards. The above linked article isn't about Smith, it just uses a one sentence quote by him. We need coverage about him. Also, the rule is first become notable, then get an encyclopedia article, not the other way around. GRBerry 02:03, 12 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 09:41, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UOGamers

edit

This is just any Ultima Online-shard, like there are hundreds out there. Also this page is an orphan! just noticed it by random. --Jestix 06:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - No, with a lot of force, bad temper, and even a mediation request it (as well other shards) were finally removed from RunUO. The fact is, it atracts lots of l33t-kid server admins as well adding their shard. With the comment, why may this shard be here and that not. Also rising a lot of bad temper why people counting themself to the runuo development team may add their shards to wikipedia page, while others may not. And I really don't thing we want a comprehensive shard (server) listing on wikipedia.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jestix (talk • contribs) .
Mmm, you're probably right. There was similar issue with Legend of the Green Dragon: People were adding random game servers, so I kind of decreed that only official servers (and heck of a notable otherwise) should be listed, and for the rest, link to LotGDnet was added. And it worked. We're not a server directory, really; Listing official servers in LotGD is alike to saying "there's the UO official shards (here, here, and here), and there's random others too, but we're not listing them because judging their worthiness is difficult." --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 18:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
UOGamers is a 3rd party server, not an "official" UO server. However I don't know, it might be the largest "unofficial" server out there... --Jestix 19:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's what I meant, as in "UO has official shards run by Origin Systems (or at least what's left of it, these days), run at (locations); there's unofficial shards that are based on things like RunUO, but we can't list them blah blah blah". Sorry if I was unclear. =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:09, 12 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 16:23, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UOgateway

edit

I know Afd is not cleanup, but this page is at is absolut unacceptable in style, yet it doesn't seem to get any better with time. Might even be better to make a new start one day. If the lemma is notable at all (I don't know) Jestix 07:12, 10 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 14:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John den Dulk

edit

Tagged db-bio but there is at least some assertion of notability. This is a nominee (not even a candidate yet). Is there an article on this particular race to which the article can be merged? Certainly does not appear to meet WP:BIO. Pictured with an elephant - very droll. Guy 07:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - election candidates generally aren't non-notable unless elected. MER-C 07:42, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - doesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:C&E. -David Schaich Talk/Cont 16:48, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, Guy, you say "this is a nominee (not even a candidate yet)". But a nominee of a major political party (Republican) is possibly further along in the policial process than a mere "candidate". Did you mean to say "not even an elected official yet"? If so, why are candidates for a national political office (assuming reliable sources about their candidacy can be found) inherently non-notable? In this particular case, I could only find one article in a reliable source to support keeping this article, so I abstain from voting here. · j e r s y k o talk · 19:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • jersyko, candidates are generally non-notable because (unless they succeed) nobody would want to know about them in 10 years' time, and sources will not remain available to keep the article up-to-date. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a directory or news source. Also, Delete. Vectro 17:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, so candidates in an election to a national office are inherently (generally) non-notable. What if there are multiple reliable sources (say, newspaper articles, which, despite your comment to the contrary, will be available 10 years from now) that provide enough verifiable information such that an article about the candidate can be written? Additionally, what proof do you have that someone will not want to read about an election and its candidates 10 years from now? (Actually, that's probably the best time to study an election, or even later than that, after the historical picture becomes more clear with time) The whole idea is (1) biased in favor of incumbents and possibly violates NPOV and (2) supported only by subjective perception of what is and is not "notable" with passing reference to WP:NOT. The blanket assertion that political candidates are non-notable is, I posit, an untenable position. I don't meant to single out your arguments only, Vectro, as there are other editors who have argued in the same vein. I suppose all I can do is chalk it up as yet another example of the overuse of notability as a ground for deletion. · j e r s y k o talk · 18:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Not so much biased in favor of incumbents as biased in favor of notable individuals, which happen to include incumbents and some, though not all, of their challengers. I see no violation of NPOV. I just want to add that significant press coverage in reliable, verifiable sources is actually an indication of notability, and is listed as such in WP:BIO, in its discussion of major local political figures. -David Schaich Talk/Cont 18:53, 13 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. Titoxd(?!?) 20:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Thrasher (politician)

edit

Another political hopeful. No information form any source other than the man himself. Guy 07:17, 10 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 14:36, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Kanno

edit

Another political hopeful with no sources outside of his own campaign. Guy 07:20, 10 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 14:36, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Jones (California politician)

edit

Another political hopeful with no sources outside his own campaign. Guy 07:21, 10 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 14:36, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Ross (politician)

edit

And another political hopeful with no sources outside his own campaign. Guy 07:22, 10 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 above the law. El_C 07:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Judges above the law

edit

inherently POV and does not relate to any established concept Fitzaubrey 07:27, 10 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 14:37, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kendall Logan

edit

Non-notable character that only appeared in one issue of a non-canon comic book story. CovenantD 07:33, 10 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 14:37, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

D Min

edit

Not notable artist/musician, self-promotion article. Prod deleted by anon. TexMurphy 07:34, 10 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. — CharlotteWebb 15:08, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SaRenna Lee

edit
SaRenna Lee was nominated for dleetion on 2005-08-16. The result of the prior discussion was "nomination withdrawn". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SaRenna Lee/2006-08-16.

Article lacks ANY verifiable information. Not ONE citation. Subject is a completely unnotable pornographic star with very internet presence other than her own pornographic website (with a completely low Alexa rating), and mirror sites. Only notability seems to be 1. Her extremely large breasts 2. Being one of the few neo-fascist big breast stars 3. Her heroin addiction, none of which qualifies her whatsoever under current AfD rules. Should be speedy deleted but I knew some would complain KingCobra666 07:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC) — KingCobra666 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Coredesat 20:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wendy Whoppers

edit

No establishment of notoriety. Website has an Alexa rating of below 600,000. Only other notability is the ownership of a MySpace. Major films include "Razor Woman" and "UFO Tracker" both B-grade films with limited releases, prints lost. More big-boobcruft. I hope people can look past their prejudices towards well-endowed women and realize this stuff is completely unnotable and doesnt belong on an encyclopedia. KingCobra666 07:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC) — KingCobra666 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Delete per nom - owning a Myspace isn't an assertion of notability. MER-C 07:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. I'm discovering new crufts every day... yandman 09:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per above. PJM 11:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Model what? as per MER-C. Khukri (talk . contribs) 12:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable within her genre and part of an ongoing WikiProject (which I'm not involved in, I might add). 23skidoo 14:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep one of the most notable of her particular group. She meets WP:PORNBIO, not only section 6 ("Performer has been notable or prolific within a specific genre niche" - very many magazine appearances and covers) but section 5 ("Performer has appeared multiple times in notable mainstream media outlets) - including the talk shows of Montel Williams, Danny Bonaduce, and Richard Bey. [11] AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Note that nominator is a new user, with a total of 10 contributions, all for Articles for Deletion nominations. AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Yeah, it's porn-cruft but this has notability within porn. SchmuckyTheCat 21:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per AnonEMouse and 23skidoo, possible bad faith nomination by a single purpose account to boot. After reviewing the Wikipedia Top 10 for August 2006, I am a bit bewildered by this anti-big-bust bias! RFerreira 01:24, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, but possibly keep if AnonEMouse's claims can be added to the article. Vectro 03:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep one of the most visible actresses of the large breast porn subgenre.  ALKIVAR™ 03:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please she is notable in large breasted porn genre Yuckfoo 07:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Agree the article needs work and sourcing, but it meets WP:PORNBIO. Vic sinclair 17:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Added sourcing to article. AnonEMouse (squeak) 21:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: The sources adduced so far seem to be limited her own, aside from her list of appearances at IMDB. ¶ More generally, I'm puzzled by the way in which WP seems to treat seriously the biographical claims of this or that porn star(let). My utterly uneducated guess is that these people would draw a line between their professional and private lives, and would take considerable precautions to protect the latter from their ardent (and priapic) fans (who will certainly be represented among WP readers, if not editors). If this guess is correct, then the phrasing would be something like "According to the biography concocted for her, the person marketed as 'Wendy Whoppers' was born on 13 August 1970" blah blah blah. -- Hoary 03:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not sure what the bases for your complaints are. Her own site is an authoritative source on relatively uncontroversial matters per Wikipedia:Verifiability. Things like her film, magazine, and television appearances are uncontroversial unless you find a source that questions them. AFDB lists 95 of her 120 films, IMDB also lists quite a few. Here is a link to a YouTube page with an clip of her on Montel Williams, likely a copyright violation, like so much on YouTube, but it is proof of her appearance. Yes, porn stars lie in their bios, but not nearly as much as the writers, lawyers, businessmen, and politicians, whose claims we also take seriously without claims contrary. Finally, the very first sentence in the article says it's her stage name, without using the unnecessary and loaded words "concocted"and "marketed"; all that is what a stage name is. We don't even do that much in the whole lead section for John Wayne, surely no less of a concocted and marketed persona. AnonEMouse (squeak) 13:47, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I thought I'd made the bases pretty clear. Yes, I think the IMDB list of her appearances (or perhaps we should say revelations) in films, etc., would be fairly uncontroversial. It's a long list, and I imagine that it meets WP's porn notability criteria, which I have neither read nor claimed to have read (this being one reason why I haven't voted). You say: Yes, porn stars lie in their bios, but not nearly as much as the writers, lawyers, businessmen, and politicians, whose claims we also take seriously without claims contrary. This seems strange. The facts that the two groups want to advertise or obscure are likely to be very different. Politicians' addresses will be known to the mass media, the more prominent among them will get police protection. Porn stars' addresses are a different matter, and the porn cliche that the stars like to pork virtually anyone, any time is likely to inflame the passions of the dimmer readers. I find it hard to imagine that the stars would get police protection, much though they might deserve it. Politicians have to talk truthfully about their origins, academic achievements, etc.; if they don't, the opposition will pounce on the inaccuracies. By talking truthfully about her past, a porn star makes it easier for her more ardent fans to locate her in the present, which is something I imagine she's unlikely to want. Et cetera. So again, I've nothing against porn stars in general or this one in particular, and I am completely certain that this one exists -- but I've no particular reason to think their "biographical details" (other than nationality and very approximate age) are more than fiction. -- Hoary 23:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Aha. I think I see your point. However, given all that, what exactly in the article do you object to? The sentence "...currently resides in Fort Lauderdale..."? I actually can't find that on her bio or other sources. Will strike. That she was born in St Louis 30 years ago? That hardly makes her easy to find now, so I would leave that in. All that said, does that weigh on the article's being deleted completely, which is what this AfD page should be about, or should we move it to the article's talk page, which should be where individual minor facts are discussed? AnonEMouse (squeak) 13:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Those are very reasonable comments. I've more to say, but while I haven't decided whether or not to bother to say it (and bore you with it), this probably isn't the right place, so I'll shut up. Aside, that is, from the pithy contribution I'm about to make a short distance below. -- Hoary 10:07, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the sage words of AnonEMouse. Meets multiple criteria from the relateively strict porn bio guideline. Silensor 19:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This athlete has indisputably been revealed in a long list of (cellophane-wrapped) material. Therefore keep. -- Hoary 10:07, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the comments made above this article meets our proposed WP:PORN BIO criteria. Yamaguchi先生 20:16, 14 October 2006
  • Keep per the above. --Myles Long 20:46, 16 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 14:38, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ZCC

edit

Delete based on lack of notability. Wiki article is only hit on google for Zesmo Commander Codes Antonrojo 07:56, 10 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 23:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Denali (band) and Maura Davis

edit

I was about to delete this and Maura Davis but then I noticed a keep in a related AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keeley Davis. —Quarl (talk) 2006-10-10 08:23Z

  • To note, I prodded the article because it fails WP:MUSIC. The band has only two indie-label released albums and has no assertion of other notability. The only other possibility is the membership of Keeley Davis whose article says he "was also briefly in the band Denali," and he's not that notable himself. In ordinary circumstances, redirects are more appropriate for notability-by-association with a notable member. Here, because of the unimportance of Davis to the band itself, a redirect seems inappropriate. Note also that nothing, inculding any potential assertions of notability, is sourced with reliable, verifiable sources. I favor deletion. Dmcdevit·t 08:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well they toured nationally and that's one of the requirements for a band having a wikipedia article also they were on "Jade Tree Records" which is a notable indie label, and that's another requirement, so i say keep the article.69.213.152.159 21:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not only is there no reliable source for a tour, the article doesn't even say that. Dmcdevit·t 22:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The band's website details U.S. national tours from 2000-2004, and lists their two major releases on Jade Tree Records, which is a major independent label. I think the notoriety of band is not a question. Keep the main article, but a possible redirect for Maura Davis' article may be a good option.Jemather 01:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • The band's website is not a "notable and verifiable source." It doesn't fulfill WP:MUSIC. Can you find a notable and verifiable source for a nationwide tour? Dmcdevit·t 03:08, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Allmusic.com has notes about their two releases on Jade Tree and their tours. Also, the band's website is a primary source for information about themselves - it meets WP:RS, and Allmusic corroborates the information.Jemather 14:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable and passes WP:MUSIC. - Lex 18:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Reliable sources establishing notability. Recorded on notable indie labels. Passes WP:MUSIC. --Marriedtofilm 23:45, 17 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. This is all a bit of a confusing mess of new accounts, unsigned commentary and inter-personal mini-feuding. Nevertheless, the reasoned argumentation that there is leans clearly enough toward deleting. The publications by this author are really pretty minimal also, and so there is none bestowed upon this book by transference. (I would also observe that the article is massively over-detailed and entirely disproportionate to its own needs.) I do not think it met any of the recent castings of G11, however. Someone mentions that an admin can see if it was an AOL IP or not; unfortunately they cannot see the IP underlying a logged-in account. -Splash - tk 23:14, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dreadmire

edit

Bumped from speedy; neutral. There is relevant discussion at Talk:Dreadmire. —Quarl (talk) 2006-10-10 08:31Z

Also List of Dreadmire Fantasy Animals and List of Fictional Animals in Dreadmire —Percy Snoodle 13:24, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the speedy reason given was "It is blatant advertising for a company, product, group or service that would require a substantial rewrite in order to become an encyclopedia article" (G11). Yomanganitalk 09:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete Looking at the EZboard link provided on the talk page it's clear this article is trying to gain publicity for this book. Delete, is because this smacks of advertising. I do not believe Wikipedia should be used as the repository for every single stat or book or episode related to a certain subject. But and this is a big but and the reason for the Weak delete, is that precedent has been set all over Wikipedia, using a term I've noticed recently of fancruft i.e. stats of everysingle WWE wrestler. There are far better resources out on t'interweb for this type of thing. For me it would be better as an external link on maybe the RPG article that links to a comprehensive list of these books. Khukri (talk . contribs) 13:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If you read the Spellbinder Games EZboard link provided on the talk page you will see there is a discussion with the author and his publisher. Apparently they agree with Khukri about the fancruft (nice word by the way). However, I also agree that precedent has been set on Wikpedia already, including descriptions of lesser known books not even published yet (Savage Tide), and obscure editors/authors/publishers of all types and genres. For example I offer Mystara, Greyhawk, Eberron and Erik Mona, as well as "Category:Dungeons & Dragons campaign settings" and "Category:Dungeons & Dragons books". As to fancruft, Dreadmire certainly is part of that category. But Dreadmire also had noteworthy legal issues, it introduced new paradigm to the fantasy gaming genre, and the author, Randy Richards, has been a well known figure in the gaming industry for over 10 years. --Cryogenesis 01:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The talk page covers the true issue with Randy, ego. He has no body of work and no fame beyond what any fan would have. Dreadmire has set no records of note. There is no legal status as no legal proceedings were conducted, the book was simply rejected and the project dropped. No new paradigms were introduced, I do have a copy of the book, most of the swamp information was copied from other public sources and no relevant game information was produced. The site is self promotion and spam. Currently Randy has no associations with gamming. He hits the local cons only to shill his book. He rejects all views contrary to his own and lashes out at anyone with a different viewpoint. He is a master at the sockpuppet. Currently Randy owns his book site, the spellbinder site and the message board. He owns the Spellbinder and dreadmire name user names, I believe he is also Cryogenesis as well as I fail to see any person who would want a worship site for him. Deletion is earned just by the need to make this something it is not. Lets wait 5 years and let Randy publish a few more books under his company Spellbinder then we can revisit this.Quode 02:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Its obvious Quode has some sort of vendetta against the author. His words just ooze hatred. Might I suggest we employ "speedy keep", and consider banning the IP of user Quode for abuse of the delete function as per Wikipedia guidelines on such matters.
  • Comment I suffered unprovoked attacks for writing a single review. Again, I stand up to bullies. If I must be censured for promoting the truth so be it. But remember, Randy/Cryogenesis, cannot offer a shred of proof for any of his declarations so far and I have offered proof as I can for mine. Quode 02:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As I said, this is personal for you. That has no place here. You desperately WANT your accusations to be true. You felt slighted and now you seek revenge. Okay, fine, but you should post your accusation on the Spellbinder Games forum, or some other gaming forum. It has nothing to do with the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia, which is primarily "notability". If someone had to be moral or ethical to be a part of Wikipedia, then there would be no articles on Adolph Hitler or David Koresh. Trying to convince us that Randy Richards is crazy or unethical has nothing to do with the notability of the Dreadmire article about his book. It does have to do with any article about Randy Richards -- and ironically such accusations may even increase his notability. Good luck with your vendetta, just please take it off Wikipedia.
  • Comment Suggested further reading for Quode: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view; Wikipedia:Verifiability; Wikipedia:Notability. --Cryogenesis 04:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The above quote is accurate. It may seem trivial, but its a game, and no one is saying its noteworthy beyond that genre. Its certainly no better than the wrestling. You have to intimately know the genre to understand why the book is notable. If the Dreadmire entry is deleted, there are going to be hundreds - maybe thousands - of other deletions of books, campaign settings, TV shows, editors, and authors that must follow. Precedent has already been set in this genre. If its gets deleted I am sure someone else will eventually add it back without realizing it was deleted. No big deal I guess, I just hate to see all my work go to waste and someone else get to enter it. If it needs to be "cleaned up" then clean it up, don't delete it. Suggestions on cleanup are welcome.--Cryogenesis 07:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The above quote is accurate I never claimed it was false, which is sort of the point: a false claim would have the virtue of being reasonable if it were true. As for "cleaning up", as the New York Times has said, if you wash garbage, you just wind up with clean garbage.All right, actually that was me being quoted by the Times in an article about AFDs. But it's verifiable! And true! And totally trivial! --Calton | Talk 08:10, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't know what other ONLINE references I can point to. To prove to you the book is, without a single doubt, notable, I would have to take you to a few dozen conventions to watch and talk to the people playing the game, and talk to industry game designers and companies. I would have to show you the other reviews and articles written in magazines that don't have their content available on the internet (which is rare). I would have to take you to game stores across the U.S. to get the scuttlebutt on the book by gamers. Its not like Wrestlemania where its easy to see on TV. This is something that takes place in real life, in garages and game cons all over the world. The links I provided give some indication to the level of interest about Randy Richards and his published works. Dungeons & Dragons books, even the ones produces by Wizards of the Coast, are not likely to be reviewed on national television or other more established book sources, which is what it seems that you want. The convention circuit is where such books are reviewed - with money and play time, and guest spots for the author. I have provided several of these links to establish a verifiable pattern. Explain to me what more you want and I will try to provide it. --Cryogenesis 07:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Agreeing with Robbstrd, this is fairly blatant advertising. --Idran 21:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Why all the discussion about Ego and advertising? Shouldn't this be about the Product? Has anyone here actually read the book? I have. I own a copy bought with my hard earned cash and the fact is... I like it. Being a Gamer of 24 some odd years, I've seen the Golden Age of Role Playing Games. I have also seen the business side, where corporations try to turn a profit on my favorite hobby. I've seen an assortment of products: some that were fairly absurd and some with stories that gripped me and made my imagination run wild. I would get an idea that would start a campaign that went on for months and gave me many an enjoyable hour sitting with friends. Randy Richards book, "Dreadmire", reminds me a good deal of the wonderful modules and products of the "younger" days of DnD.. It gave me quite a shock of nostalgia when I first thumbed through it and I'm glad I bought it. What about the fact that The Ancient Druids left several mysterious artifacts behind, many of them sunk into the swamp? What about the possible side effects of "Dark Pollen" created by the "Somesuch" and can something be "brought back from the Dark Side"?? Does anyone want to discuss the 'pros and cons' of having Leacon the Ducklord as your Deity of choice? He, Randy, gave us a Great deal of information while keeping some portions ambiguous enough to allow the DM to "run" with an idea he/she might have. Personally, I'm tired of spending a great deal of money for a thin book which Dreadmire certainly is not. It was well worth the money in my opinion and deserving of a mention here for other 'pure gamers' to find. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.230.180.50 (talk • contribs) 01:54, October 12, 2006
Comment The above anonymous IP is a single purpose account.
  • Delete To add some clarity there were no nominations made for Randy or Dreadmire at the Gen Con EN World RPG Awards *[12]. This is where the fans speak. No fan nominated or voted for Dreadmire. Granted there will be those who like the product but for the ENnie awards a large fan base is required. At major message boards there are no debates of the merits of the book, the spellbinder site is dead. Compared to Necromancer Games which is alive over the full hobby and its new offerings. Quode 06:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This was discussed on the message board. ENnie nominations for books that were published in 1995 are nominated at the beginning of 1996. Since the book was published in December of 1995, and worldwide book distribution did not begin until Spring of 1996, there was no chance to nominate Dreadmire. It is my understanding from reading the website, that since it was technically published in 1995 it will never be able to be nominated for an ENnie, even if its the greatest D&D book ever published.--Cryogenesis 07:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Dreadmire was published in December 2005 and the awards cover the time from 2005 to 2006 as the awards are in the summer. Thus Dreadmire was eligible. As an example to avoid confusion we have this winner, Mutants & Masterminds Second Edition *[13] It was released before dreadmire and had won Quode 13:32, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Uhhhh, as I just posted, according to Alliance Games Distribution the worldwide distribution did not begin until Spring of 2006, in mid-May. I would hardly think that is enough time for gamers to play and evaluate the book in time for an ENnie nomination. Seriously, its got 220,000 words. Thats at least 6 months of reading for me, let along playing the game and getting a feel for the campaign setting.
  • A quote from the notability link you just provided, "In order to have a verifiable article, a topic must be notable enough that it will be described by multiple independent reliable sources." The External Links in the article are designed to do this, providing multiple independent predominantly reliable sources.--Cryogenesis 13:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • And as I said before, precedent has been set on Wikpedia already, including descriptions of lesser known books not even published yet (Savage Tide), and obscure editors/authors/publishers of all types and genres, such as Eberron, as well as "Category:Dungeons & Dragons campaign settings" and "Category:Dungeons & Dragons books".--Cryogenesis 13:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggestions on how to improve the article would be helpful. I would prefer these suggestions came from people that didn't hate the author or took sides in the legal issue surrounding the original manuscript.--Cryogenesis 13:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the most relevant notability guideline would be the proposed WP:BK. Actually, however crufty the article might be, I believe that the book does barely meet the proposed criteria on grounds that it has received multiple reviews so I would (reluctantly) recommend keeping the article. It might however need a very thorough rewrite. Pascal.Tesson 13:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Change my mind to delete I was not careful enough the first time around: there is no indication that the said reviews are non-trivial. Many of those are from open forums and posted by fans or, for all we know, the author himself. Some are just mentions in passing and not actual reviews with any sort of depth and it's questionnable whether these are truly independent. Moreover, the obvious sockpuppetry on this AfD is a very ominous sign and my recent arguing with Cryogenesis (talk · contribs) on the article about the author does lead me to think that he is, if not Randy Richards himself, then certainly someone with close ties to him. Pascal.Tesson 22:12, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Suggestions on which parts to re-write would be appreciated. The only reason I added all the links was because I had to show the book was Notable and Verifiable. If the article remains undeleted, then the external links could be removed. Would that make it seem less like an advertisment? Personally I don't care about any of the External links at all, including the ones to the publisher's website. I was just copying the format of the Eberron article, thinking that was "normal" for a Notable and Verifiable fancruft Wikipedia entry.--Cryogenesis 18:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obvious advertising, the article clearly doesn't satisfy WP:notability .--Cliveklg

  • Keep I bought Dreadmire during the Summer when it first became available in my area at my local hobby store. My original intention was to read the book and knock the wind out of it in an online review. I had high hopes of pointing out all the IP violations. That never happened because 1) there isn't any I could find, and 2) the book was just that darn good. A game is a game, and no one is going to argue (hopefully) that Dreadmire is going to solve world hunger or bring peace to the Middle East. And I know there are a lot of harsh feelings against the author. The book he wrote is unbelievably engaging and detailed. So good in fact that we have a club here locally we call "Dread Gamers" and we get together every week to play in the Dreadmire campaign setting. I can't speak for everyone. Its a popular book in my circle of friends. I know at least 14 gamers that own a copy. If people can separate the book from their bias against the author, you'll see why Dreadmire deserves an article on Wikipedia.--JLsan 22:44, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: It sounds like a hodge podge of half-baked ideas and juvenile scribblings
  • No vote :: however, I earnestly request the closing admin to review the contribution history of the vociferous Mr. Quode, who, it would appear, edits Wiki~ solely to pursue a campaign against this article, and that concerning Dreadmire's author, Mr.Richards. He alleges sockpuppetry against Mr.Richards :: I hubly suggest that User:Quode may be a pseudonym for a Wiki~ editor with a grudge. -- Simon Cursitor
  • Delete. I would request the closing admin review the contribution history of user Cryogenesis. This user's entire edit history reads like a massive, interlinked set of advertisements for the non-notable author "Randy Richards" and this particular publication. User Cryogenesis has (as of the time of this posting), edited the Dreadmire article (a book written by Randy Richards), uploaded images of said publication, added lists of fictional Dreadmire-specific plants and animals, created an article on Spellbinder Games (the publisher of Dreadmire, and apparently no other works despite the fact that it is claimed Spellbinder has existed since 1975), created a biography of Randy Richards, and made almost no other contributions beyond a few edits on other D&D-related topics. In addition, several of these inter-linked articles have been created since the Dreadmire article was nominated for deletion. It would seem *highly* likely that Cryogeneis is in fact Randy Richards, and that he is in blatant violation of WP:AUTO. In fact, if you examine the edit history for all of these articles, you will find that Cryogenesis has created all of them, and made almost all of the substantive edits to these articles. There's a WP term for this, which escapes me at the moment, but essentially this is a circle-jerk type of phenomenon. Cryogenesis has created and edited a bunch of articles which fail WP:Notability, and made them look interlinked and "sourced," when in fact this is one giant circular, interlinked advertisment for a non-notable publication. The original nomination for speedy under CSD:G11 (a.k.a. WP:SPAM) should have been honored, but an admin was fooled by the interlinked nature of these articles. I hope that the closing admin will not be similarly misled. Fairsing 04:22, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am not Randy Richards, thankyouverymuch. The external sources are the "proof", not the Wikiepdia interlinks. Another form of proof, as someone else pointed out, is the voluminous interest in this article (number of posts on both sides of the issude). If there was little interest in this book, then the post count would be low (and posts from people not involved in petty grudge match against the author). The high post count proves its notability ad hoc.--Cryogenesis 04:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Just because someone who reads Wikipedia on a regular basis decides in this case to, for the first time, to vote in this debate does not mean they are a sock puppet. The admin can tell by the IP address who is a sock puppet and who is not. The people who voted for deletion are likely meat puppets for Quode (I recognize some of Quode's associates on the delete side of the fence). Quode obviously has some sort of grudge against the author, the book, or both. Meat puppets are commonly used in such cases. As to Dreadmire, the entry is no more an advertisement that the campaim setting examples already given (Eberron, Greyhawk, etc.). The book meets the Wikipedia book WP:BK criteria for Keep, barely, but given the interest on this page I would have say it has wide notability. For that reason I say Keep.--BinksG 13:32, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Most if not all of Randy Richards sock puppet have an AOL e-mail address. As an example we have the reviewer Nick Lee; ChATurrentine@aol.com, and Clawedfrog from EZboard; jackstrade@aol.com. Another e-mail from some of the RPG boards is acererak@aol.com. All of the Spellbinder business e-mails are also AOL and owned by Randy. http://www.dreadmire.com/ contacts. One question is in regard to the IP of any e-mail. Randy answers this on his message board "Not if you are dialing in through AOL, as they either scramble the IP or somehow use the same IP for everyone." This is the same problem Necromancer Games has in keeping Randy and his sock puppets out. http://p105.ezboard.com/fnecromancergamesfrm17.showMessage?topicID=148.topicQuode 16:36, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am quite sure the Admin can tell whether or not a post is from an AOL IP or not, if that helps. I want the article to stay up, but not if we have to cheat. The article can stand on its own merits and notability without "sock puppets". As to the "meat puppets", have you noticed many of the "delete" voters seem to be associated with Quode and the "Greyawk Wiki Project"? Interesting. As to the stuff about Randy (the author) and Spellbinder Games' e-mails, that is neither here nor there. True or not, it is not relevant to the Wiki article.--Cryogenesis 04:42, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Whether or not your assertions are true or false has nothing to do with the question at hand, except that it shows your continued obsession in furthering your vendetta.--Cryogenesis 04:42, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Credibility suffers when “facts” change while trying to discredit an observation. This discussion is in regards to this article being spam. When first raised we had this argument brought to the table “I would also like to note the article is not meant to be an advertisement for Dreadmire. The book was published several years ago, and I believe its "run" is over (in the gaming industry, book runs are often short-lived). If this article is perceived that it is to be used to sell books, I would think its a little late for that!”. And yet when there was an issue with this article being noteworthy we learn this. “Uhhhh, as I just posted, according to Alliance Games Distribution the worldwide distribution did not begin until spring of 2006, in mid-May. I would hardly think that is enough time for gamers to play and evaluate the book in time for an ENnie nomination.” The same goes when people try to paint me as being one thing or another. My argument and reasons for such are clear along with my motivation, I stand up to bullies. Please do not confuse infamy with notability, endless diatribe with beneficial debate.Quode 02:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Credibility suffers when “facts” change while trying to discredit an observation. The comments about worldwide distribution, ENnie qualification, and the "run" of the book being over, are all accurate. The d20 market is soft. In the 1980's/90's a typical D&D book run was 30,000 books. In 2006, a game company is lucky if it sells 800 books. 1,400 book sales would be a runaway hit. 2,000 would be a blockbuster. Ask any game company, including WotC, Spellbinder Games, and Necromancer Games, if you don't believe me. It doesn't take but a couple of months to sell 800 to 2,000 books. The "run" of the book is over, as would most any game book by this time. Perhaps you should do more industry research before spin doctoring information to fit your version of the world. The only bully here is you, as your consistent hammering has made self-evident.--Cryogenesis 18:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment BTW, infamy is indeed a form of notability.--Cryogenesis 15:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Noting an echo in here -- Simon Cursitor
Comment I wholly agree that these should be deleted. However, it's rather bad practice to add deletion candidates to an ongoing AfD since we can't simply assume that everyone who sounded off on Dreadmire also agrees with these deletions. A separate nomination would be in order for these. Pascal.Tesson 14:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm happy to leave that up to the closing admin. If the only existence of these creatures is in a non-notable book, they my view would say that they are obviously non-notable, and going through an AfD for them is just going to be a waste of everybody's time. Cheers --Pak21 14:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For a long while these three votes were lying atop the page, unsigned. Of course all three are from editors with no other contributions to Wikipedia. 22:32, 20 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 14:39, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Graves

edit

This article was an expanded radio bio stub, in which major inaccuracies were reported, as a means to defame the subject's character. There aren't any factual or verifiable pieces of this biography. This was edited by someone that is trying to libel this subject. Californiawikisooth 08:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Editor's sole contributions to Wikipedia have been to try and remove this article, has been warned for page-blanking it. The other editors involved are serious contributors. Not sure about the notability of the subject, though. yandman 09:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend also including in this listing the following additional articles related to Paul Graves:

--AbsolutDan (talk) 12:52, 10 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 14:47, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Dawn of Chaos

edit

This is a WarCraft III mod that has yet to be completed. The author is more than welcome to recreate this article when the mod is out and see if it passes muster, but right now it violates WP:NOT. Previously created at Dawn of chaos. Danny Lilithborne 08:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete, non-notable. yandman 09:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. All information is an unbiased representation of what already exists within the mod, as seen through the multiple demos the development team has released. No endorsement of its download or the website that hosts it is included, nor is there even currently a link to the website it is hosted by. This violates none of the WP:NOT rules in terms of advertisement. What rule specifically are you referring to? Or do you have any suggestions as to how to expand it over the next day to make it fit the criteria you think it is missing? Also, as for things that are not complete being listed on Wikipedia, you might also want to report Splinter_Cell_4as it will not be released until late October. Johnathan Drake 9:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I have made a lot of updates and corrections over the past few hours. Let me know if that is sufficient, and thanks in advance for taking the time to help me with it. Also, here is another link to an unreleased game: The_Fool_and_His_Money. Perhaps the speculation notice would be sufficient instead of... complete deletion of the topic. Johnathan Drake 12:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. The entirety of the references for this article are an interview at a fansite and a bunch of forum links. Since this isn't even done yet and the article was written by the creator, I'm inclined to doubt that there's anything else. This isn't anything like Splinter Cell 4, which has had widespread mainstream press coverage already. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Changing my vote to delete for the reason cited above. Johnathan Drake 23:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, does not show notability. Vectro 03:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above Percy Snoodle 12:52, 11 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 14:47, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pierre-luc paquet

edit

Non notable, 42 google hits, of which 3 on Wikipedia, and most of the rest aren't about this one. yandman 09:14, 10 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. No evidence has been provided to counter the lack of notability claims made by those advocating deletion. If it is indeed notable the article can be recreated with appropriate references. - Yomanganitalk 11:05, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cross Language Evaluation Forum

edit
  ATTENTION!

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

You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!
Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}.

Non-notable event. Contested prod. MER-C 02:44, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Looking over the google hits, I'm not so certain about the notability of this event. Without a guideline at hand, I'm tending to lean in the keep direction. Mitaphane talk 12:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obviously the Cross-Language Evaluation Forum is not as notable as FIFA World Cup but within the information retrieval comunity, specially within the European Union this is a really notable event. I wonder if Mitaphane is an expert in Information Retrieval or Natural Language Processing. I vote for the non deletion.
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Keitei (talk) 09:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: CLEF has been a major driving force behind much cross-language research, in Europe and beyond. Increasingly, it is also the platform of choice for investigating innovative retrieval scenarios, proposed by research comunity and/or industry. It has given rise to hundreds of scientific publications, and is an excellent venue for new research groups and young researchers to get into the field. Finally, more and more IR and NLP research in Europe needs to be supplemented with explicit task-based evaluation efforts---CLEF provides an evaluation platform for a broad variety of information access tasks, and because of that it (and the many retrieval test sets that it has produced since the start of the century) has become an essential building block in the European research landscape. (As a side issue: CLEF is a collaborative effort, very much organized in a bottom-up fashion, by the research community. The knowledge and resource sharing that goes on in and around CLEF is in the very same spirit as what drives people to cotrnibute to Wikipedia.) Mderijke 13:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Mderijke (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply]
  • Weak Delete - While this group may be notable within a select community, the article doesn't really help explain that. If we could get some verifiable, independent sources explaining how this group has done some notable work, then I would say keep. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 14:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - CLEF is a very important evaluation campaign for Information Retrieval systems. It has indeed done some notable work by providing a common setting for researchers to perform experiments and thus evaluate their systems. Every year, dozens of participating groups from several countries take part in the event.Vivianeorengo 15:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Vivianeorengo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply]
  • Keep! CLEF has a seven year history and attracts a large and growing number of research groups from around the world. CLEF is the most thoroughly multilingual evaluation workshop in empirical IR/NLP/Computational Linguistics - newspaper IR test sets exist in 12 languages, web IR test sets exist in 25 languages. CLEF is certainly every bit as significant in Europe as TREC is in the U.S. CLEF pioneered evaluation of technologies such as cross-language audio retrieval and multilingual image search that have not been addressed in any other evaluation campaign.--128.244.247.203 16:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: 128.244.247.203 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply]
  • Keep! CLEF is very important for multilingual information retrieval, especially those which do not involve English directly. The page should be updated, thogh — Possible single purpose account: 82.37.18.136 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
  • Keep CLEF is s very important event within the Information Retrieval community and is the main forum for evaluating and discussing multilingual research in Europe. If Wikipedia aims to provide comprehensive coverage of its content then a reference to CLEF should be maintained. — Possible single purpose account: 86.129.26.92 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
  • Keep; makes cited claims of notability. Vectro 04:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC) (not a sockpuppet account; see my change history.)[reply]
  • Comment The article does not have cites; all of its links are in the "external links" section, which are not supposed to be references in accordance with WP:CITE. I'd like to see at least one article that's specifically about CLEF; none of the external links point to what CLEF is except the official site. ColourBurst 19:31, 11 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 14:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Howard

edit

Seems like self-promotion and advertising for this person and his businesses. Note that this is a different Christopher Howard than the subject of the prior AFD. NawlinWiki 14:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I am disagree in delete this Biography of an author who has in his salary several published books, being one of them considered like a Best-Seller by amazon.com (ISBN 1881233588, edition 14, 2006), which foments the investment in Central America. He has been visionary by more than 20 years in attracting tourism and investment in this region. The criteria for inclusion of biographical articles are our Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion of biographies. --Willymora 22:51, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
— Possible single purpose account: Willymora (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.. yandman 11:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral for now There are two things to consider here: whether or not the article respects the neutrality and verifiability requirements of Wikipedia and whether or not the man is noteworthy enough for an article. The relevant question here is the latter:. Crummy writing and self-promotion are not welcome and should be cut o, but if the subject is kept. Pascal.Tesson 23:54, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, very poorly written and completely unsourced. From what I can tell from this aritcle, his notability is borderline. Regardless, this isn't what he deserves - if he is notable he deserves a much better, NPOV article. If he isn't he doesn't deserve and article at all. Thryduulf 10:06, 10 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, Keitei (talk) 10:23, 10 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 14:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Invest Sign

edit

Non-notable software Nehwyn 10:35, 10 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 Redirect - Yomanganitalk 11:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Away from keyboard

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 - Yomanganitalk 14:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Better Markup Language

edit

Of the 100-odd unique Googles, none appear to be reliable sources. If this is a significant enterprise I have yet to see any evidence of it. I don't see much evidence of it replacing PERL, PHP or ASP, which is its intended purpose. Guy 08:59, 4 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, Yomanganitalk 11:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article doesn't establish notability, and Google searches don't help. The one thing the article does specifically detail is that this open source software intended for free use is still mostly used only by its creator Danga software. That appears a real world marker of its failure to become established.--Fuhghettaboutit 11:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not Freshmeat. Notability not shown, the text is not very informative. There are quite few template languages, typically used by creator only. Pavel Vozenilek 13:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete Notable as a rather visible component of LiveJournal (ever wondered why most pages there end with .bml?), but I guess this has not really caught on elsewhere. Yet another Perl+HTML deal. Probably does no harm if it's deleted now and, if notability materialises, is recreated. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 15:48, 11 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 14:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Todd Stephenson

edit

Non-notable political hack. Possibly autobiographical --Michael Johnson 11:55, 10 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 non-notable group. Turnstep 13:45, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Epicka

edit

Delete. This is a social networking site that "has just started", according to the article. [Check Google hits] A web search for "Epicka" brings up the site as the first result, as well as a bunch of pages in Czech and Polish. Alexa ranking of "no data". Therefore, does not meet criteria of WP:WEB. Contested prod. ... discospinster talk 12:06, 10 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 16:25, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crazy german guy

edit

Seems fairly low in the notability stakes, certainly by internet meme standards (compare ~500 GHits for "Crazy German Guy" video to >1,000,000 for "Numa numa" video" or >400,000 for "Star Wars kid", which I suppose are somewhat comparable internet phenomena). This shrieking, hamming-it-up-for-the-camera kid was of minimal note at best when I first encountered it some months back, and I see nothing to suggest this has caught on in any major way, nor that this will be remembered years from now. ~Matticus TC 12:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep google came up with 5,090,000 results for "crazy german kid" (you tried "guy"). I think it is notable (even though it's terrible acting). The 7th result is "Angry German Kid vs Numa Numa Guy". Anyway, I think that enough people would have heard of this for it to be worth having. James086 13:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can't have done an exact phrase search there - "Crazy German Kid" video (note the quotes) gets 13,400. Better than 500, certainly, but still fairly low for a supposedly widespread internet phenomenon. Numa Numa has had mainstream TV coverage, as has Star Wars Kid, while I see no evidence of anything like the same level of penetration into the mainstream from this. ~Matticus TC 15:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: Yeah, better move to "Crazy German kid".--Húsönd 18:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Changed my stance to Neutral. The popularity of these videos is likely to be ephemeral.--Húsönd 18:18, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I've heard of this and even seen it, but Wikipedia is not the place to keep track of silly internet videos. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am the author of Crazy german guy's article. While I am starting to understand that maybe this isn't quite notable enough, personally I'd rather not have it deleted. It took me ages to watch a subtitled video of it and copy word for word into the dialog section, and I don't want to have all that work deleted. (PS. If in order to keep it I must change the title to Crazy German kid, how do I do this? I am fairly new to wikipedia and don't know how to change article titles once written.) --Fastzander 8:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  • You can just copy the current contents of your article and paste it onto notepad (or equivalent), if you're worried about the article being deleted. If you want to move the article (and I don't recommend you do it until the AfD period is over) then you can use the move button at the tabs on top of the page. But seriously, all of the information comes from the video or from your own keyboard, so it's pretty much original research. ColourBurst 01:01, 11 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 - has been improved during AFD process. Yomanganitalk 11:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tamar.com

edit

A tad too notable to be speedily deleted, but it's still close to wikispam and non-notability per WP:CORP. Aecis I'm too busy acting like I'm not naive. 12:42, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, could you let me know what I need to do with it to stop it being deleted? Lots of our competitors have pages, such as AKQA - I just want us to have one too...? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Henweb (talk • contribs)
I'm sorry I failed to notify you of this AfD. First of all, the question is if you should write an article about your own company in the first place. Articles on wikipedia should be neutral, and it's very hard to remain neutral when you are involved. The important this is whether the company is notable enough for wikipedia. The basic notability guidelines for companies can be found at WP:CORP. That is what articles about companies are judged on. We don't have articles because "competitors also have pages", or because the company would like to have an article. Aecis I'm too busy acting like I'm not naive. 12:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it's too notable to be speedily deleted and it could be a reasonable article if the author can change it to a neutral point of view. I'd say it's too heavily focused on promoting the company and listing acheivments instead of providing a user useful, impartial information on the company. AA Milne 12:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that, but I checked the guidelines and it looks fine to me. The guidelines state "The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself" - we are frequently mentioned in the press, we are mentioned in the current issue of Revolution for instance, and Marketing Week. Can you clarify why you think we don't qualify? I can give you some examples if you like? A quick look at our client list should show we are a pretty big player in the UK industry, though I appreciate what you mean about not writing our own entry.

If you could perhaps highlight a few examples of my sales talk, it might help - I thought I got rid of it all! :)

  • Comment I think this may be noteworthy enough to keep, based on the limited research I can do at the moment, but the article isn't yet at the point where I'm comfortable with registering a keep "vote." I'd like to see some citations, in particular for "one of the first digital agencies in the UK," "a leading agency," and "the sole proponent of 'search conversion'" -- if these can be verified through independent, reliable sources, I think they'd make a reasonably strong argument for keeping. Shimeru 21:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The company may be notable enough for an article, but the article itself needs to make a substantiated claim to notability, which is missing. Vectro 04:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response: I'm working on all of this, trying to get some citations and also tone the article down a bit. Henweb 12:17 GMT, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Response: I have added some citations and references, and slightly changed the wording to be less contentious. Am I on the right lines? Henweb 09:32 GMT, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
It's a very good improvement. Another issue is the pr language that sometimes shines through the article, in words like "conversion-focused design". But I suggest withdrawing/suspending this AfD to give Henweb the time and the opportunity to clean this up. Any thoughts on this? Aecis I'm too busy acting like I'm not naive. 08:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. Article is substantially improved. Further work is needed per Aecis, but I don't see anything wrong with giving that some time to occur. We can revisit in a month or two if necessary. Shimeru 19:16, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response Thanks for acknowledging that I'm improving it! I'm a huge Wikipedia fan, and am keen to learn what I should and shouldn't be doing, and you guys are helping a lot. What do I need to do now? Will the notice stay up for the month? Henweb 12:21 GMT, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
No. This discussion should be closed shortly, and will remain archived. Assuming the page is kept -- and I believe it will be, at least for now -- the notice will be taken off the page, and you'll be able to expand and clean it up further. It doesn't mean it won't be nominated again in a couple of months, but if it continues to improve, that shouldn't happen. If you want to read up on the process, WP:AfD covers it, and the most relevant guidelines in this case are at WP:CORP, WP:NPOV, and WP:V. Shimeru 18:54, 16 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 REDIRECT to TRIZ. -Splash - tk 23:17, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Algorithm of Inventive Problems Solving

edit

Was {{prod}} tagged for 5 days, but I'm not sure that was appropriate. Listing here for wider audience. UtherSRG (talk) 13:11, 10 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. Apparent single-purpose accounts disregarded. --Coredesat 21:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Ludington

edit

Being a candidate in municipal elections in Ottawa doesn't meet WP:BIO. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christine Leadman and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vicky Smallman. Aecis I'm too busy acting like I'm not naive. 13:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

— Lejdesign (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment: That's some press coverage, but all mentions of him seem to be only passing references. I don't think it's significant enough to satisfy WP:BIO. -David Schaich Talk/Cont 13:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete He is not sufficiently notable as a community activist nor sufficienitly notable as a politician. All of the above references are as David observes passing. It isn't clear to me how we can write a WP:V compliant article about him that is more than 2 or 3 sentences. JoshuaZ 23:59, 15 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. Titoxd(?!?) 20:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Echo Valley

edit

NN pornstar, fails WP:PORNBIO. See also AfDs on Colt 45 and Maxi Mounds created together with this article. Pavel Vozenilek 13:38, 10 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 14:49, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Index of hypothetical future technologies

edit

WP is not a crystall ball, cruft, targeted for categorization anyway, etc. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 13:58, 10 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. Titoxd(?!?) 20:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dynamic Images (second nomination)

edit

Delete nn-company/advertisement. This was previously listed on AFD, but speedy deleted as spam before a discussion could proceed. It was then restored as part of a batch due to a larger challenge of the deleting admin's speedy deletions. So here it is again; let's give this one due closure. Postdlf 14:13, 10 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 14:49, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

God's School

edit

Non notable school. Prod tag was removed, so I'm bringing it here. cholmes75 (chit chat) 14:23, 10 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 -- Longhair\talk 03:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Passion Pop

edit

Delete unencyclopedic product description, with no hope of expansion. Perhaps its parent company deserves an article per WP:CORP, in which case this can simply be listed there and redirected, or if there is a list of alcoholic products sold in Australia it can be listed there. But there's no basis for this having its own article—it was created pursuant to college student vanity and all attempts to explain its significance have been totally worthless original "research" ("Passion Pop is extremely popular amoung [sic] students, for its price and ease of drinking. It sells particularly well in Victoria, and is frequently purchased from the discount liquor outlet Dan Murphys."[17]) See also this edit. Postdlf 14:24, 10 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 14:50, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of nazarene prophecy

edit

This is a POV fork for a topic that doesn't even have its own article yet. If anything, there should be a Nazarene prophecy article, with a section on criticism BEFORE you fork out content like this. Andrew c 14:31, 10 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. However, given this 'museums' ephemeral existence, probably a redirect-and-mention somewhere else is all that is really need. -Splash - tk 23:21, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

B-36 Peacemaker Museum

edit

Since the B-36 that was the whole reason for this museum's existence has been transferred to the Pima Air & Space Museum, this institution is no longer notable rogerd 14:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The museum was notable in the past of the conservation of the B-36. The fact that the aircraft has been transferred and the museum is shutting down simply makes this an historical entry. After all, Napolean Bonaparte is dead, but we've still got an article about him. -- Whpq 14:53, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Not to be argumentative, but there is a big difference between Napolean Bonaparte and an obscure museum in Texas that only exists on the internet, has never been opened and gave away its primary artifact that it was founded to restore. --rogerd 16:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it was a bit of exaggeration, but the point I was trying to make is that if the museum previously met the criteria for notability, then it's notable. Period. The primary reason for its existence has been transferred, but its notablitity doesn't change. It's just historic. Encyclopedia articles are not rooted in the present. -- Whpq 17:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, based on its website it appears to still be an active museum, but even if it isn't, the article should be kept as a historical entry per Whpg. Accurizer 01:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; given that the museum never actually did restore the aircraft, there's not much to say here. Also, although I agree with the 'once notable, always [or at least for a long time] notable' paradigm, I'm not convinced this article was notable to begin with. Vectro 00:26, 18 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 original synthesis. El_C 07:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suffering servant as Israel

edit

This article was up for AfD last month, but was withdrawn. see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Instances in which isaiah uses the word servant to mean israel (the page ahs been moved since. You can read the page creator's reason for making this article. It is clearly a POV fork. If anything, a page on biblical prophecy should cover multiple POVs, instead of creating individual pages for the Jewish POV to respond to Christian claims (and then do we need to create individual pages for Muslim POV, scholarly POV, atheist, hindu, etc? of course not.) On top ot that, this article violates WP:NOT a primary source. The vast majority of the page is text copied out of the bible, mixed in with unsourced interpretations and WP:OR. Fails the big three policy points. Andrew c 14:51, 10 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 redirect to Sydney Bristow. —Cryptic 00:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Hecht

edit

Character is not notable or significant enough to warrant a separate article. He appeared in one half of one episode and even though he's the motivation for Sydney's turning double agent his situation is more than adequately covered in Sydney Bristow's article. Otto4711 14:46, 10 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. —Cryptic 00:43, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha One Airways

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. —Cryptic 00:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beneluxcar

edit

This page should be deleted as it has no useful information on the company, appears to be self promoting, and I don't believe it is worth the time to edit all of the grammatical errors that are present. Put a cleanup/advertisement template on the site for 2 weeks to see if the author or someone else cared to edit. No additional edits for the author on any other pages. Puchscooter 15:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep There may be problems with this article, but is it really any different than the other car rental companies? Unless somebody can convince me why a company with 3500 locations should *not* have an article, I'm going to suggest this be moved to cleanup. As it stands, I suspect this was babelfished from a foreign language wiki. FrozenPurpleCube 15:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not saying that this company shouldn't have an article, I'm saying that the article as it stands does not belong at wikipedia. Cleanup has been attempted, but didn't help. If that is the case, it's better to have a redlink than to have this article. Aecis I'm too busy acting like I'm not naive. 16:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Perhaps paring the article down to a bare minimum might work? Me, I could probably be easily convinced that the company isn't even real, but given that it is a foreign one, I'm inclined to give it the benefit of the doubt. FrozenPurpleCube 17:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • This is not a company that has 3500 locations, rather it brokers other car rental agencies with a total of 3500 available pick up locations. Give it a redlink if you like, on the French page it is flagged for something, looks like grammar there too (don't read French that well), so I am not sure it is babelfished or not. I tagged it for cleanup a few weeks back as I am all in the interest in keeping pages in the 'pedia, but no-one had any interest in cleaning. After I read it again I saw the lack of any company history or anything encyclopedic. Furthermore I have gone to the site and discerned that they do not publish a company history, and the parent company is "Autos Benelux". any article here should at least be for the parent company. Interestingly enough the About Us link brings you to a page about the company that has some of the same grammatical errors as the article.Puchscooter 18:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable company, the webpage looks like blatant spam. Dockingman 04:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The French talk page also suggests the article is not notable. Vectro 00:31, 18 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. This deals with two Congresses which already have proper articles. It wouldn't make sense to redirect this to any individual Congress, or House, and it's not useful on its own. If completed, it would be a truly gigantic exercise in duplication. -Splash - tk 23:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Historic Members of the United States House of Representatives

edit

I have proposed that this article be deleted because it it is a partial duplicate of the 109th United States Congress article. --TommyBoy 08:04, 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 Redirect to Powerbomb. Yomanganitalk 11:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Last Ride

edit

This article is completely uneccessary. It is a move that is already fully covered in the Powerbomb section and is not singly notable enough to merit it's own article as it doesn't even have any variations Sevenzeroone says: Poopy is not fun! 02:01, 10 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: obviously and unfortunately no consensus. Cleanup or merge would seem to be good compromise choices. - Yomanganitalk 21:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Dragon Ball special abilities and others

edit
  • A Must Keep - The Kamehameha wave has become a universal icon and inspiration to the world of modern art and animation. As Western culture and practices become ever more influenced by methods and aesthetics of the East, the significance of the Kamehamehe wave is increasingly noticeable. I find that most arguments made against the inclusion of this definition stem from a disdain for "fans" or people who possess a zealous interest in the particulars of artistic expression (particularly television programs). Ultimately, this article is completely valid and factual in that it accurately represents a term employed in the program referenced, therefore such definitions are factually based, and factually based information, however trivial some may feel it to be, is indeed knowledge. Those who seek its removal seek, simultaneously, to limit the scope of Wikipedia's ability to inform. They seek to cut short knowledge. It is not for us to deem what is or is not "good" or "relevant" or "trivial" information. All information is of worth. And those who seek to remove any information, are guilty of crimes against knowledge.
  • Delete - Using Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/One Piece attacks as a precidence, I declare that this attack list is fancruft and should be deleted. To quote one of the users in that discussion: "Let me see if I can, I was reading this and then had a look at the page. What does the one page attacks page consist of? Well when you break it down, it's a list of the different ways one character can punch another in the face [note: in this case, it would be "blast someone in the face"]. Using this logic, we should create a page for DC universe offensive use of superpowers - Superman has quite a few and using them in combination he can work up more than 5 "attacks". Once we have done this, we can move onto the same for the Marvel Universe etc. When you consider that minor characters should not have their own articles unless there is good reason.... attacks?" This is even worse than the linked page, since several attacks in this show are very similar.

Similarly, having a page for one attack is just plain silly. Thus, the following will be deleted too.

Hydromasta231 18:57, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to add this, don't just vote, add a full and valid oppinion; remember: voting is evil, and Wikipedia is not a democracy. (By valid I mean give your oppinion on why you support your position.) (Justyn 04:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]

  • Keep- The Kamehameha is a very important element in Dragon Ball and has enough information to keep it's own article. The attack list doesn't do any harm, and it helps readers understand more about what they're reading by giving a picture and description of each attack. I'd say these articles are pretty important, and this request is pretty rash. I also think it's interesting how your account is only 2 says old, and you have 7 edits (6 of which are creating this page and nominating said pages for deletion).--KojiDude (Contributions) 19:09, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- It's possible that they are fancruft, but that alone doesn't warrant deletion (please read WP:CRUFT). These articles are well written and cited. They should stay. I find Koji's point regarding your account interesting as well. CPitt76 23:08, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- Attack lists are perfectly valid to make articles about, and this is a well made one. For the record, I don't agree with the deletion you linked to either. Sigmasonic X 04:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, you see, it seems Hydromasta doesn't like attack lists and thinks they don't belong on Wikipedia (apparently, so do many other people, as seen in the articles for deletion linked), and is using the deletion of the One Piece attack list to delete the others. Sigmasonic X 23:24, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- It IS encyclopedic in nature. My only question about it is whather it's supposed to be ALL of them or just techniques used more than once.--Marhawkman 23:21, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • To any mods (I believe that's who decides if the topics remain open or not), look at the link supplied in the first post for good arguements against attack lists. Hydromasta231 02:26, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Specifically, the arguement between Justyn and A Man in Black brings up several good points. Hydromasta231 04:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Clearly fancruft. Make a Dragon Ball Wiki (if there isn't one already) and post it there. Wikipedia shouldn't be a fan's place for anything related to a certain thing. RobJ1981 04:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This article doesn't give an greater understanding of the series to laypeople. "It's useful" is not a argument; game guides, weather reports, and bios for unknown people are useful but not befitting of Wikipedia. It "doesn't do any harm" is an even stupider argument; it's the Internet. Of course it doesnt hurt anybody. No deleted article hurt anybody. Please provide some actual arguments, people. 04:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • delete, total lack of sources; this is just original research based on the show. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 04:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Author's first actions were to nominate this article for deletion, so I don't think this AfD is in good faith and should be closed. Danny Lilithborne 05:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - In general, it seems that most of the ability stuff is better confined to the characters who use it. Centralized information in the character articles is far more useful. Also, over 40 "fair use" images in an article is most certainly pushing it... Wickethewok 05:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Why is a user coming onto Wikipedia to nominate articles for deletion and spam talk pages with advertisements about this discussion? An experienced user would have been told previously that spamming of talk pages in the manner that the nominator did, is looked down upon by the community in general. Ansell 05:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • To address your complaint, I have contacted the users for attack lists as well. Hydromasta231 07:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. I agree with the nominator, and in the One Piece Attacks AfD I agreed that these also qualify for deletion. JIP | Talk 05:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment It exists because this sort of thing was an important aspect of the anime. The One Peice anime doesn't have the same emphasis on what attacks you use, thus it should not be considered a valid precedent.--Marhawkman 05:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Welllllll...I'm almost tempted to say keep the Kamehameha article, but no. Merge and redirect Kamehameha to Dragonball Z. Delete List of Dragon Ball special abilities with extreme prejudice, because it's listcruft. And yes, that is a valid reason for deletion. Why? Because Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. ♠PMC♠ 07:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • How is this page related to your quoted criteria, considering the criteria is a very limited set, and only refers to its status by saying that "current consensus is that Wikipedia articles are not simply" (emphasis added). If this page is more than simply a list, the criteria does not apply. Ansell 08:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
      • All right. Let me rephrase that. My vote is delete, because there is NO REASON whatsoever that this article needs to exist on its own. The information (such as it is) in this article could easily be trimmed and merged right back into the individual character articles. (How hard is it to mention something like "Vegeta's 'Big Bang attack' creates a large sphere of ki which is then launched at the opponent, leaving a mushroom cloud in its wake" in the main Vegeta article?) So. This article serves no purpose that could not be served elsewhere, thus delete. ♠PMC♠ 22:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I've seen pages like this before, I don't think this is fancruff at all. I think this is a good attempt at handling attacks that most other major manga and anime attack pages fail to do and it DOES contain useful infomation. Now I'm not a fan of the show (in fact I can't stand it!), normally I would oppose everything to do with DB because I'm somewhat baised, however this page is okay in my books. It may not get read very often (but there are other wikipedia pages that don't get very often too that are far less informatitive) because of what its about... But it is useful. I don't see a problem with this article.

    Plus a lot of this page is just common knowledge amongst the DB, DBZ and DBGT media. If you delete this, this might make the DBA wikipedia pages incomplete somewhat. I agree there is still room for improvments, for instance there are far too many pictures for moves as some of them cannot be summed up in one picture. As someone pointed , many of these moves are simulair.

    And... Even Superman has his own attacks page so to speak.Powers and abilities of Superman, although its more abilities then attack (just listing what he is capable of doing). Perhaps if this was more written towards like how this article is, would you allow it? I say, if this page is delete worthy at least let everyone working on it at least give everyone a chance to rethink it. Angel Emfrbl 07:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all per nom. Even the Kamehameha, while perhaps an important concept in the series, does not need this much detail - the entire article could be boiled down into a single paragraph. Quite simply, this is an encyclopedia not a fan-wiki, and as such it is quite adequate to describe a character's most important abilities in that character's article, and only break them out if (like Superman) those characters and abilities are so culturally relevant that it is important to discuss them in more detail than there's room for in a single article.
    Note that this clearly doesn't apply to these abilities, because even references to Dragonball in other series tend to refer only to very general concepts like "powering up", not to specific attacks.
    As for the people above biting the nominator and assuming bad faith, you should be ashamed of yourselves. Note that it is necessary to create an account before one can nominate an article for deletion these days. It is quite plausible that the nominator is a long-term contributor who has not previously had any reason to create an account. — Haeleth Talk 09:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would hardly classify the statements as biting any newcomer. Newcomers do not come straight onto Wikipedia to propose deletions, spam user talk pages, and generally try to make a point. If this were actually a new user, and not just a new username it may be correct to use WP:BITE as a reference. The statement I made did not assume any bad faith, it simply pointed out the behaviour, and its less than accepted way of going about it. Being a long-term contributor, they would know these things. Ansell 09:27, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • comment To delete or not seems to hinge on one thing: Is it encyclopedic? If you're going to do an encyclopedia article about DragonBall Z, then you're going to need to explain the various techniques and skills performed during the course of the show. Whether or not this takes the form of an itemized list is determined entirely by how detailed you make the article. IMO this article IS detailed enough to warrant a seperate list. As for "justification" I'd like to point out that there's only ONE article for all of the Dragonball characters.--Marhawkman 09:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • No. You don't have to explain the mass amount of "attacks" "He blasts him away with ki energy." "He blinds him with a ki skill." It's rather easy to explain without resorting to pointless names that only confuse the lay reader. Interrobamf 10:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually I find it to be the opposite. That sort of explanation is suited to a plot summary. However it's not well suited to an encyclopedic article. Besides, the names aren't pointless. Most of them are mentioned in the anime/manga as the name of the technique when it is shown being used.--Marhawkman 10:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hilarious how you refer to an "encyclopedic article", as a list of fictional attacks in a cartoon that's treated as if they were real isn't anywhere close to encyclopedic. I still fail to see how "Goku uses an Kalakamakma on Biggu Heado" is more encyclopedic than "Goku fires a blast of ki energy at Biggu Heado". Interrobamf 10:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • It's an encyclopedic article about Dragonball Z in general. The attacks shown are as much a part of DBZ as the characters are. Leaving them out would result in an incomplete article.--Marhawkman 10:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it as well as the rest: Why the heck is this page being nominated for deletion and on the basis that the One Piece Attacks got deleted? The Dragonball pages are more professional looking than what was deleted plus these moves are more notable than the One Piece ones. Do not delete them because they are integral. They exist because they are part of this types of character. The way a fictional anime and manga character hits someone with a named attack can explain alot of the character. They explain what a character can do and can't do. They explains how far they are willing to go. They explain the character's creativity based on how they deliver the attack. They explain alot of the characters that words alone cannot summarized. You can't explain that in a summary like what the Superman page. The only way to convey that message is to list the attacks in some sort of manner. This is not cruft. In fact as quoted by the admin who deleted the One Piece article "One man's "cruft" is another man's priceless tidbit on information, and regardless of anything else it's incredibly rude to the individuals who have volounteered their time creating the article to use a belitteling and pejorative term." In other words what is useless to one person is useful for another person. This page is worthless to somebody who doesn't like or even knows the show but it is useful to those who do. The One Piece Attacks deletion was a great lost to alot to the people who edited it. It made alot of people sad and angry. Did anyone think about those people who gave alot of sweat and blood for that page. Did anyone think of the long hours and research they tireless did. If you delete this page and others like them based on what really should be in a proper looking and real encyclopedia rather than a free source of information then you are alienating an entire community from wikipedia. You are alienating them all. You are alienting both editors and clients. I am saying all these because I was spammed by one for my opinion who's first post in Wikipedia was in the One Piece attack AFD discussion namely the guy who brought up these entire discussion. I am going a bit uncivil here and risking being blocked if not banned from Wikipedia but it is well worth it. I rather be blocked than edit in a place that alienates anime fans.CalicoD.Sparrow 10:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's the Internet. Get a grip. You might want to also refer to the notice below the editing box: "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it." Again, BEING USEFUL IS NOT ENOUGH TO WARRANT AN ARTICLE. Interrobamf 10:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please do not use capitals, it is thought of as shouting, which can be seen as a personal attack. You can calmly discuss your point in a civil manner, or you can choose not to continue the discussion.
    • If the article is not popular, it will not survive. Thats about all there is to it. Two guidelines which spell out your entire predicament, if only in a totally ironic way, when you consider the effects of "common practice" and the fact that Wikipedia:Notability got into play purely based on AfD common practice. Ansell 10:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Do not delete them because they are integral. Yeah, because the universe would explode without a Wikipedia article about the Makankosappo. Danny Lilithborne 11:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I've considered this for a while and feel that it'd be best to make a single attack list and use it as a sort of reference for the other pages in the Dragonball article.--Marhawkman 11:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The Dragon Ball Character articles are already massive as it is; now you want us to copy all these attacks and ect. into them? The list is a conveinient and informative article. It isn't "fancruft" at all. It's just ifnormation about attacks used in the show. How are we supossed to write the Dragon Ball articles and expect somone who's never seen the show to understand it? I've seen that in every peer review, Rey Brujo mentions that the article needs to be understandable to somone who hasn't seen the show. That's what this article is. I really don't see what part of this article warrants deletion, and every DB article links to it.--KojiDude (Contributions) 12:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment This is part of why I'm voting merge. With a list of attacks we can leave all the attack discription on the list and simply add relevent links to the character pages.--Marhawkman 13:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep I really don't see how these are all that different from the One Piece Attacks page, they have all the same positive and negative aspects. Reading the closing admin's reasoning on that deletion debate, it seems the main reason the One Piece Attacks were deleted was a complete and total lack of cited sources external to the thing itself. This is a valid concern, and one I brought up in my keep "vote" there. This AFD bundles the attack list with 3 pages on individual attacks. The main attack list is a little better sourced than the One Piece one (but not much), but the other 3 have no sources cited at all. Any keep argument I can come up with would be essentially the same as the ones I made there; however I definately do see the vital importance of sources to Wikipedia's credibility. A lot of people would make an exception for fiction, but I'm not convinced that fiction should be an exception to the reliable sources rule. I do believe, however, that a lack of cited sources is a clean-up concern and not a reason for deletion. However, in instances where sources can never reasonably be expected to be found deletion may be an option. The difference between the main list here and the One Piece attacks list is that this one does cite 2 sources, whatever you may think of the quality of those sources. Therefore, by that reasoning it should be kept. The other three articles however, do not cite any sources (though I imagine they would be the same as the main article), and therefore should be merged into the main list and deleted (or sourced appropriately, including a source for the contention that they are more important then the other special abilities and deserve their own article). Hence, the weak keep. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 14:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and close: No one has actauly given any valid reasons for deletion, as such, this is not an issue, if you din't give a reason you don't have grounds, there is no grounds for deletion here. Let's send a message here:

"Fancruft" is not a reason for deletion, don't nominiate things for deletion because they are "fancruft".

(Justyn 14:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]

What do you mean they are unverifiable? If you look in various media about Dragonball (magazines, comics, video games), they describe many of the attacks outright. See for example the various books by Pojo. FrozenPurpleCube 17:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See the well-written comment below by A Man In Black. Anything from "direct observation" counts as original research and isn't usable. Also Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, which the list is a prime example of IMO.--Nilfanion (talk) 19:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So, if I watch a movie or a television show, and I note that a given star was in it, playing a given character, that is original research? Sorry, but no, that is not OR. Now concluding that a given star is making a comeback, or has hit rock-bottom, that would be. However, you don't seem to realize that I am talking about books and other media that are the ones who have done the observation of the Dragonball series, and as such, this content is clealry derived from that, so your first objection does not apply. To your second, well, I don't think it is a prime example of that, as this is all relevant information to the Dragonball series, which is itself a notable anime. If you think it's indiscriminate, please try to convince me without referring blindly to policies. FrozenPurpleCube 19:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there are clearly verifiable facts in these articles. However, without a single source in any of the articles and just 2 external links to sites which may not be reliable, nothing is actually verified. I'd strongly suspect that a fair chunk of this is indeed OR and so unverifiable, if there are verifiable facts here - give a source so they can be verified. I feel it is indiscriminate in that it lists every attack, no matter how minor, the Kamehameha is important to Dragonball but can you really say that of the Gekiretsu Kōdan? My view is the stuff which should be said on these attacks would be best served in the other DB articles.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Gekiretsu Kodan doesn't have its own article. If you want to remove it from the collated one, I suggest you take it to that article's talk page. But since it is apparently used in some video games, presumably by name, perhaps someone with access to them, and their manuals can provide useful sources. I can't do it, as I'm not knowledgeable enough of Dragonball or Japanese to do it, I don't own any of the games, even the card game. Can others? Maybe. But an AfD like this one is unlikely to make it happen. Especially not when you mindlessly focus on one minor entry. FrozenPurpleCube 02:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. First and foremost, very little of this is verified or verifiable, particularly the list. All of it is sourced to direct observation of the show itself, and Wikipedia isn't here to provide watchers' guides for longrunning anime series.

    Additionally, it's indiscriminate. The word "indiscriminate" gets thrown around a lot, but what it means is that Wikipedia summarizes subjects, instead of listing every single exhaustive detail. It would be perfectly reasonable to mention that attacks are frequently named in the articles on the various DB anime and manga, and it would be perfectly reasonable to name some of the most prominent attacks, even describing them as the signature attacks of certain characters. This is discriminate. Indiscriminate is a list so exhaustive that it lists Gekiretsu Kōdan, an attack that is never once used in either manga or anime.

    There are additional, aggravating factors. These articles are laden with fair-use images, illustrating every single attack however minor, even if that attack can amply be described with prose. These articles are often highly speculative, due to the lack of reliable sources. Romanizations are unattributed; I'm fairly sure that a number of these Romanizations are controversial among fans. The lot of these articles are written from an in-universe style, which is inappropriate. Even if these lesser issues were resolved, however, the fact remains that there's no verification and no discrimination, and that's just not the sort of thing that can be included in or allowed in this project.

    Incidentally, if anyone is questioning the nom's intent or credentials, then please consider mine instead, as I would have nominated these highly problematic articles had I been aware of them. I am neither a brand new user nor a possible sockpuppet or troll, as has been implied about the nom. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep only Kamehameha if sources can be found (which shouldnt be that dificult). I do not see how sources can be provided for other article here nominated. Shinhan 19:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all The Kanehameha is really the only notable attack enough. This is a little too crufty for me, and I accept a lot more cruft than I ought to sometimes. Chris Griswold (☎☓) 20:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The verifiability of the article is problematic because of the nature of the subject. Independant agencies aren't gonna write about this. It's going to be either fans or the people who made it. In this case that leaves us with two primary sources. The Anime and the Manga.(the primary sources for ALL of the Dragonball Z pages) But while this, arguably, may not fullfill the letter of the verifiability policy, it IS verifiable by anyone who watches the source material. We do have the various videogames made from the series though. But those are mainly useful for confirming what the anmes of the various things are called.--Marhawkman 21:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • If we can't verify it, we shouldn't be covering it. There's no need to cover every single story ever told in any anime, manga, or other fictional work; if someone wants to know what happens, whoever-has-licensed-DB-this-week is more than willing to sell them tapes, DVDs, manga volumes, books, or other works. Our goal is to provide plot summary only insofar as it's needed to provide an encyclopedic description of the work or works as artefacts in the real world. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Okay, guys, stop saying it's not notable. Dragon Ball is widley known, and is very popular. If you delete this stuff for not being verifiable you might as well delete every anime related article.--KojiDude (Contributions) 21:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah, so the Gekiretsu Kōdan is notable? Can you provide non-trivial coverage in third-party reliable sources to describe it? Do not mistake "Dragon Ball (and its followup series) are notable" for "Every single trivial factoid related to Dragon Ball is notable." - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • So what's MFG and Daizenshuu EX? First Person views? Oh yeah, that makes allllllllot of sense.--KojiDude (Contributions) 21:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • But there isn't an article on Gekiretsu Kōdan, it is merely a component of a larger article. Since the move is used for an episode title, and is found in several of the video games (where it is presumably named in the manual), I can't see a reason not to have it as part of a larger article. FrozenPurpleCube 21:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I use Gekiretsu Kodan as an example; nothing in that article is sourced to anything but first-person observation of the works themselves (or fansites of questionable reliability which aren't cited anyway). How are any of these attacks noteworthy except as minor parts of an extremely long-running fictional series? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • "How are any of these attacks noteworthy except as minor parts of an extremely long-running fictional series?" I just laughed when you wrote that. We've already explained in detail that these are major parts of the show. You've basically just listed the reason it shouldn't be deleted.--KojiDude (Contributions) 21:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Oh, I understand how they're important to the show. I've also explained how "The attacks are important to the show" means we should describe the attacks as a whole with summary prose, instead of making an indiscriminate list of every single attack that appears in the show. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • They're not all alike. How do we describe a hundred different attacks in one? You're making an assumption, and you know what happens when you do that.--KojiDude (Contributions) 21:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Depends on the context. For DB as a whole, we could easily say, "Attacks in Dragon Ball are flashy, fantastic, and often pyrotechnic. Characters throw punches in flurries too fast for the eye to see, hurl massive balls of shining ki energy, and often shake the landscape or even split planets in the course of a battle." If we wanted to describe one character's style, we'd do that. They're not all alike, but they're all examples of a single, largely unified art style, and the vast, vast majority are different forms of ki or energy blasts, and the ones that aren't aren't attacks at all and would probably be described individually (flight, fusion, transformation) or are different ways of hitting people (which can easily be summarized). - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • You're still not getting it. They're not all the same. Alot of them are completley different from others. There's more or less no way to summarize all of them into one section. And for your poitn about original research; that's exactly the same as deleting an article because it says grass is green with the edit summary "WP:OR".--KojiDude (Contributions) 22:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • =O OMG!! Look: Grass. Read the first sentence!! It violates WP:OR!!--KojiDude (Contributions) 22:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                  • There's a difference between a common-knowledge claim, trivially simple to source but unsourced as it isn't in dispute and excessive citation would clutter the article, and a claim made only on Wikipedia, attested to nobody. "Grass is green" is so widely verified that it isn't necessary to specifically attest it but attesting it would be trivially easy; these lists are of such narrow appeal that attesting their claims is nearly impossible. There is a difference, and if you can't see it I don't know if I can offer you any satisfaction. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                    • There's a picture of the attack right next to it. There's also DVDs showing the attack. That makes it just as much common knowledge as grass is green. Go ahead, remove the green thing from Grass with the edit summary "WP:OR". I bet somone will put it back and say, "OR? There's a picture right there" which is the exact thing that would happen if you removed an attack from the proposed article.--KojiDude (Contributions) 22:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Any textbook will tell you healthy grass is green. No book will tell you that such-and-such attack is used by such-and-such DB character, save for the exception of the fictional work in which that act happens. You've described, in extreme detail, the story of a fictional work in less-compelling style, without any reference to reliable sources. That fails WP:FICT, WP:WAF, WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NOT. If you want to know the attacks that such-and-such character uses, watch the anime or read the manga. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:42, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you want to know grass is green, go outside and look. Does that statement warrant deletion of Grass? Oh, and by the way, according to what you just said, no Anime articles shoudl exsist, because the jist of what you said is that if somone wants to know info about an anime they should just buy it. Well, why not slap an AfD tag on Wikipedia and say if somone wants to know about encyclopedic things, to buy one. =) I'm sure that AfD would close instantly due to your trumendus logic.
      • The whole point of Wikipedia is to aquire the sum of all human knowledge. What you just said goes against everything Wikipedia stands for, and I'm sure if Jimbo were here he'd say the same thing.--KojiDude (Contributions) 22:48, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • You're persisting in comparing a dissimilar object. Grass is widely covered in reliable sources independent of...um...the grass itself, whereas the individual DB attacks are not. Most anime cruft is inappropriate to Wikipedia, and I daresay Jimbo hasn't issued any edicts protecting anime cruft lately. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:53, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • These attacks are widley covered in reliable sources like...um...the Anime itself. You said that yourself about 3 times, saying that it was part of why this article should be deleted. =D Contradicting yourself isn't a very good way to get an article deleted.--KojiDude (Contributions) 22:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • That's a primary source, and subject to interpretation by the viewer. This is going in circles, and is not productive. If you cannot understand that an article sourced only to direct observation of the subject is not acceptable, then nothing I can tell you will satisfy you. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • "an article sourced only to direct observation of the subject is not acceptable" Yet another good reason to delete Grass! Boy, you're just full of ideas aren't you? First you wanna remove sourced and obviousley correct ifnromation from Wikipedia, then you wanna delete an article for "not being obvious" when you yourself stated earlier that it's all in the anime. If either of us can't understand the point here, it's you.--KojiDude (Contributions) 23:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Santa Claus' last line at the end of the Robot Chicken parody. SchmuckyTheCat 22:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question ......Uh....Scince when is a joke on Robot Chicken a reason to delete an article? 0_o Is there some new policy I don't know of?--KojiDude (Contributions) 22:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I recall, it was "DBZ (bleep)ing sucks or something like that. I'm fairly sure this isn't a serious comment. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The question then would be why are people making non-serious contributions to this discussion. This is afterall not a vote, and the input is not helping. Ansell 00:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
        • It is a serious comment. Maybe it's not the last line, but one of the dragonball characters says a whole bunch of half-japanese/half-english junk and santa says "what the fuck did you just say, was that even english?" And that's about my feelings about everything in the article. This much information about a cartoon is ridiculous and only makes sense to people who already know what it is. SchmuckyTheCat 06:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm, it seems that the One Piece attack list has been moved to a wikia, and a link to it has been provided on the One Piece template. Would it please both parties if the DBZ attacks were moved to a similar place, with links to that page replacing the ones currently linking to the pages up for deletion? For example, if Goku's article said "His main attack is the Kamehameha", it would instead say "His main attack is the [(insert link) Kamehameha]." Pretty much the only real changes would be that the attacks can't be found using the Wikipedia search engine, and that the links would have those squares next to them, but it technically wouldn't be on Wikipedia.Sigmasonic X 23:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm fine with this, but under MIB's logic, we would have to move almost every article relating to fiction to a Wikia as well. And thank you for telling of my acomplishments. (Justyn 23:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]
      • As you say, it is going overboard to insist on "independent" sources, whatever the real definition of that is. Reliable sources in the context of this article are going to be on the fan sites, where if something is said that is wrong, someone will pick up on it in a Peer Review fashion, which gives legitimacy to the site overall. Kind of like the peer review system here, except they are much more devoted to single topics on those sites (hence improving in accuracy value). Ansell 00:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't see any real problems with this solution. Hydromasta231 01:57, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Big problem here. If this article and the Kamehameha pages get deleted, where do the interwiki links go? Back to Dragonball Z? (Half of you are wondering "what interwiki links?") The Kamehameha (Dragon Ball) article is already in 6 other Wikipedias! (To forestall the comments of "notability is different across Wikipedias", no it's not; that's heavy bias.) The attacks page only has two (French and Japanese), but we still need a place to put them. Don't ignore these! ColourBurst 01:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    They go nowhere. The fact that other Wikipedias have not yet cleaned up unencyclopedic articles doesn't mean we have to repeat their mistakes. (Now, before you argue that they're unencyclopedic, if they don't have any sources, they're unencyclopedic. If they DO have sources that aren't the subject itself, then we should take those sources and use them in these articles and negate my argument above.) - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Dude, will you stop saying they don't have sources? They DO. They have about 3 million. What the fuck is your problem man? Sources which aren't the subject themselves aren't needed. How is an Anime not notable? Are you fukcing high or something? Saying there aren't sources is just plain biased. You want an independent source, fine, look at the millions of fan sites and merchandise. There's no way in hell for you to back up your argument of it being un-sourced, unless, of course, you expect everyone to just assume you're right scicne your an administrator. Two things I've noticed about this AfD is that it was made in Bad Faith by a possible sock puppet, and nobody really has any solid arguments against the articles. I'm pretty sure that warrants closing, unless you wanna use your godly administrator powers to change the policy on closing an AfD so you won't lose the argument.--KojiDude (Contributions) 01:33, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Repeating the word "fuck" or any misspelled variation is no substitute for commentary in reliable sources independent of the subject. If you want the article kept, the burden is upon you to produce such commentary so that the article can be written based on something other than personal observation. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, okay, I get it, the 279 episode Anime is just my personal opinion. These articles should definitly be deleted, seeing as how having about 3 million sources isn't enough for any article. Let's see, how many artciles on Wikipedia have less than that? You better get started. Oh, by the way, this is directly from the admin guide for deletion: "Administrators necessarily must use their best judgment, attempting to be as impartial as is possible for a fallible human, to determine when rough consensus has been reached. For example, administrators can disregard opinions and comments if they feel that there is strong evidence that they were not made in good faith. Such "bad faith" opinions include those being made by sock puppets, being made anonymously, or being made using a new userid whose only edits are to the article in question and the voting on that article." Seing as how this whole thing was started in bad faith, your job as an administrator would be to close it, not to repeatedly say that it isn't notable, when it obviousley is. Also: pay attention to what I write. Just because I'm used to using vulgar languege doesn't mean my opinion doesn't matter.--KojiDude (Contributions) 01:45, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You've mistaken "people interested in the subject" and "structural divisions of the subject" for "reliable sources independent of the subject". You've argued that there are a lot of DB fans and that there are a lot of DB episodes. That's nice, but the fact that DB is important does not necessarily mean that every single detail of DB is sufficient material for its own Wikipedia article. Given the lack of sources other than direct observation, the indiscriminate nature of these articles, the fact that these attacks can reasonablybe summarized in broader articles, and the legion of style problems with these articles, I think there's ample evidence that we don't need such overspecific articles.
    Now, as for being an admin, I'm here expressing my opinion as an editor, rather than closing the AFD debate (which I wouldn't do, as I've participated in the debate and additionally have a strong personal opinion). The fact that I am an administrator is only relevant insofar as it's good evidence that I'm a user in good standing, as opposed to the nominator, who is apparently a brand-new user. I never meant to imply that my arguments carried any extra weight because I'm an administrator, merely that even if this was a bad faith nom made by a new user with a grudge (the worst possible situation) that the nom had a point and such-and-such reasons were why. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The attacks are probobly the second most important part of the show. The entire series focuses around them, so having articles describing them in detail and they're origin/history is notable, encyclopedic, helpful to the readers, and interesting.
    About the admin thing; I apologize for that. Latly I've somehow developed a sort of prejuduce against administrators, and when I see one making the same point that has already been proven wrong millions of times over and over, or seems to be violating admin guidlines/WP:AGF, or just acting in a questionable matter, I get a little snippy (see, I have self control. I could've said pissed, but I decided to use preppy talk so my opinion would matter =D ).--KojiDude (Contributions) 02:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I could assert that the color orange is the most important part of the show, and then write Orange (Dragon Ball) about every appearance of the color orange. No interpretation, of course, just a list of every single orange thing in Dragon Ball. (It'd be a lot; orange is one of Toriyama's favored contrast colors.) The hedge against me doing so is the fact that we rely on (sounding like a broken record here) coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. These lists have the same problem that Orange (Dragon Ball) would, and the argument that the attacks are important would apply, just as reasonably, to the color orange, because it's a claim made by a Wikipedia user with nothing whatsoever other than that Wikipedia user's say-so to support it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    .....Okay, for the last time, this isn't someone's "say-so". This is a widley known fact about a widley known Anime show. This list is important to describe the attacks to help a reader invision and learn about the attack. Nobody has to invision or learn about Orange, because it's just orange. These are complicated, hard to understand, yet very important (and hard to spell =( ) things that the entire show (and not to mention the entire clump of DB Articles here on Wikipedia) revolve around, summed up into easy to understand explainations and histories of useages.--KojiDude (Contributions) 02:19, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If the facts in these articles are widely known, then there shouldn't be any difficulty attributing them to reliable sources independent of the subject itself. If there is difficulty, consider the possibility that they're merely the consensus of a limited minority. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:27, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    What more do you want, man? There's official websites, merchandise, a long chain of video games, even birthday plates/hats for litle kids. You want me to take a hobo off the street and ask him if he's heard of DB, and what he says decides if it's notable or not?--KojiDude (Contributions) 02:32, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Commentary in reliable sources independent of the subject. I think I said it every other post here, and this can't be the first time I linked WP:RS. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:37, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    According to what you just cited, a secondary source is an opinion/source from somone unfamiliar with the subject. I know for a fact that more than half of the people who voted keep haven't edited this article once, and that the people making the merchandise don't know shit about the series (though I know for a fact the next reply you write will tell me neither of those matter). I hoenestly don't see what reason there is for deletion, as this is one of the most important articles in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and Manga because all other DB articles link to/revolve around it. It's notable, hs sources, doesn't violate any policies, and this entire thign was started in bad faith.--KojiDude (Contributions) 02:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    We need commentary in reliable sources independent of the subject. If you want the article kept, the burden is upon you to produce such commentary so that the article can be written based on something other than personal observation. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • you're missing the point. This is an ANIME. ALL third party sources are fan sites and thus inappropriate for use a source. ALL THIRD PARTY SOURCES. The only reliable information comes from the original source.--Marhawkman 14:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Vectro 04:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia is not a place for plot summaries. But if plot summaries are unsuitable, at least they have the inherent virtue of concision. Compare this monstrosity. One sample: It can also be utilized in conjuncture [sic] with attacks; the Shunkan Idō Kamehameha was used by Gokū during his fight with Cell. Gokū charges up for the Kamehameha (up to KA-ME-HA-ME) high up in the air, pretending to be shooting the Kamehameha from there (which would blow the Earth away if he did) and then uses the Shunkan Idō to appear right in front of Cell and blasts him with the final syllable (HA!). It was somewhat tricky and Cell was completely caught off-guard by Goku's attack. This isn't even a plot summary; it's a too-literally blow-by-blow running account. Delete this for its failure even to resemble an encyclopedia article, to the point where of course nothing like it is described in "WP:NOT". Anyway, it's just what Dragon Ball wiki is for; so take it away and plonk it there (if Wikia's "fair use" policies are sufficiently lenient). -- Hoary 09:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree entirely with this. The above sample sounds like the kind of detailed screenwriting I had to keep in mind in a battle scene in a movie I'm supposed to act in: the sort of "I hit you on the shield and you hit me on the shield, this goes on three times, then you manage to go around the shield and hit me on the side, at which point I collapse on the ground. I try to lift my shield but you kick it away from me..." Whereas a plot summary would say something like: "A Caledonian warrior and a Viking warrior fought each other. The Viking won, killing the Caledonian. He then proceeded onwards to the Caledonian castle, intent on raiding its treasure..." JIP | Talk 13:08, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This isn't the sort of area Wikipedia should be getting into. We're targeting a general audience, and whilst it's great to get detail, let's not go too far. Where the information is suitable, merge it. A Man in Black sums up a lot of the issues for me. Maybe an anime targeted wiki should be considered, is there anything on wikia we could consider a transwiki to? Hiding Talk 12:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Again with the Wikipdia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. As it is Gokus signature attack, surely the basics can be fitted into his profile. MultiJoe 13:20, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As it is Gokus signature attack, surely the basics can be fitted into his profile." Which we were specifically told to shorten.... Geez, make up your minds already.--KojiDude (Contributions) 13:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all or move to some niche-interest wiki; this suffers from WP:OR and general cruftiness. Stylistically, it also fails WP:WAF (which is not a reason for deletion, I know). Sandstein 17:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, possibly merge sub-articles into List of Dragon Ball special abilities. Cleanup for excessive plot summary and speculation, but otherwise definite keep. The attacks are distinguishing features of the characters and sometimes reveal relationships between them, they are often puns that are opaque to English readers without explanation. They appear in manga, anime, video and card games, and secondary sources. Developing these techniques is actually the main thrust of DB/Z's plot.
Re: "It's Gokus signature attack," the Kamehameha is actually the signature attack of the "Turtle school" of Martial arts, and used by Muten Roshi, Goku, Kuririn, Gohan, Goten, Cell and various others. Explaining it in the Goku article is silly.
I volunteeer to give this article group some cleanup attention if necessary. --HKMarksTALKCONTRIBS 18:00, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's one of the articles I put a lot of work into, and I like it alot for reference and stuff. --Phred Levi 05:22, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The preceding comment by Hoary is oh so important. Why oh why would the article have less value to fans if it were on a Dragon Ball wiki? Probably because it's not as well-known as Wikipedia and there's an extra sense of importance that comes with your favorite topic having an article in here. But there's no denying that this article is entirely unreferenced original research and none of the articles' supporters have seriously adressed that concern. Man in Black put it pretty well: it does not make sense to cover this in an encyclopedia when no other third-party source has ever bothered to. It's useful to the show's fans? Sure, so move it all to the useful dragonball wiki and let's get on with writing an encyclopedia here. I urge the closing admin to go beyond counting the votes here. Pascal.Tesson 14:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Merge (if I can, following rules, otherwise Comment) I'd like to make you note that an encyclopedia should retain, at least, 'common' knowledge (or things commonly assumed to be known). A lot of "Dragon Ball"-related (as well as "<other anime/manga/TV series>"-related) topics are common knowledge for the young and not-so-young generations of many so-colled rich/industrialized/post-industrialization countries, nevertheless are important parts of their folklore-mythology, much much more than, e.g., ancient greek mythology (which is however naturally retained for historical reasons). Because of it, it's expected at least the presence of articles (or pieces of articles) regarding those most famous topics necessary to understand common cultural references (like Son Goku, other main characters, kamehameha and so on), but, as every good encyclopedia is expected to do, it should (and IMHO must) go into them a little more, exactly to tell the reader more about the things that gave birth to this widespread culture-folklore-mythology (simply what an encyclopedia is supposed to do). That said, I don't propose to retain a single article for every DB ability or such, but to list them correctly (e.g. per character) in the right place (like "List of Dragon Ball special abilities" was supposed to be) and use this page as the link for the other DB-related article citing that ability. I'm not writing that that article is perfect and sould retained as is or that all the 'abilities' should be written in it (IMHO only the most notable ones, but this is another discussion), I'm only writing it shouldn't be deleted. In my opinion, the deletion of similar articles is a sort of censorship of the 'olds' (OK, the world population is becoming older and older but there are younger people too) or cultural racism (something like "every single detail of the ancient greek mythology is acceptable for an encyclopedia because it's 'highly' cultural or 'ancient', but everything relating contemporary mythology is to discard as it isn't culture at all"). To sum it up: there are too specific articles to be merged into bigger ones (like ability-specific articles not culturally widespread, but a kamehameha article to me is perfectly just), there are things to change in these big articles and probably there are things to be deleted, but these, fewer, articles should exist [we are not talking about an unknown manga/anime which sold only two copies]. --87.7.62.159 16:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Hydromasta's reason's for deleting this article are horrendous. Unlike other genres of animated series, Dragonball is more or less a parody and a homage to martial arts. Techniques and how they are used are very important througout most of the saga although by late stage Dragonball Z and Dragonball GT the importance of individual techniques where minimized. Still comparing Dragonball to comics like Batman, Superman, Spiderman, etc is not appropriate. This article list is very informative especially to those new to the series and even those who are experienced fans. Individual articles on certain techniques however should be deleted. Articles such as the Kamehameha and Kaioken should be either deleted or merged into this one. Certain transformations however like Oozaru deserve their own article. --Maphisto86 17:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • In case any editors haven't seen this suggestion, I will post it again here: Hmm, it seems that the One Piece attack list has been moved to a wikia, and after it is cleaned up enough a link to it will be provided on the wikipedia One Piece page. Would it please both parties if the DBZ attacks were moved to a similar place, with links to that page replacing the ones currently linking to the pages up for deletion? For example, if Goku's article said "His main attack is the Kamehameha", it would instead say "His main attack is the [(insert link) Kamehameha]." Pretty much the only real changes would be that the attacks can't be found using the Wikipedia search engine, that the links would have those squares next to them, and it technically wouldn't be on Wikipedia. Sigmasonic X 17:51, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment: It was suggested. I don't remember anyone objecting. I personally liked the idea.--Marhawkman 03:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • comment I like this idea as well. It is a good understanding. My only hope is that the information and media in this article is kept intact. Moving it might disrupt links as well as media since they are linked to Wikipedia. I don't know if Wikia can use material uploaded to Wikipedia. Maphisto86 22:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, especially Kamehameha (Dragon Ball). This is a case where "delete x because y" ignores the relative importances and individual merits of X and Y. No One Piece attack has achieved a level of archetypical presence in all fighting manga. The Kamehameha has. They may need cleanup though. --tjstrf 22:53, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definite Keep BrenDJ 00:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A Must Keep - The Kamehameha wave has become a universal icon and inspiration to the world of modern art and animation. As Eastern culture and practices become ever more influenced by methods and aesthetics of the West, the significance of the Kamehamehe wave is increasingly noticeable. I find that most arguments made against the inclusion of this definition stem from a disdain for "fans" or people who possess a zealous interest in the particulars of artistic expression (particularly television programs). Ultimately, this article is completely valid and factual in that it accurately represents a term employed in the program referenced, therefore such definitions are factually based, and factually based information, however trivial some may feel it to be, is indeed knowledge. Those who seek its removal seek, simultaneously, to limit the scope of Wikipedia's ability to inform. They seek to cut short knowledge. It is not for us to deem what is or is not "good" or "relevant" or "trivial" information. All information is of worth. And those who seek to remove any information, are guilty of crimes against knowledge... Hmmmm, I may have erred in my posting practices earlier. I am new to this, apparently one is to place comments in chronological order downward? Also, it seems that a username is to be listed. I am currently uncertain how to accomplish this but will attempt my best. Patiencee please. GCZ 01:24, 16 October, 2006 (UTC) ... in fact added by User:12.218.119.147
    • Rejoinder: I don't even know what's meant by "universal icon" but doubt that this is one. You say Ultimately, this article is completely valid and factual in that it accurately represents a term employed in the program referenced which makes it seem as if this is a dictionary entry, but WP is not a dictionary. You also say And those who seek to remove any information, are guilty of crimes against knowledge... Stirring stuff indeed! But blatantly untrue, not least because all of this material seems suitable for Dragon Ball wiki. You can put it there. (Indeed, as it's GFDL you can save it and recycle it in any GFDL'd way that you wish.) Oh, right, it's already here in a different Wikia wiki. Meanwhile, any assertion that all information is worthy of preservation in Wikipedia would fly in the face of what's clearly written in "WP:NOT" (pay particular attention to what's written about Plot summaries.) Lastly, you "list a username" simply by logging in under that username, writing your comment, and ending it with four tildes. -- Hoary 06:44, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definitely Keep : There is no reason at all to delete a perfectly fine guide to Dragonball Attacks. Its helpful and is needed. You can find information on these attacks and its a good list. There is no reason for deletion. Would you prefer that all the special moves were their own article!? .... added at Revision as of 19:52, 16 October 2006 by User:67.165.10.68
    • Rejoinder: Perhaps you haven't read what's above. If the article is helpful, it's just as helpful at this alternative ___location. And rather than simply declaring (twice!) that there's no reason for deletion, you might care to give your reasons for dismissing the reasons for deletion that have been clearly expressed above. -- Hoary 04:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This article is not a FAQ, travel guide, memorial, instruction manual, internet guide, textbook or annotated text, or plot summary. Most votes for deletion seem to be based on WP:NOT... BUT: "Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia - This means that there is no practical limit to the number of topics we can cover other than verifiability and the other points presented on this page." This is verifiable information, it doesn't push an agenda, and it's a notable part of an extremely popular and well-known anime & manga. Just because it is/will be on the Dragon Ball Wikia doesn't mean it can't also be here. Just adding links to the wikias (which are not all that well maintained and large portions of them are just out-of-date, partial WP mirrors) would quickly turn Wikipedia into a link directory anyway. --HKMarksTALKCONTRIBS 04:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It's an original synthesis of the plot of the various Dragon Ball anime and manga series. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:49, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    OR? That can be excised. --HKMarksTALKCONTRIBS 04:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, it could be reduced to observations which are simple enough to be common to any reasonable observer, but that doesn't change the fact that every single detail is going to be a plot detail. I hesitate to call this a plot summary because summaries tend to omit trivial details and no trivial detail has been omitted here, but this is indeed nothing more than plot detail cut up and arranged in a new way. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment If we wanted, we could add to the article on the Kamehameha and establish its external presence from the series through the citing of direct references and appearances of the move from other notable anime and manga series. It would definitely be possible. You may note the already present mention in that article of Carlos Newton, whose entire fighting style is apparantly styled as a tribute to DBZ. What would you think of that idea? --tjstrf 05:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Should we talk about Dragon Ball's subsequent impact on later works, including homages to its attacks? Absolutely. Is a lengthy description of the Kamehameha going to help that? Not even a little. Right now, there are two sentences in the kamehameha that aren't talking about DB, DBZ, or DBGT, and the place to talk about DB or DB*'s effect on other works would be in the article for the DB series or in the article for those other works, not in a out-of-the-way article burdened with excess plot detail. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:28, 17 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, tjstrf 15:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment er, relisted? There isn't a consensus somewhere it the preceeding 81 kilobytes, or at very least a clear no consensus? I don't know what 5 more days of AfD will achieve other than more headache for the closing admin.--Isotope23 17:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is an interesting article for the fans of the series. It should deserve to stay because it is informative and useful to the fans --ProfessorWikia
    • True, but this seems to be useful only to fans of the series, Prof. Wikia. Wikipedia is not a gigantic information vaccuum, however, and also should not have to keep every article ever created just because it could be useful to someone somewhere. That being said, I'd also like to point out that under WP:NOT it states "groups of small articles based on a core topic are certainly permitted". It seems that as long as each attack is condensed down to its absolute essentials, it should be alright. It was probably suggested somewhere above, but this article should be cleaned up and condensed. Andyuts! 19:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Why on earth is this appearing in the October 17 log like a new discussion when it's been happening since October 10?
  • Delete - Anything useful should be merged up to Dragon Ball. This is far outside the bounds of an encyclopedia. --Improv 20:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This doesn't need to be relisted. It's roughly 21 keep/17 delete with no concensus, and none on the horizon. Close it as no consensus so we can get back to improving, please? --HKMarksTALKCONTRIBS 20:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Normally I am against this stuff but its Dragon Ball Z ... Kamehameha! ... my nephew has never even seen the anime, not that I know at least, and runs around screaming kamahameha and acting like he is firing explosive blasts. Oddly enough I found Dragon Ball Z from trying to find out what this phrase meant, being I heard the phrase before I heard of the show, its like the derka belacka craze but worldwide and with lots more people. --NuclearZer0 20:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - or maybe merge, Dragon Ball Z is notable, but the detials are not --T-rex 20:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete indiscriminate, original research, and canonical fancruft. Guy 21:20, 17 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 move to non-capitalized title. — CharlotteWebb 14:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mathematical Discussion of Rangekeeping

edit

Insufficient data in which no one can improve on. My suggestion is to merge delete this article with another suggested article. Sr13 03:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Move as the title is capitalised when it needn't be. Mathematical discussion of rangekeeping would be better, would it not? J Milburn 15:40, 15 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. —Cryptic 00:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Online music store

edit

"Online music store" article is only advertisement, also with illegal mp3 shops like mp3sale.ru. Should be deleted! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djprezes (talk • contribs) 11:44, 10 October 2006

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Singapore Sea Brothers

edit

Non-notable vanity page. Fightindaman 16:38, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • User Comment: "Wikipedia" It's free, the one to be deleted is the first one due to its sub-heading and incomplete patch-ups; not the second, because it is all facts and records in Singapore Bedok Jetty. Thanks for deleting the first one; regretted, should try on the sandbox's first. Singapore Sea Brothers should'nt be a problem cause the website have gain fishing fan in the world with its place in the highest Top 30. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rizan (talk • contribs) .
    • Comment: Top 30 of what? That is an assertion of notability, but for it to be valid you must show third-party documentation -- someone else's website showing that your website is popular. Abstain until notability is established or disproven. Alba 03:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • User Comment: You may visit all this Top 100 fishing site @:

You may click at them, and search for Singapore Sea Brothers + it is notable due the early record of the early 80's 150 kilogrammes of Stingray. PS: for more on the rating do visit my site @ the Singapore Sea Brothers

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per WP:CSD G7 (author request) Tizio, Caio, Sempronio 16:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Singapore sea brothers

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. -Splash - tk 23:25, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

InstallAware

edit

This was {{prod}}'d for a time, but I think it needs a wider audience for deleting it. UtherSRG (talk) 15:04, 10 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. Not (nor professes to be) an encyclopedia entry. El_C 07:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to Islam Bibliography

edit

This is a list of published works on Islam, and self-professes "to compile a comprehensive list of introductory books on Islam written in English anywhere in the world". It does not fill any normal definiton of an encylcopedia article, it's not even properly a list by the Wikipedia definition i.e. it does not contain information, merely data. None of the books or authors on the list (bar one or two) are demonstrated to satisfy the relevant notability guidelines. In short, this is a pure data-dump, not knowledge. Delete Zunaid 15:20, 10 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. Yummy! :) - Mailer Diablo 16:26, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pirouline

edit

A consensus was reached at DRV to overturn the speedy deletion of this article [24]. This is a procedural nomination so I abstain. Thryduulf 15:27, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Abstain Do we anticipate a separate article on every cookie/biscuit from every manufacturer? If this one is unique or otherwise notable, keep it. If it isn't, delete it. Not being in America, I've never heard of it or the company, so cannot comment on its notability or lack thereof. Emeraude 16:39, 10 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. Yummy! :) - Mailer Diablo 16:27, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anna's Swedish Thins

edit

A consensus was reached at DRV to overturn the speedy deletion of this article [25]. This is a procedural nomination so I abstain. Thryduulf 15:29, 10 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. Yummy! :) - Mailer Diablo 16:28, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Breakaway (food)

edit

A consensus was reached at DRV to overturn the speedy deletion of this article [26]. This is a procedural nomination so I abstain. Thryduulf 15:31, 10 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. Yummy! :) - Mailer Diablo 16:28, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brussels cookies

edit

A consensus was reached at DRV to overturn the speedy deletion of this article [29]. This is a procedural nomination so I abstain. Thryduulf 15:34, 10 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, but since there is some interest in merging I will add the merge tags. Yomanganitalk 11:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Choco Leibniz

edit

A consensus was reached at DRV to overturn the speedy deletion of this article [30]. This is a procedural nomination so I abstain. Thryduulf 15:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The apt words of user:Postdlf apply here too if you change Keebler to Bahlsen. "I think the better way to look at it is how substantial is it as an independent topic, such that it isn't enough just to mention it in a list of Keebler (make that Bahlsen) products. Is it expandable in a nontrivial way? George W. Bush is notable, yet George W. Bush in December, 1978 does not merit a separate article, nor does Hairstyles of George W. Bush (I will nevertheless be in awe if anyone makes a genuinely encyclopedic attempt at such an article). Postdlf 15:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)" Thanks, pschemp | talk 03:42, 18 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. — CharlotteWebb 07:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chips Ahoy!

edit

A consensus was reached at DRV to overturn the speedy deletion of this article [31]. This is a procedural nomination so I abstain. Thryduulf 15:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Obvious keep as a well-known, popular cookie brand. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a well-known brand, more information about it would be nice, but Nabisco is hardly going to need Wikipedia for advertisement. FrozenPurpleCube 16:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but expand per Badlydrawnjeff and Manticore. --Aaron 16:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain Do we anticipate a separate article on every cookie/biscuit from every manufacturer? If this one is unique or otherwise notable, keep it. If it isn't, delete it. Emeraude 16:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, very well-known US cookie brand. NawlinWiki 17:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, to answer Emeraude, this brand is sold throughout the US, can be found in every supermarket (and most smaller groceries as well) and is advertised on nationwide TV and in nationwide magazines. One of the top-selling cookies in the US. So it's not just some minor brand operating out of some grandma's kitchen. Andrew Levine 17:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then why do neither the article nor this discussion cite any sources? Please remember that you need to demonstrate notability to readers in countries outside the United States. "It's notable because we've all heard of it." isn't a valid pile-on argument for discussion forum members defending their discussion forum, and it isn't a valid argument for North American editors defending a North American biscuit brand. Sources! Sources! Sources! Uncle G 18:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd go with [32]'s statement about it being the largest seller in the US as enough. Probably also checkable in trade magazines or Kraft's corporate reports if you want. FrozenPurpleCube 18:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • It doesn't cite any sources because nobody's added them yet. Give me half an hour and I will find you a half-dozen citations of the brand from business and advertising journals. Try and tone down the patronizing attitude, and remember that you are talking to a fellow administrator who has been here since 2003, not a newcomer who needs to be lectured on citation. The issue here is one of time. I voice my support and reasoning first and then find the citations when my life leaves me a little more free time. Andrew Levine 18:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • There's no patronizing. But there is a double standard which should not be being employed. Moreover: If you are "voicing your support" then you are voting, just as the discussion forum members who come to AFD to voice their support for their pet discussion fora vote. AFD is not a vote. You have days to contribute to the discussion. You don't have to "vote immediately and often". Sources help the encyclopaedia far more than votes. Uncle G 18:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • By assuming that an experienced user is unfamiliar with basic processes, and explaining them as if to a novice, you continue to take a patronizing attitude, and it's not helping. Saying "Keep, because (multitude of reasons)" is not a simple "keep vote," it's a contribution to a discussion, and I have seen too many AfDs incorrectly closed as speedy to say that getting opposition in first and then providing the references is wrong. I can't do a more thorough search right now, but in 1998, Chips Ahoy! was the third-top-selling cookie line in the U.S., with $184.4 million in sales (Snack Food & Wholesale Bakery, June 1999). Andrew Levine 18:48, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Once again, there's no patronizing, but you are getting it wrong, as exemplified below. Furthermore, your concerns about this discussion being "incorrectly closed as speedy" clearly have no foundation. Read the nomination and see how we got here in the first place. Uncle G 20:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm sorry if this offends, but I too find your responses across this subject to be a bit patronizing as well myself. You may not be intending to offend, but your tone just comes across as more irritating and dogmatic than genuinely concerned with improving articles. FrozenPurpleCube 18:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Just so everybody knows, I'm talking about Uncle G here. FrozenPurpleCube 19:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • My apologies, I just don't think Uncle G's standard is fair. Anyway, here is a 2004 report that gives Chips Ahoy!'s annual sales at $355 million. here. In a few minutes I will incorporate this into the article. Andrew Levine 18:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Oh, no, I was unclear. I agree with your impression about Uncle G's statements as being patronizing. Sorry for not being clear. FrozenPurpleCube 19:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • Ah, understood. I also want to state that bringing the need for references to an AfD discussion is of questionable relevance, since we do not deleted articles solely on the basis of being unreferenced. Andrew Levine 19:27, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                  • This is where you are getting it wrong. Citing sources is very much a part of AFD discussions (not least because it is what we are supposed to be doing here in Wikipedia) because it is the way to demonstrate unequivocally that notability criteria are satisfied. "It's notable because it's famous." is a worthless rationale. Fame isn't a criterion for deletion or inclusion, and a Wikipedia editor simply asserting that something is famous doesn't demonstrate it. "It's notable because this source, this source, this source, and this source demonstrate that the notability criterion is satisfied." is a good rationale. Citing sources in support of arguments is the way to make arguments, and that applies here as much as it does anywhere else. Uncle G 20:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep They may not be Oreos, but it is definitely one of the most well-known and best-selling cookie brands in North America. Kirjtc2 19:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable and recognizable brand worldwide.--Húsönd 19:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Badlydrawnjeff and Andrew Levine. Agent 86 19:45, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per above - AfDs are getting ridiculous! PT (s-s-s-s) 20:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - definitely worth an article. Could use some citations. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 20:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Meets the requirements for product notability. Original speedy was nonsense.Cynical 22:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Find some citations and get on with it. RFerreira 01:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Well played with the source, Andrew Levine. But point well taken, Uncle G. At ease, soldiers! JubalHarshaw 02:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Speedy deletion under G11 is showing itself to be a very bad idea. Nearly 7,000 Google News returns for this. This brand was sold in Australia and is clearly a notable snack. [33]
  • keep please chips ahoy are very notable as a cookie brand Yuckfoo 07:34, 11 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. Yummy! :) - Mailer Diablo 16:29, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chips Deluxe

edit

A consensus was reached at DRV to overturn the speedy deletion of this article [34]. This is a procedural nomination so I abstain. Thryduulf 15:37, 10 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. Yummy! :) - Mailer Diablo 16:29, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dunk-a-roos

edit

A consensus was reached at DRV to overturn the speedy deletion of this article [36]. This is a procedural nomination so I abstain. Thryduulf 15:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain Do we anticipate a separate article on every cookie/biscuit from every manufacturer? If this one is unique or otherwise notable, keep it. If it isn't, delete it. In the UK, I've never heard of it, so cannot comment on its notability or lack thereof. Emeraude 16:48, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Major brand/product. ike9898 19:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Meets the requirements for product notability. Original speedy was nonsense.Cynical 22:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The above comments appear to be pasted across the numerous AfDs created from the DRV. While I endorse the DRV's actions, this should be an idependent evaluation. Now, unlike, say, Chips Ahoy!, for which I can find dozens of mentions of in news article litterred like candy, I cannot find the same for this. The fact that the product was so short lived means its a blip of a product that failed, and we do not need an article on every single product produced by a company. Across history there's an untold number of different products and companies that have come and gone. What's special about it? It does not appear to have the multiple reliable sources for WP:CORP's guideline for notability. May be more appropriate for something more closely related to Betty Crocker, but that appears to be lacking too for much in the way of products in general. There's no sources for the article really, and I can't substantiate it being a "major brand/product" because of that. Actions by a highly noted company don't make it notable either. (Children of famous people don't get articles automatically). The product should be able to stand on its own. Kevin_b_er 08:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This was a product with national distribution (at least in the US) from a major manufacturer. I find it highly doubtful that no reliable sources about Dunk-a-roos can be found: tag as unreferenced, and hopefully someone will find one. Mangojuicetalk 16:34, 11 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 - no evidence has been provided that they are notable. Yomanganitalk 11:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duberry cookies

edit

A consensus was reached at DRV to overturn the speedy deletion of this article [37]. This is a procedural nomination so I abstain. Thryduulf 15:38, 10 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. Yummy! :) - Mailer Diablo 16:31, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Panda

edit

A consensus was reached at DRV to overturn the speedy deletion of this article [38]. This is a procedural nomination so I abstain. Thryduulf 15:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Abstain Do we anticipate a separate article on every cookie/biscuit from every manufacturer? If this one is unique or otherwise notable, keep it. If it isn't, delete it. In the UK, I've never heard of it or the company, so cannot comment on its notability or lack thereof. Emeraude 16:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Ccbyi 17:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep In fact, I speedy-undeleted this one myself during the DRV, as the accusation of "spam" was simply ludicrous. the original contributor has a long and varying contribution history, and is obviously not a spammer. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Meets the requirements for product notability. Original speedy was nonsense.Cynical 22:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I'm not keen on short articles like this which appear to have limited scope for expansion, and would prefer a system where notable-but-not-expandable products were described in an article on the manufacturer (along the lines of our fiction guidelines, in which minor characters are supposed to be described in an article on a series). That said, I don't see that this fails any inclusion guidelines. Get a reference for the claim that it's exported worldwide, and there's no further problem here. — Haeleth Talk 16:33, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, though I do wonder how you verify that something is carried in stores worldwide. You don't often find articles about what foods are found in stores. I've seen them in a couple different states in the U.S., at places other than import stores. They aren't as widespread as Pocky, but they are making inroads. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I see these all the time in Australia, they're quite popular here. Definitely a worthwhile article. M.C. Brown Shoes 07:37, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to manufacturer's puny article as an example of a product they make. Why does it need a seperate article? --Kunzite 15:20, 14 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. Yummy! :) - Mailer Diablo 16:31, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HobNob

edit

A consensus was reached at DRV to overturn the speedy deletion of this article [39]. This is a procedural nomination so I abstain. Thryduulf 15:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain Do we anticipate a separate article on every cookie/biscuit from every manufacturer? If this one is unique or otherwise notable, keep it. If it isn't, delete it. Being in the UK, I've heard of these and the company, and the article is fuller than most of the other biscuit articles being discussed, but I still do not feel that every biscuit in the world deserves an entry just because it is a biscuit. Emeraude 16:53, 10 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 Redirect to Keebler. No evidence of notability provided. Yomanganitalk 16:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Magic middles

edit

A consensus was reached at DRV to overturn the speedy deletion of this article [40]. This is a procedural nomination so I abstain. Thryduulf 15:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you at least indicate how expansion might demonstrate the notability of this particular cookie? Keebler is certainly notable, but does that mean it confers notability to every product it puts out? GassyGuy 15:31, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see it as a matter of whether this cookie is notable, because it's encompassed by an undisputedly notable topic. I think the better way to look at it is how substantial is it as an independent topic, such that it isn't enough just to mention it in a list of Keebler products. Is it expandable in a nontrivial way? George W. Bush is notable, yet George W. Bush in December, 1978 does not merit a separate article, nor does Hairstyles of George W. Bush (I will nevertheless be in awe if anyone makes a genuinely encyclopedic attempt at such an article). Postdlf 15:42, 11 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. — CharlotteWebb 04:33, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hydrox

edit

A consensus was reached at DRV to overturn the speedy deletion of this article [41]. This is a procedural nomination so I abstain. Thryduulf 15:42, 10 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. Yummy! :) - Mailer Diablo 16:32, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maryland Cookies

edit

A consensus was reached at DRV to overturn the speedy deletion of this article [42]. This is a procedural nomination so I abstain. Thryduulf 15:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Assuming this is indeed a big seller(IOW, really 12 billion sold each year), this should be kept, as it's obviously notable. FrozenPurpleCube 16:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Abstain, but leaning towards delete. Do we anticipate a separate article on every cookie/biscuit from every manufacturer? I doubt the claim that this is the UK's leading seller, but this could depend on definition. The article is clearly written by someone in the UK, where the word "cookie" is used to refer only to certain types of biscuit. My understanding is that in the USA and possibly elsewhere, "cookie" is synonymous with "biscuit". So here's the vonfusion - what does a US reader get from the phrase "the UK's best selling cookie" and what does a British reader get. Maryland cookies are certainly NOT the best selling biscuit. Other parts of the article are unnecessary - drug smuggling for example - but I refer back to my original point: Do we need an article on very cookie from every manufacturer? Emeraude 17:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Well-known brand.--Húsönd 19:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per above - AfDs are getting ridiculous! PT (s-s-s-s) 20:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Meets the requirements for product notability. Original speedy was nonsense.Cynical 22:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the comments above. RFerreira 01:18, 11 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 14:50, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

J.R. Rose

edit

Non-notable bio. Nehwyn 15:45, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but the db tag was repeatedly removed by author. --Nehwyn 15:51, 10 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. Yummy! :) - Mailer Diablo 16:32, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Milano (cookie)

edit

A consensus was reached at DRV to overturn the speedy deletion of this article [43]. This is a procedural nomination so I abstain. Thryduulf 15:45, 10 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. — CharlotteWebb 04:37, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nilla

edit

A consensus was reached at DRV to overturn the speedy deletion of this article [46]. This is a procedural nomination so I abstain. Thryduulf 15:44, 10 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 11:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Penguin biscuit

edit

A consensus was reached at DRV to overturn the speedy deletion of this article [47]. This is a procedural nomination so I abstain. Thryduulf 15:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Random quote: "A Penguin biscuit (the towering treat of the Seventies)" from this article [48] (The Guardian Unlimited). There are stacks of them. What about this one? [49], apparently it's published in 'Marketing magazine' (!?) and gives some sales figures (that site is a solicitor's site, with the material taken from that mag). There is stacks of material available. QuagmireDog 23:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The first example you gave is already in the article under "Further reading". Yomanganitalk 23:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's fair enough, here's more on the Puffin/Penguin lawsuit between Penguin's manufacturer and the supermarket chain Asda [50], direct from the Marketing magazine website. There's 49 results on 'penguin biscuit' on that site alone [51]. QuagmireDog 23:55, 10 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. —Cryptic 00:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Top Of The Pods

edit

Delete: No evidence of meeting WP:WEB (contested prod)  — Tivedshambo (talk) 15:50, 10 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 16:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nutter Butter

edit

A consensus was reached at DRV to overturn the speedy deletion of this article [52]. This is a procedural nomination so I abstain. Thryduulf 15:51, 10 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 Merge to Girl Scout cookie. Yomanganitalk 16:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tagalongs

edit

A consensus was reached at DRV to overturn the speedy deletion of this article [53]. This is a procedural nomination so I abstain. Thryduulf 15:53, 10 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 16:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Teddy Grahams

edit

A consensus was reached at DRV to overturn the speedy deletion of this article [54]. This is a procedural nomination so I abstain. Thryduulf 15:54, 10 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. Yummy! :) - Mailer Diablo 16:35, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tiny Teddy

edit

A consensus was reached at DRV to overturn the speedy deletion of this article [55]. This is a procedural nomination so I abstain. Thryduulf 15:57, 10 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, the contested speedy deletion of this article on 2006-10-03 already came to AFD on 2006-10-05 and was discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Tam. Uncle G 16:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Tam

edit

A consensus was reached at DRV to overturn the speedy deletion of this article [57]. This is a procedural nomination so I abstain. Thryduulf 15:57, 10 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.
Note. The article which was the subject of this discussion is now at Toll House cookies. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 03:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was procedural speedy keep. ;-) Can't sleep, clown will eat me 10:45, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Toll House

edit

A consensus was reached at DRV to overturn the speedy deletion of this article [58]. This is a procedural nomination so I abstain. Thryduulf 15:58, 10 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 keep. Kilo•T 18:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wagon Wheel (biscuit)

edit

A consensus was reached at DRV to overturn the speedy deletion of this article [59]. This is a procedural nomination so I abstain. Thryduulf 15:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 263,000 Google hits for "wagon wheel biscuit" ([60]) --Dweller 16:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's a bit like someone slapping an Afd on Oreos --Dweller 16:34, 10 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. Myles Long 21:01, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

edit

A consensus was reached at DRV to overturn the speedy deletion of this article [61]. This is a procedural nomination so I abstain. Thryduulf 16:00, 10 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 11:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arnott's Biscuits Holdings

edit

A consensus was reached at DRV to overturn the speedy deletion of this article [62]. This is a procedural nomination so I abstain. Thryduulf 16:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep From the article Arnott's is also Australia's second largest supplier of snack food. and on their website, they employ over 4,000 people in Australia alone. How on earth this got speedied, I don't know. FrozenPurpleCube 16:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If we kept articles based purely upon the article content and what the subject's own web site says, we'd be keeping all sorts of rubbish. If this company is as notable as you think, it should be easy to make a proper argument, citing sources, demonstrating that the WP:CORP criteria are satisfied. Uncle G 18:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Gee, I'm sorry, but I don't have a copy of an Australian Business Almanac (or Newspaper, or whatever) on hand, and in lieu of evidence to the contrary, I'm going to assume that a company that is large enough to have over 4000 employees is not going to outright lie on their website, that as a subsidiary of a major US company (Campbells), they are going to be truthful, and that ultimately, the contents of article can be verified. If they can't, then I request you identify what can't be, so it can be specifically dealt with. More importantly though, my real problem was that they should NEVER have been speedied. That was such a bad result that it brings into question the whole Speedy Deletion process. FrozenPurpleCube 19:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's a circular argument. You know that it has 4,000 employees because you read it on the web site (as you stated above). You trust that the web site is telling the truth because the company has 4,000 employees. Citing sources for notable companies to demonstrate that they satisfy WP:CORP isn't hard, but if you don't do it the first time that an article comes up at AFD, the article most likely will be challenged again, months or years from now. It also gives you a proper foundation for assertions about the size and significance of the company, because you can point to source material to back up what you claim. Uncle G 20:27, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm just pointing out that I don't have a directory of Australian businesses available on hand. I'm sorry, but that's not the sort of thing I have at home. Maybe some Aussie users do, I don't know. However, the fact that they do claim such a large number of employees makes them notable, and this is either something outright provable or disprovable. If you've got some source that claims they don't exist, or any kind of evidence of their being deceptive, tell me.. But to act like you are now? It creates the impression to me that you're overzealous, not that you're really concerned about the article. Narrow-mindedness is not a good thing, and it does not inspire me to work with you. Sorry, but it just doesn't. FrozenPurpleCube 21:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Arnott is arguably an Australian icon. One of the companies that are very popular to many Australian because of their product if not simply because of Tim Tam.vhadiant 16:47, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per above - AfDs are getting ridiculous! PT (s-s-s-s) 20:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It's a wholly-owned subsidiary of Campbell Soup Company. Here's a little something for WP:CORP. --Aaron 21:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Meets the requirements for product notability. Original speedy was nonsense.Cynical 22:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Arnott's is a major and highly significant company in Australia. The article needs expanding with history and cultural impact sections. It's current stubby state is not a good indication of the importance of this comapny to Australian culture and the Australian identity. -dmmaus 00:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is getting absurd. This is an iconic Australian company name. G11 is clearly a very bad idea. 1,640 Google News Archives for Arnotts see [63]. Capitalistroadster 04:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 04:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, really obvious keep, and ridiculous speedy deletion and nomination (no offence to Thryduulf, I know this is procedural after the WP:DRV. Alright Uncle G, we're working on the sources! Keep your hair on! --Canley 04:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Who on earth would speedy this article? its almost a farce given the snowball effect here that such a thing could have happened. Ansell 04:53, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. Catchpole 06:59, 11 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. — CharlotteWebb 04:35, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Nestlé brands

edit

A consensus was reached at DRV to overturn the speedy deletion of this article [64]. This is a procedural nomination so I abstain. Thryduulf 16:03, 10 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. Yummy! :) - Mailer Diablo 16:35, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Taxi (chocolate)

edit

A consensus was reached at DRV to overturn the speedy deletion of this article [65]. This is a procedural nomination so I abstain. Thryduulf 15:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, but I don't think it's a big issue. I initially created this page because it was a redlink on the disambiguaiton page Taxi. It seemed appropriate to have a page, but I have no emotional attachment to it if everyone else feels otherwise. -- Natalya 21:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: not everything on disambig pages needs to be linked. Pavel Vozenilek 21:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
True. This, however, seemed to be a valid article. -- Natalya 16:03, 11 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. — CharlotteWebb 04:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Famous Amos

edit

A consensus was reached at DRV to overturn the speedy deletion of this article [66]. This is a procedural nomination so I abstain. Thryduulf 16:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep, very well known brand. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Useful adjunct to Wally Amos and I'm pretty sure it got mentioned in the History Channel America Eats series too. FrozenPurpleCube 16:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep, clearly notable company. Postdlf 16:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, well-known brand. NawlinWiki 17:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep as a well-known brand of chocolate chip cookkies. For example, this recent news article. -- Whpq 17:45, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as above. Gazpacho 18:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Clearly notable"? Clear to whom? The article cites no sources. How are Wikipedia readers in Malaysia to know that this is "clearly notable"? Please stop arguing that you personally know the brand, and cite sources. Sources are what we deal in here at Wikipedia, not personal testimony. Uncle G 18:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Uncle G, how do you feel about "Smith, Andrew F., ed. The Junk Food and Fast Food Encyclopedia." as a potential source? Not to mention Wally Amos is himself notable. [67]. So I think his major product at least deserves an article, if not a redirect. Plus like I said, I'm pretty sure that they were featured in the History Channel's American Eats series. FrozenPurpleCube 18:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm happy if you cite multiple non-trivial sources about the subject from people independent of the manufacturer, and base your argument upon them. I'm ecstatic if you put them in the article, so that this article doesn't end up coming back to AFD in a year's time, as happens if sources aren't added to articles. (Remember the drinking games, where people had pile-on votes the first time the articles were nominated for deletion, but didn't actually put any sources in the articles, resulting in their coming back again to AFD months later? Citing sources stops such cycles. None of us wants articles on notable companies and products to come back to AFD repeatedly. Getting the argument right the first time around, so that people can in future say "Of course it's notable. Simply look at the references section of the article!", ensures that they don't. Pile-on, unsupported, "It's notable." votes just yields another AFD nomination months or years from now, when another editor, who may never have even heard of these products in xyr country, decides to challenge a whole load of unsourced articles.) Uncle G 18:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I understand completely why you're harping on this, and I don't fault you one bit, but the difference between this and a drinking game is that no one would ever think for a second to AfD this. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • We're here in the first place because someone not only thought that this article out to be deleted, xe actually went ahead and deleted it. There will be other people who think the same in the future. There will be editors who have never even heard of the product. Citing sources now allows us to say in the future "Just look at the cited sources, and you'll see that the WP:CORP criteria are satisfied.".

            Citing sources also stops people from making the Argumentum Ad Biscuit, which they will do, now that all of these articles have been discussed. "Why do you editors delete our wonderful web site when you keep articles on individual brands of biscuits?" they will ask. I don't speak for anyone else, but I want to be able to to turn to them and ask "That brand of biscuit is documented at length in scholarly papers and in history books, which you can see cited in the references and further reading sections of the articles. Where are the papers and books about your web site?". Uncle G 20:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

          • Good points, Uncle G, and I mostly agree with you about the need for references, but I will point out that the person who deleted all these pages has already said that they did not bother to check for sources (or talk pages, logs, etc.) but deleted the page because they thought it should be deleted, plain and simple, with no regard to cited sources. Turnstep 18:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm sorry, but I'm simply not impressed you with making a connection between a drinking game and a multi-million dollar cookie business. That tends to put you even further towards arrogant and patronizing, which as I said earlier is the impression you're giving, instead of genuinely concerned and interested in the subject. I am honestly not inclined to point out sources for you, as it feels like I'm giving into bullying. Frankly, that it even got Speedy Deleted shows a problem with the process, not with the article. As I said under Arnotts, this is another example that should 'Never have gone there. FrozenPurpleCube 19:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • If you don't "want to give in" when people ask you repeatedly to cite sources, then Wikipedia won't be a comfortable place for you. Insisting upon sources is what we do here. My concern and interest lies in making a better encyclopaedia, which citing sources in articles does, and in preventing the pet articles of people who "are interested in the subject" coming to AFD in the first place, which citing sources also does. Uncle G 20:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • The problem is how you come across, which is not as someone who is genuinely interested in a better Wikpedia, but as someone who is dogmatic and narrow-minded. Especially in circumstances like this, which are clearly highlighting an exceptional problem. I'm sorry, but your multiple repetitions of the same post to various proposals on this subject are not in your favor. Me, I at least tried to individualize my responses. FrozenPurpleCube 20:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since you absolutely insist, here you go: The Man With No Name Aslan, ISBN 0944031579, The Famous Amos Story: The Face That Launched a Thousand Chips Bantam Doubleday, ISBN 0385193785), plus about a dozen Wally Amos "inspirational" books, which include firsthand anecdotes about the company. "Famous Amos" gets 2,250 results in Google's News Archive search. There is a lot written about this company. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep verging on Speedy Keep. So notable that the story of the company has been turned into at least two published books that I know of (The Man With No Name in 1994, and The Famous Amos Story sometime in the 80s). It isn't called "Famous Amos" just 'cause it rhymes! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per all the reasons given above. Seeing the blanket speedy deletion of all these products/companies makes it clear that those critical of G11 have a very strong basis to believe that G11 ought not to be a basis for SD. Agent 86 19:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per above - AfDs are getting ridiculous! PT (s-s-s-s) 20:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Very famous brand name, and ask the admin who speedy deleted it why they did it since it would be like deleting the Pepsi article. TJ Spyke 20:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Meets the requirements for product notability. Original speedy was nonsense.Cynical 22:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with a nice tall glass of milk! Grindingteeth 15:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable brand name, available in many stores in the US --rogerd 16:36, 12 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, no question that this meets WP:CORP. NawlinWiki 16:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pepperidge Farm

edit

A consensus was reached at DRV to overturn the speedy deletion of this article [68]. This is a procedural nomination so I abstain. Thryduulf 16:03, 10 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. — CharlotteWebb 04:21, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Curly Wurly

edit

A consensus was reached at DRV to overturn the speedy deletion of this article [69]. This is a procedural nomination so I abstain. Thryduulf 16:04, 10 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 15:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pugna

edit

Completing a nomination. Rationale was provided in the talk page: "I'm not very knowledgeable with Wikipedia's policies, but I'm certain that DotA Allstar's current status does not warrant individual hero pages. Furthermore, the information displayed here is insufficient and ambiguous to users unfamiliar with the game. I doubt this article has its place in an encyclopedia." Tizio, Caio, Sempronio 16:04, 10 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. —Cryptic 00:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Extreme phpBB

edit

Incomplete nomination started by Esptoronto. Reason given as: Extreme_phpBB is not noteworthy and now discontinued. Yomanganitalk 16:49, 10 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 16:36, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gazzo K

edit

Completely unsourced; author has a history of nonsense edits; probably a hoax. See original author's comment at [70] after I added the "hoax" template. Demiurge 16:17, 10 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 - Yomanganitalk 14:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nate Stein

edit

Article about a person who writes about wrestling on the Internet, which really isn't enough to make a person notable. I've come upon the article by reverting edits by sockpuppets of an indef blocked user a couple of times, but that doesn't change the notability either way. - Bobet 16:37, 10 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 a7, group/website with no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 17:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bradleyfans

edit

Non-notable fan group for Bradley Univerity. -- P.B. Pilhet / Talk 16:40, 10 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. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Merchant

edit

Article is entirely based upon one non-noteable individual (a video game merchant). Furthermore, the name "Tom Merchant" does not appear in any official RE4 documentation and appears to be Original Research. Thirdly, the base text itself contains numerous errors. While someone proposed merging it with the base RE4 article, the "Tom Merchant" text is so inaccurate that to add this section to said article would not benefit it. Ex-Nintendo Employee 20:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Whispering(talk/c) 16:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not quite sure why you relisted this. It's quite obvious that the entire article should be deleted- there's never been any evidence that the merchant in RE4 is named Tom, there's no noteability for this character (he's just a merchant in a video game, out of thousands of merchants in video games), the list of quotes attributed to him is full of errors and none of the article follows the manual of style. Ex-Nintendo Employee 17:09, 10 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 09:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Service concept

edit

Non-notable, little context provided. Akradecki 16:44, 10 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. Nonnotable. El_C 08:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

North West Pedestrian Crossings Appreciation Society

edit

This society appears to be a hoax, unless evidence can be provided of its existence. Cfrydj 16:45, 10 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. Redirect optional. - Mailer Diablo 16:36, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple Personality Syndrome

edit

Unsourced original research. Contents can also be found at Dissociative identity disorder, Multiple personality controversy, and DID/MPD in fiction. I suggest to turn it into a redirect to the first of these articles. Nehwyn 16:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, but I've been bitten in the past for that.  :) --Nehwyn 20:06, 10 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 copyright violation of copyrighted ("©2006 optimumnutrition.com, All rights reserved.") non-GFDL web pages. The two warnings presented whenever one edits pages "Do not copy text from other websites without permission. It will be deleted." and "Copyright infringements, attacks, and nonsense will be deleted without warning." are abundantly clear on this. There is no need to waste AFD's time on a matter that belongs at User talk:Cleanupman. Uncle G 17:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Optimum Nutrition Inc.

edit

Corporate spam. Speedied twice per the new spam directives; author requested an "admin review", so here it is. NawlinWiki 16:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep

This is not an ad it is the Official site of Optimum Nutrition taken from their about us page http://www.optimumnutrition.com/aboutus/about1.html

same as this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dell_computers

and this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_and_Applied_Sciences

This is not corporate spam and if so it can be cleaned up if needed. I have listed two above articles that are just company articles. I am not sure were the differences are but it seems to me if this is the new policy there are going to be allot of Companies considered as corporate Spam.

Help me out here as I am willing to add take out change the article to come into guidlines with Wki. It is kinda hard to do when the article is deleted before I have a chance to review it.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cleanupman (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 Keep - Yomanganitalk 10:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Kolb

edit

Non-notable quarterback, fails WP:BIO, his lepidopteraphobia notwithstanding. Eusebeus 15:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Whispering(talk/c) 16:59, 10 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 CSD G11 as tagged - CrazyRussian talk/email 06:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How Not To Make A. ... Movie

edit

Deprodded. A YouTube series of two videos and 1 in production (according to the article). Not notable, also vanity which you can easily see by the original authors image descriptions on their Special:Contributions/Humorbot5 - "Picture Taken Directly from a film I made". Apparently no media attention so not notable. Andeh 17:14, 10 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. The article embodies all that is worst about this kind of topic, however. It's one long stream of thought without structure. -Splash - tk 23:29, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quantum evolution (alternative)

edit

{{prod}} after a long time needeing {{cleanup}}. Perhaps a wider audience can agree to delete it or save it. UtherSRG (talk) 17:26, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • weak keep it has sources at the bottom, so I'm inclined to say it should be kept, but it is a quite esoteric subject, so I'm not sure where to go with it. FrozenPurpleCube 17:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep, although I would like to know (and the article to reflect) how many and what kinds of people believe this. And I would support another vote being taken at a later time. Lundse 22:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Pseudoscience meets buzzword bingo I feel, but IANAScientist. Can this be kept open to get more input ? Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:08, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with quantum mind or quantum biology. This is just another breed of the same stuff. Some of the sources and a tiny bit of the prose can be incorporated onto one of those pages (take your pick as to which one -- the latter may be the most appropriate). --ScienceApologist 15:17, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The theory itself is off the deep end, but the article cites sources and discusses the objections to the theory, so I think it deserves to stay. It also needs some TLC to bring it up to standards, but I'm hip deep in alligators right now, so I'm not volunteering. -- Donald Albury 15:58, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge for reasons given by Science Apologist. If not merge, then delete. Moriori 20:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not "esoteric" in the sense of technical complexity, just pseudoscience. Michael K. Edwards 10:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This pseudoscientific article should be merged with Darwinism. GoodSamaritan 02:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It is not clear to me that the sources cited are either reliable - a genetic engineering .org site that recommends a cell phone brand? I don't think so - or, in the case of the book, relevant to the claims of the article. If this is real science, someone will do it right at some point. I believe it's fiction, based on what I see. Original author also blanks his Talk pages, which doesn't go far with me for credibility. - Corporal Tunnel 20:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Doubt about a religion to be scientifically true, must not cause an article on that religion to be deleted. Obviously the concept of the article topic exists and there has been scientifical criticism on it - thus it was certainly notable enough. The article itself mentions the criticism. I prefer people to read about that here than to hear about the topic in a non-critical environment. — SomeHuman 19 Oct2006 17:17 (UTC)
  • Keep. It cites references, and is about a theory still talked about. It needs work, for sure, and it has too much POV, but it's worth having an article on. I would say weak keep, but I think it should stand alone, rather than merge, so I'm saying normal keep. AubreyEllenShomo 17:21, 19 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 - Yomanganitalk 14:15, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Dramatic Life (album)

edit

The title of this album hasn't been announced, so this is just unsourced speculation and rumour. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Extraordinary Machine 17:43, 10 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 - Yomanganitalk 14:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The All Out Show

edit

Show is broadcast on Sirius radio, but gives no mention of any notability. Does a show being broadcast on Sirius automatically make it notable? Wildthing61476 17:46, 10 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 as disambiguation page. -- nae'blis 15:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lettow

edit

Non-notable and more suited for the Wookieepedia. Should be turned into a redirect to Paul Emil von Lettow-Vorbeck. Olessi 18:00, 10 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. (aeropagitica) 21:41, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sofiur Rahman

edit

Proposed deletion tag removed by author Tarif Ezaz (talk • contribs). Brianyoumans (talk • contribs) wrote: "Not notable; this man was merely an innocent bystander who happened to be shot by the police; I think mentioning him in the language movement article would be more than sufficient. Brianyoumans 12:44, 8 October 2006 (UTC)"[reply]

I agree with him so I've sent this to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. A Google search for ("Sofiur Rahman" -wikipedia) returns no mention of this person at all. Fails: Wikipedia:Notability (people) --  Netsnipe  ►  18:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Strong keep:
    • Subject was recipient of Ekushey Padak, one of the highest national awards of Bangladesh, awarded posthumously in 2000. See bio from Banglapedia.
    • As for google test, it is not reliable at all for non-Western topics, and doesn't cover most of non-web notability. Usage of it for non-western topics often results in Systemic bias.
    • The Banglapedia link I provided here is from the National Encyclopedia of Bangladesh.
    • Also note that the spelling of his first name has been written down variously as "Shafiur Rahman", "Sofiur Rahman", "Shofiur Rahman".
  • In light of the above points, the subject is definitely notable, and definitely passes Wikipedia:Notability (people). --Ragib 20:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - I now agree that the entry should be kept. I believe he was actually given the award in 2005 (see here for a reference I added to the article); he is also not listed among the original awardees in the Banglapedia article on the Ekushey awards. --Brianyoumans 06:33, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A banglapedia article (national archives of Bangaldesh) should cement notability.Bakaman Bakatalk 00:40, 12 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) 21:37, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ilan Manulis

edit

Good-faith submission. After someone copied text from the Hebrew wiki a month ago, I translated it from the Hebrew, and put a notability tag on it. Since then, there has been no improvement. I just don't think it's notable. In essence, he is a past president of the Israeli Astonomical Association (not known how many astronomers in Israel) and he has an asteroid named after him (not known how precious that really is). Delete? - CrazyRussian talk/email 18:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I doubt he passes WP:BIO. Using Google, I can't verify (though maybe others can) the claim that he's got an asteroid named after him. Wouldn't say he's achieved fame or notoriety even if an asteroid was named after him. Google and Lexis-Nexis suggest he's not the primary subject of multiple non-trivial publications. As for the Israeli Astronomical Association, with 178 unique ghits, no results on Lexis-Nexis, and its English website being down, I'd say that the association, and especially its past president, is probably not notable. The bottom line, though, is that unless someone can come up with references, the article has to be deleted per WP:V. Pan Dan 18:54, 10 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 per WP:CSD#A7. -- Merope Talk 18:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Philip John Basile

edit

No claim to notability. No doubt an upstanding citizen, but does not seem to meet WP:BIO. Attempted to speedy delete, but article creator "disputed" it by removing the tag, so I'm bringing it here for consensus. Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 18:15, 10 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. - Mailer Diablo 16:37, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ligon Middle School

edit

No assertion of notability whatsoever. Speedy tag and prod tag have been removed previously. cholmes75 (chit chat) 18:16, 10 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 per WP:V.

Judaic Christianity

edit

The article says about this religion, called also Commemorative Christianity or Experimental Judaism: "However, since it is new, resources are not yet available for this particular religion." - Therefore I think that this violates both notability and verifiability. Speedy deletion contested, so AfD Ioannes Pragensis 18:28, 10 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 09:39, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Multi Theft Auto

edit

Non-notable game modification. -- Merope Talk 19:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, we will have a look at how we will do that, i've spend the past hour collecting various bits i remembered and combined them on our own wiki : http://www.mtavc.com/docu/index.php?title=Press_Coverage . I'll see tomorow where we can go from here. btw the unsigned comment was mine, never was a big editor on wikipedia so this is all fairly new to me -- Blokker 1999
  • Keep The article is being changed, and currently contains at least a lot more references.
  • Weak keep based solely on the references added; thanks, Blokker. Frankly, gaming mags and websites are pretty low on the reliable-sources scale; comments like the one cited above don't meet the "non-trivial" standard, so you pretty much need feature articles to justify inclusion. For comparison, in boardgaming where I'm more active than computer gaming, just because the latest expansion to Settlers of Catan gets talked about on BoardGameGeek, that doesn't mean I'll put an article in WP. And no, this isn't cut-and-dried enough to justify a "speedy keep" closure. Barno 21:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not that we just have been featured on some forums. We have a couple of articles in the written press that take more then 1 page, the major gaming sites (IGN and GameSpy) compared games like True Crime and Saints Row with MTA. Fileplanet has placed us on it's frontpage, for a mod that's rare. And G4TV did a feature about us on TV. We even received an e-mail from Rockstar itself stating that they took an interest and will keep track of our progress. When your project is well known by the biggest editors in the bussines then it's difficult to call something trivial imho. Blokker 1999 04:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep i'm an MTA fan and noticed this under deletion policy. My opinion will be biased, but the 'Press coverage' page features a lot i find - surely magazine articles, frequent mentions on IGN and a full feature interview on TV are highly notable. MTA "is probably the world's first publically known and most successful multiplayer modification for a PC game ever." It is also known as the first ever mod to bring multiplayer to the GTAIII series, which makes it distinct from other multiplayer mods for GTA (which also feature on wikipedia).
    • Also i'd like to add that being on the front of fileplanet is no easy job. A few days ago i saw the demo of Medieval Total War II being featured in the main banner where MTA featured. Today i see a battlefield 2142 demo in the same space. These are both huge commercial files, and the fact that Fileplanet were willing to sacrifice such a space for MTA is definately notable.
  • Keep "In order to have a verifiable article, a topic must be notable enough that it will be described by multiple independent reliable sources." The list given above shows multiple sources in print, TV and internet pages. Whilst some sources have an interest in video games, they are independent and have no connection to MTA whatsoever. I think the magazine and G4TV sources could also be described as reliable. They have a large, paying audience and limited time / space, yet they chose to dedicate some time/space to MTA. - JonChappell 22:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep But with restrictions. I'm in favour of keeping this article as I do believe, being popular and one of the first GTA multiplayer modifications, MTA is a notable modification, a similar debate was held for the also notable SA-MP modification and the consensus was keep. However I would recommend that the MTA Team advise their community to not use Wikipedia for flagrant advertising (See Vicer's edits for an example), all contributors to the article should be made aware that citing community centric forums does not constitute as attribution of notability. It should also be made clear that Wikipedia is not the place for flame & troll wars between members of the MTA and SA-MP community, both communities should take action to reduce such behaviour by it's members. To the person above who recommended that San Andreas Multiplayer should also be considered for deletion, as already stated a discussion has already taken place regarding the SA-MP article and that bears no relevance to the MTA article, MTA & SA-MP are two wholly independent modifications and are no more related than CS is to TFC (Half-Life modifications). - Jaqel 22:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you did read everything you would have noticed that that was me who posted that. And the reason is simple (even though a discussion has been held in the past). When i did research on why our article was put up for deletion i noticed that to establish notability you have to include indipendent sources, something the sa-mp article does not do even though it was put up for deletion months ago. And while we get nominated over it they only get a warning and probably only after reading what has been said here. Now that looks to me as having two standards. Further more we and SA-MP try to avoid flame wars ourselves. Anyone trying to start one in our forums or IRC sees their post removed or gets warned/kicked/banned from the channel. We have a healthy relation, hell i even warned Luke (one of the SA-MP devs) about the warning on top of their article. Blokker 1999 06:25, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The issue under debate here is the MTA article, it has nothing to do with SA-MP. Bringing the SA-MP article into question serves no purpose and contradicts your stance of neutrality between the two communities. What happens on IRC or community forums is of no relevance to Wikipedia, the issue I was referring to in regards to relations between either community and Wikipedia was the issue of vandalism that intermittently happens to both the MTA and SA-MP articles. Also realise, the SA-MP article received a similar nomination and has had a similar discussion under AfD, it was not simply a 'warning', you are not receiving some sort of injustice. - Jaqel 19:53, 15 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 16:37, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars Quake

edit

Article was first up for deletion over a year ago here during that time no one has put any reliable sources noting how this mod is any more notable from the countless other mods that never made it to fruition. So delete per WP:V and WP:RS. Whispering(talk/c) 19:02, 10 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 Redirect to List of United States Presidential pets - Yomanganitalk 14:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

King Timahoe

edit

Delete This page is an advertisement for the blog it links to. flipjargendy 19:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i would agree with that, although that info is already in the List of United_States Presidential pets. That blog stuff is clearly advertisement though. That's the only reason this is up for deletion. - flipjargendy 23:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of United States Presidential pets, then. Andrew Levine 00:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A Redirect would make more sense now that i think of it. If someone does a search on "King Timahoe" and it is redirected to the List of United_States Presidential pets it would then be obvious that "King Timahoe" is a pet of a president. i see no need to have an article or even a stub about this pet. - flipjargendy 21:20, 11 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. Catchpole 20:41, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lynn Toler

edit

Contested prod; article is about a television personality. No evidence of satisfying WP:BIO. Valrith 20:23, 10 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) 21:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PHPAjaxTags

edit

Delete, no evidence that this piece of software meets the criteria outlined at WP:SOFTWARE. --Kinu t/c 20:37, 10 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. The argument raised on the paucity of verifiable sources for notability of the zine holds and has not been refuted -- Samir धर्म 04:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HeartattaCk

edit

Self-published punk zine. This article was recreated as response to a contested speedy deletion and now asserts notability. Procedural listing, I abstain for now. ~ trialsanderrors 21:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • In current form, delete. A number of these claims are dubious and sound unverifiable (particularly the claim about RATM). I've got this watchlisted, however, and should the unverified and dubious-sounding claims be verified, I'll amend my comment. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong, speedy, super punk rock keep - First, thanks to trials for making this AfD, which is preferable to the speedy delete another editor inflicted upon it. I have been encouraged not to make any aspersion about the editors who tried to knock this down, so I will say this... we have an article on Maximumrocknroll and on Punk Planet, and this zine is in that category. I'm not entirely sure what verification is needed. HaC has just always been around, just like Ebullition Records, it's an establishment within the DIY scene. Do you need distribution numbers? Letters from all the record stores that have sold it? Personal notes from the notable bands that pay attention to it? I am open to including or finding whatever you need, but this article was targeted in bad faith because the zine itself is being used as a source in another article up for AfD. This is an attempt to discredit HaC as a credible and notable zine, and therefore jeaopardize any bands with listings on Wikipedia that are made notable in part by their inclusion in this zine. PT (s-s-s-s) 21:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Nontrivial coverage in reliable sources independent of the zine itself. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:27, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep by equivalent is never a strong argument. Just because the Dead Kennedys have an article it doesn't mean any punk band that strives to be the next Kennedys should get one. Especially with self-published zines what matters is if they themselves have been the subject of media or literary attention. So if any of the references in Punk scene#Bibliography mentions HeartattaCk that's a good keep argument. "But Maximum RocknRoll got an entry" isn't. ~ trialsanderrors 21:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The thing is, MRR only has its site and archives as sources, too. Do we AfD that article, as well? PT (s-s-s-s) 22:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Go right ahead, if it's not properly sourced. Although in the case of MRR I'm pretty certain an AfD will lead to better sourcing. Here I'm not so sure. ~ trialsanderrors 03:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Note - the fact about Kent McClard and Rage Against the Machine is mentioned even in Wikipedia's article about that band. PT (s-s-s-s) 21:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    "Their name was derived from a phrase Ebullition Records founder Kent McLard coined in some writings he did for his zine No Answers (issue #9)." (unsourced) Relevance to HeartattaCk? ~ trialsanderrors 21:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Just one small sign of the notability of the individual who created HaC. Also, while I'm not sure how I can cite this here, you can examine any one of a number of Maximumrocknroll issues, for whom Kent McClard was a columnist. Also, a Google search easily reveals his influence on the scene. PT (s-s-s-s) 21:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't find 900 hits that impressive, but if all of your arguments are about KMcC's notability you should write an article on him and list the various zines he started, with redirects to his articles. ~ trialsanderrors 21:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is, Kent STARTED the zine, but it's a collective of people who ran it and made it known. The zine is notable on its own, Kent is notable for other reasons besides the magazine, so it's two different articles (maybe I'll write one about him after this one passes AfD). :) PT (s-s-s-s) 21:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggestion: how about providing a (verifiable, e.g. by issue number) list of notable bands HaC has interviewed? That would go a long way towards demonstrating their importance in the scene. bikeable (talk) 21:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Down that road lies madness. Who defines a notable band? Does every zine that bothers X number of bands that later become successful need an article, even if nothing else verifiable can be said about them? Let's stick instead to the applicable-to-every-topic standard of "Has the subject recieved nontrivial coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject itself?" - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:53, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Isn't its publication, national distribution, and citation as a notable critical sources by several bands and zines who have been reviewed in it's pages, non-trivial enough? Do we verify that New York Times, Time Magazine, etc. exists using outside sources? It may not be a household name, but it is a noted presence in the genre. I don't know how to prove that using Google hits. PT (s-s-s-s) 22:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It's publication and distribution isn't, no. I could Xerox something and buy a bunch of stamps, boom, it's nationally published and distributed. We need coverage in other sources. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with you, MiB, that something you self-publish and mail to a few friends is not notable; however, if you did it 50 times with significant distribution, and if it had an impact on the subculture, it would be. On the other hand, the relationship between the subculture and the mass media is such that I wouldn't expect the New York Times to cover it; how often does the mainstream media write about NME or Maximum_RocknRoll? We've got to find a way that a significant contributor to the culture is considered important, even despite the biases of the mainstream culture. I agree that we're heading towards madness, for sure, but I think a weight-of-evidence approach here is appropriate. I'd like to see refs for band interviews and circulation. bikeable (talk) 22:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    How do you tell the difference between impact on the subculture and no impact on the subculture? By referring to reliable sources. Like we do with everything. It doesn't have to be the NYT, but right now there's nothing. I can't argue about the validity of such-and-such source with no such-and-such source in front of me. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm trying my best here. It's not like there's a lot of mainstream press about HeartattaCk. HaC was the press, it was the source. That's why I make the comparison to asking someone to verify that Time Magazine or New York Times exists and are credible. They are because they just... ARE. This AfD is a bad case of WP:OSTRICH, in my opinion. PT (s-s-s-s) 23:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm a reasonably aware and literate person, from the larger culture into which this publication fits. This article should be able to explain the importance of this subject to me, in such a way that I could verify these claims if I needed to rely on them. If you can't do that, no amount of pointing to that essay will help. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I believe the article asserts the notability of the subject, and I am adding sources as I find them in scouring Google hits for "heartattaCk" + "zine", as well as "Kent McClard." PT (s-s-s-s) 23:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per User:A Man In Black and the issues raised in the lengthy thread above. Eusebeus 00:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless reliable sources are established. PT: for what it's worth, I tried a few California newspapers searches using this page and quickly found: this (rather inconclusive). However, you might try continuing in that tack.--Fuhghettaboutit 00:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. "Self-published punk zine" is a tautology. It's a zine, it's reasonably notable, no reason to delete it. Sources would be nice, but if we deleted every unsourced article we'd have a pretty piss-poor encyclopedia as it stands. --Tothebarricades 00:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    According to whom is it reasonably notable, and why? We don't delete every unsourced article, but unsourcable articles are and should be deleted. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's certainly notable. It has been a staple of its particular music scene for years now and is read in Europe and Canada as well. It's about DIY culture, it refuses to review things with a barcode, it's irrelevant to people outside the subculture. Does that make it worth deleting? Besides, it's not just written by some shlub, it has the same quality of writing/size/printing as MRR. It just addresses a smaller subculture. Dan Carkner 01:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay. Please provide sources to assert that it is a staple and that it's read in Europe and Canada. These broad assertions on the AFD page are all well and good, but the sources in the article boil down to "HeartattaCk is a zine" and not much more. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:31, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not about the magazine's worth but about whether it can meet the criteria for an encyclopedia which is a tertiary source that synthesizes primary and secondary sources. Ideally, every statement in an article is based on some other source we can point to which substantiates the material. Unfortunately, so far, and after looking, we can't point to any sources to verify the statements in this article.--Fuhghettaboutit
Well, I don't know where you expect to find these kind of things when we're talking about a subcultre that keeps itself deliberatly marginal. Sorry, I would find it disappointing if articles about something like this were deleted for "technical" reasons while there are 10,000 articles about pointless aspects of TV shows, videos games, websites,etc. I vote for keep, is everyone voting to delete at least familiar with the magazine?Dan Carkner 02:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't deny that there are some real challenges for someone who wants to make a good article here. I've added some sources and some notes to the talk page. Much of the article is based on claims by the publisher--which is not unusual for a small periodical, but secondary sources would be better. Unfortunately the marginal nature of the publication results in secondary sources being mainly blogs and websites that don't normally meet WP:RS. If, however, these sources are accurate (and they don't seem to be controversial) then this thing may have had a circulation of ~10,000 and represents a large enough community that this should be covered in the 'pedia. -MrFizyx 04:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the claims to notability made in this article just don't cut it. I'm open to being convinced, Sean Scallen photos move me, the zine may be notable. What is really lacking is other media commenting upon the influence of this zine. Back in the day (mid 80s for me) we knew that the zine Urgl-Orp was having an impact because FactSheet5 said it was the best of it's genre (political punk zine). What does FF5 say about HeartattaCk? That would carry some weight. An earlier editor commented that a list of bands interviewed may demonstrate notability, I don't believe that. (For the second issue of my totally NN zine, I interviewed Dick Lucas, I'll be stunned if anyone can figure out it's name, it was "distributed" as far as Australia, the UK, etc). (will watch for further evidence) Pete.Hurd 05:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Pete.Hurd. I'm quoting Our Band Could Be Your Life: "Some of [the zines] grew quite large and influential — including Flipside, Maximumrocknroll and Forced Exposure — but there were literally hundreds of smaller zines that collectively framed the indie aesthetic." From the discussion here it's becoming clear that HeartattaCk was one of the hundreds. I'm happy to be contradicted though and recommend keep voters go here and search the books for mentions of HeartattaCk as a major influence on the punk scene. ~ trialsanderrors 06:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • There seems to be a misconception here about the assertion of notability... there is no claim this zine was an influence on 70's 0r 80's punk. No, this zine was a staple of 90's and 00's hardcore and DIY punk. I think that has been proven with the sources that MrFizyx has provided. PT (s-s-s-s) 15:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The only thing even approaching a reliable source I can see is a four-liner in Metro Santa Cruz (a free weekly), and that doesn't even establish the claim to notability, it just says HaC exists. What I said has nothing to do with era, it has something to do with our policies on outside sourcing, and the sheer lack of them in this article. ~ trialsanderrors 17:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hey t&e, you should update those articles with your quoted source since currently those don't meet WP:RS either. We have lots of articles on music magazines in the same situation, this isn't easy to fix. E.g. every Barnes & Noble carries Guitar World, but if you want to describe its coverage and circulation the easiest thing to do is to go to the source itself (though in this case there are likely trade publications one might find, but not without serious effort). This scene is outside of my expertise. My concern has been that we were deleting this out of ignorance--perhaps some of you have enough punk cred that that I'm wrong about this though. -MrFizyx 19:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article needs clean-up but this publication is certainly notable, well-known, and foundationally important to the American Hardcore scene. This is one of a handful of very important zines with good distribution (including maximumrocknroll, punk planet, under the volcano, and flipside) that functioned as a clearinghouse of information for punk, hardcore, and the DIY movement before (and while) the internet became so widespread.CDaniel 21:03, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep HeartattaCk is reasonably notable because it sold 10,000 copies of almost 50 different issues over the years. The issues that are still available will be gone shortly. Only a handful of punk zines have ever been able to achieve this feat. Those other zines include Flipside, Maximum RocknRoll, and Punk Planet. In an interview in 2000, Aaron Elliott was quoted as saying his Cometbus publication was being printed in quantities of 8,000, so at the time, even that legendary zine wasn’t selling as many copies. My point is that you can’t repeatedly sell 10,000 copies of a punk zine over a 12 year period without being a notable publication. Furthermore, this zine was a self-sustaining project after the first few years, so it wasn’t being run by a scam artist who was purchasing a bunch of stamps and inventing print run numbers since 1994 with the sole purpose of being included on Wikipedia in 2006. -Martin062 09:38, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • So you got a source for that? ~ trialsanderrors 00:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Take a look at the print run numbers source for yourself on my site. The HeartattaCk print run numbers are listed on page 2 of issue #3, page 2 of issue #5, and page 8 of issue #6 (upper right hand corner for all). The scans were taken from the original zines. The source for these zines not being available at this time is HeartattaCk’s official site, which is listed in the external links section. The source for the Cometbus print run number is Maximumrocknroll issue #200, and a copy of that interview can be seen here. Once again, a zine can be notable and relevant even if some of you haven’t heard of it. -Martin062 01:13, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Me haven't heard of it doesn't really mean anything. I've ok-ed many articles on subjects that I haven't heard of before, because others have and have reported on it in reliable sources. That's the whole concept behind Wikipedia, and as I've posted above there are in fact punk zines that have been covered. The literature on punk is actually quite large (although most of it is on 1976-87). So the numerous evasive arguments here ("why isn't the NYT article sourced?") and the reliance on personal experience makes me doubt the arguments that this zine was notable. Otherwise folks would've come up with quotes from now notable bands claiming that HaC was the first zine to review them, etc. ~ trialsanderrors 16:49, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • There’s nothing evasive about my argument. A rational person can easily argue that a zine selling so many issues over that length of time was notable and relevant. If it wasn’t, the zine would have ceased to exist many years ago. The lack of a mainstream news source reporting on the existence of HeartattaCk doesn’t diminish its importance or negate the facts surrounding its history. -Martin062 17:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • I wasn't referring to your argument specifically. You actually cited a source, even though it's a primary one. This has also nothing to do with "importance" but with Wikipedia policies, which ask for backing of claims by reliable sources and prohibit original research. ~ trialsanderrors 21:14, 15 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. Punkmorten 21:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DisplayConfigX

edit

Ad for software, no independent verification of widespread use/notability provided.--Peta 02:35, 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 14:28, 3 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, Deathphoenix ʕ 21:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Relisting one more time. I think if there are no more !votes, this AfD should default to no consensus. --Deathphoenix ʕ 21:18, 10 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) 09:24, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Under Pressure (magazine)

edit

This magazine seems completely non-notable. Less than 500 Ghits. Prod removed without comment. Picaroon9288 21:21, 10 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) 09:23, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of notable power pop songs

edit

No actual assertion of notability; no criteria specified as to what makes a given power pop song "notable", so it violates WP:OR. Aaron 21:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A worthwhile topic, so long as the above concerns are addressed, and self-promoting bands or show-offy "favorite songs" are marginalized. 64.131.196.248 21:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I enjoy the genre, but the examples within power pop are sufficient starting points. The only way I could see keeping this is if it were limited to songs which have been judged notable power pop by outside sources as opposed to leaving it to the discretion of Wikipedians, in which case it might be worthwhile (and I have seen articles which do that sort of thing). Anyway, in its current form, it's not worth it. GassyGuy 05:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Worthless list without criteria. — Arbusto 05:35, 11 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) 08:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Austrian Holocaust Memorial Award

edit

No hits in Google, except in Wikipedia. A possible hoax? Kjetil_r 21:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

well, apparently there's no publicity at all at the moment for this major future award Bwithh 00:48, 12 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) 08:35, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Tolkien Forum

edit

No assertion of notability. If evidence of such notability exists, this deletion discussion ought to drum it up; if it doesn't, we should delete the article. Masamage 22:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I meant the addition of websites to a7--Fuhghettaboutit 12:21, 11 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) 08:34, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ferguson's Disease

edit

Probable hoax. I can find no medical literature referring to Molluscum Contagiosum as Ferguson's disease and the symptoms are different. There is no entry in the On-Line Medical Dictionary or the MedlinePlus: Medical Dictionary on Ferguson's disease. NORD - National Organization for Rare Disorders database has no entry of this name. No Google news stories relating to Ferguson's disease or a case of a rare disease in Clifton Heights. TimVickers 22:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Anonymous user 68.163.29.11 removed discussion of lack of references from article's talk page. TimVickers 21:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete In addition to the fine research above, there are no Google hits for "Dr. Herman Ferguson" [82] (the "dr." is necessary because the name alone brings up false positives), no hits for "Algagenic pruritus" [83], and the sole hit for "Ferguson's Disease" [84] is a lawsuit referring in general to a disease a man named Ferguson had. Note also that while the external link names appear to point to articles specific to this disease, the resulting webpages are to articles on Molluscum Contagiosum, in which the name of this article never appears. If this exists is it very rare indeed—so rare that WP:V seems impossible to satisfy.--Fuhghettaboutit 22:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. Unquestionably a hoax. An uncurable contagious disease that results in systemic angiomas, CNS degeneration, and skin lesions so severe as to be a risk for "fatal bleeding" would be a topic of frenzied discussion in the medical community. Such a disease causing over a hundred deaths in a May 2006 outbreak and a confirmed US case would be front-page on the CDC and on the news (cf. media reaction to Ebola outbreaks -- and that didn't touch North America!). Serpent's Choice 11:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Smells more than a little hoaxy. Can we speedy this, actually? I guess not – ClockworkSoul 17:37, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As the person who brought this article to the attention of the Molecular and Cellular Biology WikiProject and despite looking ok, I was not happy with it for all the reasons mentioned by others above. I also received no reply from the initial editor on his talk page nor has he posted anything else since. Maybe I should have speedied it at the time, but I didn't! ww2censor 22:18, 12 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) 08:32, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notaku

edit

Was originally prodded and prod2'ed for "Insignificant neologism seemingly created for self-promotional purposes." Prod contested by original article author. Wikipedia is not for creating memes or being a soapbox. Delete -- Ned Scott 22:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - while the article has improved greatly from it's original version that doesn't change the fact that it seems to have been created as a vehicle to advertise the "Anime Sucks" community (aka NOTAKU). Most telling is the (removed) line 'The Term "Notaku" was created by Jordan Hass from "The Anime Sucks Foundation"', especially given the username of the article creator. Let's face it, if we kept this (with 500 ghits) then it would be time to being back Narutard (55,000 ghits)... (PS, I wonder how long till I get insulted as well?) Shiroi Hane 00:08, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Not long as it turns out. Shiroi Hane 00:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Save Because even if the article began as a promotion, it is not one now. Futhermore, Google confirms the term, it was a word before Jordan Hass coined it, and just because has a less that admiring view towards anime, that is not a reason to delete it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.24.214.149 (talk • contribs) .
    That's not at all the reason why we are deleting it. 511 Google results are ridiculously low and are almost entirely from forum posts. We're not saying the word doesn't exist, we're saying it's not notable. "Ned Scott" gets 15,800 Google hits, where's my article? -- Ned Scott 23:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Though a highly amusing and entertaining read. "...when in fact a majority of them, have seen current series like Fullmetal Alchemist, Bleach , or Naruto." Ooh, they even watched Naruto, I'm so impressed. _dk 05:41, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Save Saying that an article should be deleted because the term only has 511 Google hits is a Catch 22. Not every term starts off with 15,800 hits. It has to be made more well known. By deleting an article about it, you're hurting its chances of ever becoming so. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.24.208.245 (talk • contribs) 12:05, 14 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]
    It's debateable as to whether you should be using Wikipedia to try and promote the popularity of a subject. Wikipedia isn't an advertising site or search engine. I'd say delete and IF/WHEN it becomes more popular, resubmit the article for inclusion. AA Milne 12:12, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Have a look at WP:NEO, in particular the paragraph "Articles on protologisms are almost always deleted as these articles are often created in an attempt to use Wikipedia to increase usage of the term." Shiroi Hane 14:48, 14 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 22:19, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James Provan (student)

edit

Article was nominated for speedy deletion under A7 (no assertion of notability), but doesn't qualify, because the notability was asserted. I'm putting this up for AfD instead. No opinion. Aecis I'm too busy acting like I'm not naive. 22:24, 10 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. Please defer merge-related discussion to article talk. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:04, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Howling Laud Hope

edit

No noteriety independent of the Monster Raving Loony Party. Stood in a few elections seems to be a rather weak claim considering that he always comes last. JASpencer 22:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Leading the OMRLP is (unfortunately?) a notable position. The party is notable for its public appearance and image more than for its electoral success anyway. Aecis I'm too busy acting like I'm not naive. 22:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per above. --Masamage 22:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm also with the keep people on this one. He may be a fringe political figure but having stood in several byelections, he is making a name for himself, and he is a party leader. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 23:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to OMRLP main article. A marginal figure who is not notable outside of his association with that "party". Eusebeus 00:02, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to OMRLP as per Eusebeus. My pedantic streak forces me to note that he beat 3 independents in the Brent East by-election, so hasn't always come last. Catchpole 06:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a prime example, and indeed the MRLP leaders are the canonical examples, of a candidate who garners significant coverage despite losing, because they tend to lose in a spectacular manner. And he hasn't always lost elections. See the article. This candidate satisfies the WP:BIO criteria for being the subject of lots of news coverage, such as the articles cited in the article, this, and others. There's more written about this losing candidate, by other people, than just one line in an an election results table. Keep. Uncle G 12:20, 11 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 wasDelete. (aeropagitica) 08:27, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of hotel chains

edit

Has criteria for WP:NOT, the list could be endless, mainly a collection of internal links (not a disambig. page), not all hotel chains are notable. Luke! 22:32, 10 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 admin NCurse (It is blatant advertising for a company, product, group or service that would require a substantial rewrite in order to become an encyclopedia article. (CSD G11)) without closing AfD. Non-admin closure per WP:DPR. Serpent's Choice 11:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LASIK MD

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 Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. (aeropagitica) 08:25, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He-Man Tennis

edit

He-Man Tennis seems to be a made up game/nelogism created by an author who has only contributed to one article, this one. There are no references cited wgh 22:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC) Delete if you wish.[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 rewrite. (aeropagitica) 08:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Public transportation in San Diego County, California

edit

Incomplete nom started by 75.213.215.118. No reason given. Yomanganitalk 22:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The San Diego, California article specifically discusses the biggest city in that region, not the county. This is about the transportation network of the county.--Chicbicyclist 06:45, 12 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. (aeropagitica) 08:18, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Overtaking

edit

Deletion is indicated under WP:NOT, which includes includes dictionary entries and instruction manuals.Verklempt 23:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. It goes into information about laws and about other countries, which is beyond a dictionary definition. --Masamage 23:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That they drive on the other side of the road in some places is worthy of an encyclopedia entry on Overtaking? I agree that a cross-national comparison of driving rules could conceivably be a good article. But this is an article on Overtaking, not road construction or driving laws.Verklempt 23:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, you're right. The article would have to have more info to be good, but if it talked more about the legality of the practice in different areas, that could in fact be encyclopedic. I think talking about when it's a good idea to try it is worthy of non-OR coverage, too. However, I am weakening my vote, as I'm not sure who would care about this subject enough to improve it. --Masamage 00:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Do you mean "when it's a good idea to try" overtaking? Wouldn't that be instructional, and thus fall under WP:NOT?Verklempt 00:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Wellll, there are different levels of instruction. There's "First, put on your blinker; be sure to check all your mirrors and your blindspots! Then, speed up..." which, yeah, would be rather inappropriate. I phrased myself pretty badly--what I meant to talk about was a description of why someone would do this at all, but on second thought, that would probably take all of two sentences. Soooo nevermind. >_> --Masamage 01:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Delete I see two ways this article could go. It could turn further into an instruction manual on the subject, or it could turn into the effects of Overtaking done badly, thus being more like Reckless_driving which could use some help too. Lord Rasputin 18:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per the further reading section of the article, there's plenty more to write on the subject of overtaking. It has been a well-studied subject in psychology and road-safety research. There's plenty of source material yet to be plumbed. Keep. Uncle G 19:27, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Masamage and Uncle G. This is an example of an article that problem article where deletion is not needed. Vectro 21:27, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Vector's is precisely the relevant point. Article can be vastly improved but does not require deletion. But I wish to declare an interest. I am pressing for a disambiguation page for passing and, interestingly, Verklempt (the initiator of this deletion attempt), opposes this on the basis that overtaking and every usage of passing other than "passing oneself off as a member of different group" is not worthy of an encyclopedia article. Passing requires a disambiguation page because of articles such as passing off and message passing and, of course, overtaking. Paul Beardsell 22:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per Uncle G. As the further reading section and a little digging shows, there are further aspects of overtaking (outside the psychology of road safety) that could be added. It needs a cleanup not deleting. Yomanganitalk 09:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It´s a collection of facts. It´s encyclopedic and a good basis for future improvements.~~
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per crystal ball comments. (aeropagitica) 08:13, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2006 Middle East conflict

edit

This entry was originally created as a collection of OR crystal-balling about the future of the then concurrent 2006 Israel-Gaza conflict and 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict. As the initial fervor in the press died down rather quickly, and no greater "2-3 front conflict" has materialised, I see no reason to maintain a page with summaries of these two distinct events. I believe its first AfD failed due to the fluid nature of events at that point, but the delete argument is still valid. TewfikTalk 23:07, 10 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) 08:10, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Feranimism

edit

Content is not properly verifiable. Zero Google hits for feranimism or feranimist. Five Google hits for "mary spencer" telepathy, none of which confirms the content of this article. While I am aware that not every source is to be found on Google, when there are zero hits on Google for something non-technical like this, that's almost certainly an indication that no sources are to be found anywhere. See also Talk:Feranimism. Prod removed by anon, possibly the author. Pan Dan 23:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Agree with nominator. Zero Google hits is telling here. Article states it is a tiny movement. A review of the associated website shows that is is apparently a free account at a college. While I know that people are wont to believe all manner of ridiculous things, I also wonder if this isn't simply a joke. Please keep a straight face and examine this quote from the website: "Kee Teppa of the Golden Gate Park Squirrels was first animal to break the communication barrier between humans and the rest of the animal kingdom, and the first recognized prophet of Feranimism".--Fuhghettaboutit 23:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's either a hoax or non-notable. Fitzaubrey 23:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Vectro 21:22, 11 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 software, WP:SOFTWARE refers. (aeropagitica) 08:04, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hobix

edit

Blogging software, used mainly by the author itself. No notability asserted (Ruby & YAML is nice but nothing earthshaking). Freshmeat is the proper place for this text. Was PRODed, deleted and recreated from Google cache. Pavel Vozenilek 23:18, 10 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. consensus is clear. Mangojuicetalk 20:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merlinscape

edit

An article (mostly advertising) a game illegally stolen off the copyrighted game RuneScape by Jagex Ltd. The game has no "private servers" - all servers are run by Jagex, and some individuals decompile and copy the game's source code, creating illegal copies, such as the one advertised in this article. Agentscott00(talk contribs) 23:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I accidentally typed CSD A7 as A11. Sorry about that. CaptainVindaloo t c e 18:35, 11 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) 08:02, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Enfield Brass

edit

Was PROD'd and then deleted with "self- declared C-grade community suburban band" as the reason. I later received a message from a user who had worked on the article asking for it to be restored, so I thought AFD would be the best route. No opinion from me. Wickethewok 23:20, 10 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 per Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. (aeropagitica) 08:00, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Double Dutch (film) (2nd nomination)

edit

This article was previously deleted after this discussion. While it appears that this article is a recreation, I do not know if it is "substantially identical" to the deleted version (and thus not eligible for CSD G4), although I suspect it is. Whether it is or not, it's still unsourced crystal ball gazing. Agent 86 23:55, 10 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 the article stands, it's a speedy A7 anyway. -Splash - tk 23:31, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stanford Prison Experiment (band)

edit

Stub regarding a non-notable defunct band, per WP:NN -Markeer 02:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

References abound, such as this, this, or this. This band does seem to meet WP:MUSIC.--Húsönd 18:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The main purpose of keeping records is to make sure that things that were once notable do not fall into oblivion.--Húsönd 13:46, 13 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_10&oldid=1081097447"