Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 October 9

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log

→

< October 8 October 10 >

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 deleet. Grandmasterka 06:09, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2up (computer science)

edit

Prod tag removed, no evidence of notability or use; delete per WP:NEO. --Peta 00:03, 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 delete. (No-one here even managed to cite a song that was verifiably his.) Grandmasterka 06:21, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Xplicit

edit

This unsourced article fails WP:MUSIC. A web search reveals plenty of results, but none I reviewed appeared to apply to this rapper. Indeed, it appears that there is another rapper by the same name that has released albums. This is not that rapper because this guy hails from Compton whereas that guy is from the midwest. Erechtheus 00:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, hoax. yandman 14:48, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. Barely enough notoriety to warrant an article. Barely. Jcam 15:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:V. I really don't understand the number of "Keep" opinions here when this article so clearly fails the non-negotiable requirements of WP:Verifiability, which states: "If an article topic has no reputable, reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on that topic." --Satori Son 16:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep He is at the very least mildy famous, if not better. Google lists quite a bit for him. If he has a strong fan base. There are people that will want to look him up. What you should do is ask the user to get some more information to add to his page. Be helpful, do not constantly try to tear people down on here. Some of you SUPER USERS are just plain mean people that have nothing better to do with your time. Wiki should step in tell you to back off. Because they are the ones in the end that will be losing potiential end users. Be nice people!! Harthansen 10:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Calm down. Check Wikipedia:Notability. And yes fame could means a place here in other words if not famous (hasn't charted for example), then throw it out. He can be put back anytime he reaches some verifyable success. Want editors to expand it? Do it yourself. In this very case the expand-tag won't work, no matter if we waited for months. And I agree be nice with us...Lajbi Holla @ me 22:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. - "Thugz Life" didn't chart #12 in the US because billboard.com doesn't even know about that. Maybe you should inform them... Lajbi Holla @ me
I think your inexperience with Wikipedia standards and practices is obvious. I notice you haven't offered any verification of your claim that he is "mildly famous", and as your account appears to have been created to save the article about unknown gay porn director Conor j murphy you might be better putting your time and effort into that. Wait until you've seen the multitude of rubbish that flows through AfD and you'll realize it's not all bunnies and kittens around here. Deizio talk 22:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It is not my first day as a user here! I have had the user ID for sometime. I don't know how to check, when I signed up, but I'm sure you do. So check. This is my first time submitting an article. I am working on the article, thanks for asking. I thank the user who constructivly pointed me in the right direction on how to fix the article. If he is logging with the same IP fraudentally then delete it. If the author of Xplicit doesn't want to take the time to correct his own article then delete it. All I am saying is that when someone is new here and just getting used to your rules then offer him a a bit of kindness. Instead of the elitest attitude that I was offered. Harthansen 9:44, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  • First edit from this account was made 9 October 2006 at 11:48 UTC. You can check the contribution record here. Sorry if you disagree with the attitude of some of the other users here, but I can assure you it stems from knowledge of established content policies and standards. You'll get a better feel for these as you explore Wikipedia. I'm more than happy to help you out if you have any questions, drop a note on my talk page if there's anything I can do. Deizio talk 13:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Thank you Delzio that is very nice. I only meant that I had the user name for at least 6 months. I mentioned it was my first time submitting an article. Harthansen 20:27, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - per Harthansen. Lajbi Holla @ me
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Sam Blanning(talk) 10:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abi Finley

edit

This article fails WP:BIO. None of the 41 unique search results augments notability to appropriate levels. Erechtheus 00:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP She is likeley to be a success in the futire and was good on the show..so keep it there please— Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.40.82 (talk • contribs) 00:13, 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 AdamBiswanger1 21:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Famous People who Failed the Bar Examination

edit

This page is merely a list of people who have, at one point or another, failed a bar examination. It should be deleted per WP:NOT, specifically "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate list of information." DiegoTehMexican 00:25, 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 no consensus, keep. Nishkid64 21:07, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Armenian rebellions

edit

This article reflects an extremely pro-Turkish point of view and uses no verifable sources at all. Clevelander 00:38, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment At this point I did a rewrite of the article, as I honestly believe this might grow into something useful. Neutral sources are difficult to find, so I tried to balance between an apparently reasonably neutral Turkish source and an apparently reasonably neutral Armenian source for now. The diff for the nominated version and my version: [3]. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 12:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep useful. Also, when someone complains that an editor has notified others about the debate I am immediately suspicious of why the complainer doesn't want a more inclusive debate. These AfD's are routinely posted on "info boards" to allow editors who may be interested to know about them. Not all subjects have info boards, however, and unless the editor who has been notified complains, I see no reason for others to do so: the fact that someone tracked down the other person's edits is further indicatiion of the weakness of the tracker's position. Carlossuarez46 16:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I believe that you are referring to me. Firstly, detecting canvass is not an uncommon procedure and it's essential to ensure that there is no interference in consensus building. Then, if I complain about canvass that's because I think it is something to be promptly frown upon, not because I want to stall incoming opposition to my stance on a discussion (in fact, in at least one occasion I have reported canvass carried by users that shared my view). The canvass situation that occurred here was more like a friendly notice which can be accepted if performed in a very limited number. In fact, user Clevelander contacted me and expressed that there was no intention to canvass, for which I assumed good faith and retreated the canvass acusation as you can see above. Your argument about posting on info boards is unrelated. Advertising AfD's on info boards is acceptable, for such procedure is prone to attract both supporters and opponents. Now, when you select specific users and coax them to participate, then that's canvassing and I will always have a firm stand against it. Last but not least, you should have assumed good faith as well before attacking me for ensuring that a clean discussion may take place here.--Húsönd 17:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I dispute your premise that exclusion of people interested makes the consensus or discussion "clean". A spam-blast of everybody is uncalled-for, selected notices to people who may not have been paying attention is fine. You can call it canvassing, but as you know, these discussions are not votes, so if the "canvassee" only contributes a "keep" or "delete" it won't carry much weight. However, some canvasees can put forward an argument missed by other editors or put an argument in a more cohesive and pithy way. And why would that be wrong? Consensus shouldn't be sought to the exclusion of editors' opinions. I have had friendly messages removed from my talk page by editors who think that such removal is warranted. I assume good faith, but recognize that you are just doing what you're doing because of the weakness of your position. Carlossuarez46 16:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again the "weakness of my position"? I apologize but I will reply to your comment no further.--Húsönd 18:26, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your apology is accepted. Carlossuarez46 21:26, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - seems like a useful page; perhaps could be rewritten to be more NPOV. -Patstuart 21:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As much as I wish it was so, there were no armed Armenian uprisings during those dates. There were Turkish-invoked provocations authorized by the government, but solitary cases of Armenian resistance was always reactionary and in most cases futile. --MarshallBagramyan 04:26, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete extremely pro-Turkish --Davo88 00:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and NPOV/source where required. Armenian and Turkish partisans seem to dispute whether there were any Armenian uprisings, how large they were, how to characterise them etc. This controversy, at least, seems to be worthy of a mention in an encyclopedia. I'm not sure if it warrants an article of its own; possibly merge to an appropriate section of Armenian Genocide. Sandstein 07:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the results for "armenian rebellions" on Google books show just what an artificial concept this is: Russian Civil War; Medieval Cilicia; Armenian Genocide; Van; Heraclius ... Angus McLellan (Talk) 08:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete--Tekleni 09:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It seems a useful page. The article may be improved in the future, if well-sourced why don't we have such an article? E104421 15:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment General comment concerning the above keep's. Most of you want the article kept provided it's sourced properly. The problem is that it can never be sourced properly as there have never been any Armenian rebellions in the Ottoman Empire. Attempts were made at various times by Armenians outside the Ottoman Empire such as Joseph Emin or Israel Ori to organize such rebellions but none ever came to fruition as a result of the isolation and distance of the Armenian population in the East from the major European powers. This was clearly not the case with Bulgarians, Greeks or Serbs who had easy access to European powers.--Eupator 19:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • At risk of not assuming good faith here, I unfortunately have to note that most keep votes are from people of Turkish origin and almost every delete vote from someone of Armenian origin. As I also stated above, it is difficult to find independent sources for stuff like this. I based my keep vote and subsequent rewrite largely on this Armenian source: [4], which also states that The 20s and the 30s of the 19th century were marked by a series of revolts of the non-Turkish peoples throughout the Ottoman Empire. ... The Serbs, Bulgarians, Albanians and Armenians were about to throw off the Turkish sway. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 19:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have to wonder, there's gotta be a way to reword this article to make it good. It's definiely an important subject: maybe we could do something with it like Category:Irish_rebellion, where it's actually a category. I haven't read it, but if the Turks are supporting it and the Armenians not, then there must be something going on here that I don't understand. Normally, I'd think it the other way around, (e.g., with the Irish example, the english would be annoyed, and the Irish proud), especially with words like "Armenian genocide" which usually offend the Turks. Any takes on possibly moving it to a category? -Patstuart 21:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All this discussion is irrelevant until you cite at least ONE instance of an organzied Armenian rebellion? The article says: "Starting around 1780", well lets start with that, why don't you tell me about that Armenian rebellion in 1780?--Eupator 22:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete or keep with a rename This RFD is problematic, because it seems as a borderline cases at first (but which isen't) and for this reason is more open to results which might be influenced by bias from both sides. One of the problems I believe is that for some the term rebellion has negative conotations, it does not necessarly have such negative conotation (see for example what led to the American war for independence). I do believe the potential of such an article, but the title is problematic and does not respect the majority position to term those incidents, each of the reported rebellions from the Ottoman Empire have found echo in the west as a massacre of Armenians, one of those pre 1870's was what was termed the Tigris massacre in 1867. So in this cases, we need to find a more encyclopedic title for such an article, which I believe has real potentials. Then why so my 'weak delete'? Well, because there isen't much valuable content as of now in that article(properly sourced that is), and the title is difficult to handle, as in the majority of the cases if not all that term is the minority position, since those incidences are more properly termed 'Armenian massacres,' and the direction this article could take would be FORK if worked as is. Thosefor, I don't see a loss of deleting an article which neither right now has the content neither the title to be kept. And without those two there is not justification to keep. Fad (ix) 22:45, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and NPOV/source where required. All other ethnic groups rebelled against the Ottoman Empire, but some claim that (by eliminating this article) only Armenians demanded to be subjects of the Ottomans Empire. Claims that Armenians were leaving happily everafter under the Ottoman Empire is funny. All ethnic groups rebelled and so Armenians.--OttomanReference 23:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lets see, Greeks... Greece, Serbs... Serbia, Croats... Croatia, Albanians... Albania, Bulgarians... Bulgaria, Arabs... all the current Arabic states etc. Armenians? Armenia is carved on a part of 'Russian Armenia'..., the only other exceptions are Nestrogian, Syriacs etc., of course the Kurds, but a considerable portion of Eastern Turkey are still Kurds. I don't see this analogy with 'other ethnic groups.' I also fail to see why the article should be titled with a term which is considered the minority view, you propose a FORK. Fad (ix) 03:52, 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. I think we've reached consensus here. -- Steel 01:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ethan Millener

edit

Vanity article for a high school student whose assertion of notability is that he was in the local paper and made an independent film. Neither assertion meets WP:BIO, but it can no longer be speedied. -- Merope Talk 00:45, 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 no consensus, keep. Deizio talk 14:58, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strategery

edit

Nonencyclopedic trivia/cruft. Wikipedia is not a collector of indescriminate information Blue Tie 00:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note for consideration: Merge with Bushism would be somewhat difficult since this phrase was not used by Bush but by Saturday Night Live in a spoof.
Be more creative. Expand the Bushism article to include satire and comedy based on Bushisms. There are several examples of this already on the page. Carcharoth 11:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Blue Tie 01:16, 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 Delete (no redirect) as per consensus. El_C 07:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Caste system in Israel

edit

Half this article already exists in kohen, and the other half is WP:OR. Bachrach44 01:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. What is the meaning of "Israel" in the title? Ancient Israel, the northern kingdom (i.e. Samaria), modern Israel? The article seems to imply that it is biblical Israel, though it ends with a rather general statement about modern Judaism.
2. It never establishes whether the term caste system should be applied to biblical Israel. What sense of the term "caste" is valid here? Is this an anachronistic term introduced by western scholars based on their view of Indian culture?
3. Is their any established scholarly opinion (even a few would count) that the ancient biblical Levites could constitute a caste?
None of these issues are addressed in this article, and to do so would only further violate WP:OR. Please delete with prejudice.
Em-jay-es 06:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete, nn group / attack. Deizio talk 08:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Invisible Robot Fish

edit

Invisible Robot Fish does not meet the Wikipedia notability guidelines. See WP:MUSIC.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chipuni (talk • contribs) .

  • Speedy delete as attack page: "their bizarre, nearly unlistenable brand of improvisational music" and under CSD A7. So tagged. MER-C 04:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fails two CSD: A7 (where's the notability), G10 ("bizarre, nearly unlistenable"). Actually, I think somebody from the band wrote this, and it was intended to differ its music type from other bands. G10 could be seen, however, and it thus fails that. Possible G11? It may be blatant spam, plus it needs sourcing, wikifying, and categories, sinking this non-notable robot fish to speedy delete/strong delete status. Shin'ou's TTV (talk) 05:15, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy deleted. -- Longhair\talk 01:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brother man

edit
Speedy Delete - The article is patent nonsense. -- DiegoTehMexican 01:09, 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 delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 10:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Annunciation of the Virgin Mary, Greek Orthodox Church

edit

This is a non-notable individual Church ___location. The 19 unique search results do nothing to augment notability. Erechtheus 01:15, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep,It's my church and it's notable to me! wikipedia is an encyclopedia so you should be able to look all things up. The AOL dictionary describes an encyclopedia as "a work that contains information on all branches of knowledge or treats comprehensively a particular branch of knowledge usually in articles arranged alphabetically often by subject." It says all branches of knowledge. is an individual church that much of a problem? I think not. this article is a way to show people what the story is on this church. Numerous times i drive past churches and want to know more, like wow thats a nice looking church, when was it built or Melkite? whats that? By having an individual church article, people can see what this church is about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kidlum (talk • contribs)
    • There is a difference between what people want to know and what people do know. This is an encyclopaedia of what people do know. We have plenty of articles about churches. But they are churches that are already documented. Witness Notre-Dame de Montréal Basilica#References, for example. Wikipedia is for documenting the existing corpus of human knowledge, not for adding new knowledge to it. To show that Wikipedia may have an article on this church, please cite the books and articles that have been written about its history, architecture, and so forth. Uncle G 18:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If the church is notable in the town, it should be included, am I right? -Patstuart 02:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Do not be offended if someone says it not notable. Notability has a specific criteria on wikipedia and is not meant to denigrate its worth to you or your community, BUT is it notable to the general usership of wikipedia? I'm afraid not, just as high schools articles are generally being deleted. I concur with that practice as wikipedia is not a meant to contain unencyclopediac information. Green hornet 03:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. respectfully - I'm with Mr Hornet on this one. I understand Mr Kidlum's reading of the encyclopedia entry but there has to be some sort of editorial sifting to separate what is important for the world to read and what is not. I could be persuaded however if some architectural notablility was established - pictures would help. --Mcginnly | Natter 09:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn church. Eusebeus 09:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It may make sense for information on the church to be included, but probably not in its own article. Merge the most relevant bits with Woburn, Massachusetts, which probably could use the content. JYolkowski // talk 13:48, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • How would i go about merging the content with Woburn, Massachusetts. Do i just make a new heading or section, there's a lot of info on the church. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kidlum (talk • contribs)
  • Delete parishcruft. Carlossuarez46 17:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete My church is notable to me too, but I can't see any reason to have an article on it. Shadow1 (talk) 22:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteFrom the article, this sounds like a fine church. But to have an article here a church should have some objective notability, such as recognition for excellence in some aspect by its church denomination or by newspapers of general circulation, or some historical importance. This church may have such notability, but there are no references to other than church websites. Please note that I have started a discussion topic at Wikipedia talk:Notability to create a standard for notability of churches. We have a standard for schools, so why not for churches. Edison 23:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no claim to notability, Sandstein 07:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The church has been featured in the "Orthodox Observer" newspaper and is often in the Woburn papers. There have been several articles like when the church's greek school met with the mayor and when the church had a greek food booth at Woburn's holiday festival. Also there are articles in the nationally printed "Hellenic Voice" about its building addition, which is going forward after decades of planning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kidlum (talk • contribs)
    • My Aunt Mable met the mayor last year - it was in the local paper - I'm still not sure she should have an article in wikipedia - despite runnign the local bingo and doing a lot of work for charity - same applies to this church in my humble opinion.--Mcginnly | Natter 20:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the article uses no independent sourcing as would be required to have an article adhering to WP:NPOV without violating WP:NOR. GRBerry 02:54, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Are there any guidelines as to the notability of churches? I take a look at Category:Churches in Russia and discovered such entries as Saint Michaels Church and Church of Our Savior Not Made by Hands in Serpukhov. When previously discussed by Russian wikipedians, I was told that every church is de facto notable and every school is. I would like some flashlight on the issue, if possible. --Ghirla -трёп- 13:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response comment Thus far we haven't been forced to codify anything about houses of worship. Very few churches are notable. Structures may be architecturally notable as a building. Congregations may be notable for their impact or influence. The best evidence of such notability in either case is that independent reliable sources (not the congregation, the diocese, the denomination, etc...) have chosen to write material about them.
    • The "all X are notable" is rejected for most subjects X - countries, nobel prize winners, and heads of state are the sorts of things where it is accepted; either because the subject indicates that someone else has determined notability (nobel prize winners) or because of their worldwide importance (countries, heads of state). My test for the "all X are notable" argument is "are we an incomplete encyclopedia because we lack an article on the least important X ever to have existed that could still be documented from reliable sources". For local items like schools and churches, we aren't incomplete because we lack an article on a school or church that existed for a few years in a now ghost town that was around for a few years during a mining boom or was open in a temporary refugee camp. We can be a complete encyclopedia, even one that is not paper, while not having articles on lots and lots of schools or churches. Go look at another encyclopedia and see how many schools/churches they cover. GRBerry 16:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yea, but in other encyclopedias the readers don't get to choose whats in it. Some random people make the choices and whos to say they're right. The reason you have so many articles up for deletion is because the readers finally have a choice to add articles, yet others are trying to take out these individuals' hard work because THEY don't like it. It's up to actual readers of the encyclopedia, not its editors who probably don't even use it like normal people. Also most of these "delete" people sound like a computer has written their responses and not normal encyclopedia readers!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kidlum (talk • contribs)

Please try to assume good faith. Whispering(talk/c) 19:47, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I wasn't trying to be mean I'm just saying that sometimes the editors and such care more about what fits than what people want.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kidlum (talk • contribs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete AdamBiswanger1 19:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bangover

edit

Neologism. A couple hundred google hits, but most are not relevant -- the first is a porn film, and many others seem to refer to a band of the same name. Wikipedia is not urban dictionary. Prod removed. Delete. bikeable (talk) 01:28, 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 Nomination withdrawn. -- Longhair\talk 04:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cherry Bar

edit

Non-notable Melbourne bar, perhaps its' only claim to notability being that it was founded by the former drummer for the band, Cosmic Psychos . -- Longhair\talk 01:52, 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 wow, what a useful list. Delete! Grandmasterka 06:33, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of armoured figures

edit

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. I can't think of anything more indiscriminate than a list of characters based on what they wear. There's no common link between them, nor can I imagine any practical use for such a list, unless someone was doing a school project on armor. eaolson 02:04, 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 Speedy delete, no assertion of notability. Deizio talk 14:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Javier Luarca

edit

Delete. This subject does not come close to meeting WP:BIO. None of the listed books that he's written can be found with his name attached. Nothing at all to substantiate the claim that he is "one of the gratest minds of his country". Contested prod. ... discospinster talk 02:08, 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 Delete. Deizio talk 15:04, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Squats in UK

edit

Unencyclopedic list with no context. WP is not an indiscriminate collection of information, nor a directory of where people can go to squat. Leuko 02:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Hey, stop man, don't be so destructive. I was trying hard to make this list. And why

and

are encyclopedic? Where is the difference? --Mladifilozof 02:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Please don't take offense, I am not "trying to be destructive." I have not (and can not) delete your articles. I just have listed it here to see what other editors think about their inclusion into an encyclopedia, and the consensus will decide what to do. I don't think Squats in UK is any less encyclopedic than the other lists, I just didn't happen to see them. Therefore, I propose adding all Squats in X articles to the nomination. Leuko 02:48, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article was nominated for deletion 24 minutes after its creation[7], apparently without pause for debate so i can understand Mladifilozof's confusion Mujinga 21:47, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is this not a debate? In any case, the reason I proposed it for deletion so quickly was that I thought the article was trying to list places where homeless people sleep - that's the definition of squatting I am familiar with. The lists had no context to indicate that they were anything more. Leuko 22:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well, if you read the squatting page it would provide more context but I dont believe Mladifilozof originally provided the link, so i take your point.
My point was that although as you say we can now debate the page(s) here and reach consensus, if you read the Articles for deletion page it does suggest in the Before nominating an AfD section such steps as the following:
"Before nominating a recently-created article, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, mentioning your concerns on the article's discussion page, and/or adding a "cleanup" template, instead of bringing the article to AfD.".
That's the debate I was referring to, but anyway we're here now and we can decide how best to proceed. Mujinga 19:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Squats all have an element of protest, some more so than others, and in the context of those protests as well as of government failures to provide affordable housing, can be the subjecty of encyclopedic articles. This list is useful because the redlinks represent potential new encyclopedic articles, or perhaps redirects to articles dealing with broader protests in the United Kingdom. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 02:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Personally, I would fully support an article titled "Squatting in the UK" which delves into the history and social import of such protests, with a list at the end of the article. I don't see the utility of simply a list of places where people squat -- there's no context and no assertion of notability. I mean how would one even know what squatting is? Leuko 03:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In my opinion, there is no need for a "Squatting in the UK" page until the section in the squatting page gets big enough for it to deserve its own entry. I think you have missed the context here Leuko and I can only hope you did do some research before making this AfD and then broadening it. If we assume good faith the new pages are branching off from Squatting as I mentioned in my keep vote below ... therefore I think these pages do not need to be deleted but rather if there are issues with the individual lists, then they should be discussed on the lists' respective talk pages. Mujinga 22:03, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Subsequent to the mucking-about with a disruptive page move (which removed the AfD notice): Delete. --Mais oui! 00:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but on a few provisos, becuase this is a bit of a messy AfD already.
I came here becuase i saw Squats in The Netherlands has been put up for deletion, which is a bit strange since it is a perfectly acceptable list of notable squats, being slowly added to over time, with stub pages being added as blue links. It shoots off from the list of notable squats on the Squatting page and that seems entirely reasonable. So keep that page.
Keep Squats in Spain too, indeed keep all Squats in X pages if they branch off from the Squatting page, under my reasoning above.
Now for the UK i dont think that Squats in UK and Social centers in the United Kingdom are the same thing at all. Often social centres are squatted but not always for example the London Action Resource Centre is a legally owned space, Emmas want to (and mayeb now did) to buy a building etc etc. I think a list of social centres would be useful, and should be linked to from the squatting page. I think for now a list of UK squats should remain on that page until such a time as the list gets big enough to deserve its own page. AND while yer at it, keep to 'the United Kingdom'not 'UK' and 'social centre' not 'social center'!!Mujinga 21:44, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep and rename to List of squats in the United Kingdom. Some of the info from the main squatting article should be moved over, and a link should be made from said article. Ultra-Loser Talk | BT sites 02:49, 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 Speedy delete, G11 (ad), G4 (recreated). Deizio talk 08:50, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mo'Twin Designs, Inc

edit

The organization that the article concerns doesn't seem all that notable. Splintercellguy 02:18, 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 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 Speedily deleted by Jni - Yomanganitalk 09:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Oberg

edit

Non-notable relative of notables. No refs or claims to notability, but the author User:Justinpauloberg has removed CSD tag twice. Sorry, but I see no sign of notability at all. Speedy delete. bikeable (talk) 02:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum Also G7, userfied.--Húsönd 03:48, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 11:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Championship Backyard Wrestling

edit

Made Up Childrens Wrestling company DXRAW 03:19, 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 delete. Grandmasterka 06:41, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wolfgang Eder

edit

Non-notable Magic player. Differs from recent AfD's as he is not a World Champion of the game, he isn't a Hall of Fame player of the game, and he is unknown outside of the Magic community. -- Grev 03:25, 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 delete. These could have been speeied as spam. Grandmasterka 06:46, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Antman and Cherry Whip

edit

Author and his first book; no real claims to notability and the book page is almost entirely the publishers press realease, delete --Peta 03:45, 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 delete. Dakota 21:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gonneke Spits

edit

This artical does not appear to meet the Notability(People) criteria and also appears is in violation of the Biographies of Living People, Biased or malicious content Policy.Mark1800 04:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Mark1800 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply]

After reviewing this artical, I'm curious why
  1. It was not deleted when the original request for speedy deletion was made.
  2. Why this artical is mainly about Werner Erhard.
As the previous requestor for speedy deletion said, Hanging around someone notable is not notability.
Mark1800 07:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Mark1800 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions 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 Speedy delete, A7 (nn person). Deizio talk 08:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chelsea Wiggins

edit

Says that she's the greatest actress ever, but I don't see any evidence. Dontdoit 03:44, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy kept - bad-faith nom, recent AFD similarly kept. – Chacor 04:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo.

edit

Unnecessary, ridiculous article. AlabamaTalking 04:07, 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 no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 15:37, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of shopping malls in Maryland

edit

Unnecessary duplication of Category:Shopping_malls_in_Maryland as a list article. It provides nothing useful in existing as its own article and even gets listed at Category:List_of_shopping_malls_in_Maryland...which is just a redirect to this list article... ju66l3r 04:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion note: There is a related CfD for the duplicate category.
Comment If you look at that list (the US one), it restricts itself to notable malls. The few notable malls from the list in question are already present on the US list - there's no content to merge. GassyGuy 16:14, 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 Speedy delete a7, does not assert notability (one EP doesn't do it). NawlinWiki 16:48, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rasputin (Band)

edit

Notability not established Olessi 04:22, 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 Delete - while Uncle G's work is interesting, it was a complete rewrite of the section and it hasn't been followed up by anybody else (either to fill in the gaps or delete the uncited info) and, per the nomination and Mak's comments, there is no reason to suspect it will be. Yomanganitalk 22:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of clichés in music

edit

As it says in the prominent "noncompliant" tag on the page, this article is full of original research and unverifiable claims. As well, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Previous debate here. Axem Titanium 04:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nominator. Quale 05:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete like all OR lists of cliches. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 06:21, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't think this article's topic is inheritantly OR. Music critics/reviewers commonly use "cliché" to describe music. One only need to verify a claim of "cliché X" by finding a review for "song Y" or "album Z" that examplifies the cliché. This article may contain entries that are WP:OR but that's a matter of cleanup, not whether this article should exist. —Mitaphane talk 06:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOR. —Khoikhoi 06:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Riki 07:24, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Danny Lilithborne 08:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if it's not OR yet, it will be soon. If it somehow avoids that fate, it'll be all over the place and very hard to maintain as well as being unverifiable. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 08:47, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weakest of weak keeps per the verifiability exercise of Uncle G below (now). It still feels like listcruft, and it wouldn't surprise me one bit if it's verging on an indiscriminate collection of information (combining information on hip-hop music and 15th century Italian court music seems ever so slightly odd) even if every pixel is verifiable. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 21:48, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • We-ell, i woke up this morning, and i voted to Delete this article as per the nomination above, ohhhh yeahhhhhhh. *drum solo*. OBM | blah blah blah 09:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. MER-C 09:12, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, title alone makes this inherently subjective and unworkable. Deizio talk 11:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As an exercise in testing the preceding claims that this is original research and impossible to construct in a verifiable manner, I've attacked the list of clichés in music#Lyrics section with the merciless sword of verifiability, and discovered that it is possible to construct a list of verifiable lyrical clichés. All of the items now in the list have citations to people identifying the clichés in question. The cited sources are not simply song reviewers saying "song X contains cliché Y", as Mitaphane suggests above, but are people specifically identifying a lyrical cliché in its own right, independent of any specific songs.

    Given that it is evidently possible to construct that section in a verifiable manner, without performing any primary research (e.g. reading and analysing song lyrics directly), it seems likely that it is possible to do the same for the other sections. (If it isn't, then we can simply erase them.) The problems with this article don't require an administrator to hit a delete button. They require ordinary editors to exercise the same merciless sword of verifiability across the rest of the article that I've exercised over one section, and to insist upon sources for any future additions, to stop editors from adding their own personal notions of clichés to the article. Administrators aren't required for that. Even editors without accounts can do that. Keep. Uncle G 15:50, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per Uncle G, although I despise listcruft there does appear to be at least some verifiable basis for this list. Needless to say it should be edited mercilessly to remove the uncited parts. Guy 15:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep information is interesting, and I can see no reason why not. -Patstuart 21:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, (swayed from a swift and firm kill with fire by UncleG), although the article is conceivably fully sourcable, the subject is simply too huge to make a meaningful list. Each genre and period of music has its own cliches. What would be a cliche in a madrigal might be seen as an innovation in a rap song. Ok, I admit that I added the 16th century thing a while ago, because I ran into it in a source. I think a more specific list might make sense and be encyclopedic, but the scope of this list is simply too huge. It applies to Gregorian chant, rap, 14th century madrigals, 16th century madrigals, 13th century Chinese folk music, gamelan music, trance music, minimalist music, etc. Just check out Category:Music genres, which is far from complete. I just think this list's purported scope is far too broad to be at all meaningful, apart from it's current issues with "truth" and actually being verified. This page has already been through AfD, I already wrote on the talk page that another AfD was sure to follow. Almost no editors followed that with actually fixing the article. I think this has been given it's chance, and should now be deleted. Mak (talk) 23:26, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per every reason in nomination.  Funky Monkey  (talk)  02:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Mak, who raises highly germane issues. Eusebeus 17:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. --Blahm 23:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep good topic, just needs some refrences and some editing --130.184.11.129 21:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Mak, in Eusebeus's assessment of the objections of whom I concur. Joe 03:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Mitaphane. Wikipedia needs more music criticism articles. Kla'quot 04:30, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unless it can be completely stripped of original research and unsourced claims. What genres are being referred to could also do with more clarification - an article titled "List of clichés in music" is an incredibly large scope, but clearly things like "baby" refer specifically to modern pop music. Also there is a POV issue - cliche does not just mean it is common, but implies overused. So what, long songs shouldn't be last anymore? Many things listed here are characteristics of various genres, which should be mentioned on the relevant article, but are not cliches. And I do love being told how "Long songs with few lyrics" often contain few lyrics and long instrumentals, wow, thanks for that. Mdwh 01:44, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Very legitimate topic. I have a BS in Songwriting. Pop music is full of cliches, from artist behavior to marketing concepts to rhymes in lyrics. The exposure of cliches serves as a driver for originality, but also shows the value in using cliches. The article just needs to be reworked, elaborated and substantiated.JerryFlattum 02:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have a BM in Music Performance. Music is full of cliches, but music is also part of the history of every human culture which has ever existed. If you want a list of pop music cliches, the list should be titled accordingly. Mak (talk) 02:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per other keeps †he Bread 02:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. All sections apart from Lyrics are still original thought, and the Lyrics section alone isn't enough to sustain the article. Anyone interested in developing this into a verified and sufficiently substantial article is welcome to move this to their userspace. --Sam Blanning(talk) 10:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT an indiscrminate collection of information. Just because these cliches may be verifiable does not mean that synthesising them all (or in fact any of them) makes an encyclopedia article. This is simply a semi-organised collection of interesting observations, and should have no place in an encyclopedia. It is data, not knowledge. Zunaid 14:35, 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. - Mailer Diablo 11:05, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tower Gaming

edit

Company meets neither WP:WEB or WP:CORP Apparently a start-up wanna be company that is not notable yet. 2005 05:16, 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 delete, no challenge to the nominator's point that there are no sources. --Sam Blanning(talk) 10:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alabama Slammer (cocktail)

edit

Non-notable cocktail. WP:NOT a recipe book. WP:V no sources for any claims in article. Prod removed without comment by page creator. Quale 05:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't follow this. It could remain on the list even if the article didn't stay, couldn't it? GassyGuy 06:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would say perhaps redirect to List of cocktails and put the description there. But the "history" section, albeit one sentence long, is interesting, and if someone types in "Alabama cocktail" into google, they might certainly be looking for the info, and get it here. *Shrugs* Just an idea. -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 06:19, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 10:11, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Meropoulis

edit

Contested PROD. Junior hockey player with only seven carreer games at the major-junior level, very weak attempt at establishing notability, thus I brought it here. Resolute 05:47, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete, nonsense. Deizio talk 09:03, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rentitude

edit

fake term, Google search for term not on wikipedia-related pages gives 11 hits, none relevant: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=rentitude+-wikipedia&btnG=Search This seems to have slipped through the cracks since December 2005. -- nae'blis 05:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC) -- nae'blis 05:59, 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 already speedied. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 07:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tales of the Blode

edit

Series of flash movies, apparently no independent coverage except for Wikipedia and Everything2. Apparently all original research. Delete per WP:WEB unless there's more coverage somewhere that shows this to be notable. GTBacchus(talk) 06:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy deleted as nonsense — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucky 6.9 (talk • contribs)

Unified seat theory

edit

Almost-funny joke. Prod removed. Delete or BJAODN. bikeable (talk) 06:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Catch off, I gotta remember that! I mean, Delete as nonnotable. El_C 07:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Catch off

edit

Supposed Kiwi slang term. google for "catch off" site:nz gets me 115 unique results, mostly fishing ("world-record catch off West Coast"). In any case, WP:NOT a slang dictionary. Delete. bikeable (talk) 06:18, 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 no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 15:38, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tiffany Teen

edit

Article does not show some sort of fame, achievement, or perhaps notoriety WP:NOT DXRAW 06:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. A significant NN model, and perhaps one of the most popular. The article probably needs to be rewritten to establish importance, but I don't think deleting is the solution. Jeff Silvers 07:06, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BIO. To clear up things this girl's real name is Robyn Bewersdorf. Google gives her about 241 unique hits. Most of those are spam or forum posts. The blog link is the most reliable thing I could find and most of those links mentioned in the blog are dead. —Mitaphane talk 07:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Well of course you'll get less hits if you use her actual name rather than her more well-known pseudonym. Jeff Silvers 08:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment This is true. "Tiffany Teen" does get 1.5 Mil un-unique google hits. But this article is a bio, thus WP:BIO is a good gauge about how to handle this person. Going through google hits on "Tiffany Teen" just results in a lot of spam and porn sites, nothing consider reliable. In fact, a reliable source for a biography should at minimum have the girl's real name. Considering the most reliable thing I could find is one blog with the name( and a bunch of dead links) suggests that reliable source will be close to immpossible to find. No reliable sources mean there's no way to verify the information. —Mitaphane talk 02:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn model. Eusebeus 09:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Unreferenced, doesn't meet WP:BIO and wouldn't even meet the not-yet-official WP:PORN BIO. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unsourced and no evidence she meets WP:BIO. -- Merope Talk 17:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable person failing to meet WP:BIO. Valrith 21:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete On the one hand, I have heard of her (and probably have a pic or two saved to my HDD), on the other, her website lasted only two years, and if we had a page for every minor person involved in the porn industry, Wikipedia's article count would double at least. Resolute 22:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the above comments. She is quite attractive but fails our verifiability tests. Yamaguchi先生 23:39, 9 October 2006
  • Delete there is nothing of interest in this article, which seems to consist mainly of an analysis of her photoshoots. Consider that even Kate Ground, whose article is far more informative than this, is on the verge of deletion.
  • Delete too minor, if she's no longer "working" then I doubt her article will be missed. James086 02:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep What is with this strong anti-non mainstream porn bias on wikipedia? DXRAW has a axe to grind [9] this actress hit 3000 on alexia [10], in case you all forgot WP:GOOGLE. Let see Merope has another bias, [11] [12], also Eusebeus [13] [14] [15], next Andrew Lenahan [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23], next Valrith [24] [25] [26].Patcat88 03:45, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Three things. One, the search engine test page you refer to explicitly states this: "The simple Google test by number of hits is not applicable to people or titles within a number of internet-based businesses, notably (but by no means restricted to) pornography." So your Google and Alexia ratings are invalid. Second, Andrew Lenahan wasn't the person who put Mistress Yvette up for AFD, I was, and I'm far from an anti-porn crusader (hint: take a look at the participants list for Wikipedia:WikiProject Porn stars). Thirdly, as someone said elsewhere on Wikipedia, "We are trying to make Wikipedia a reputable encyclopedia, not an exciting editorial", which brings us right back to the question of whether these people deserve mention in Wikipedia, which is why we have AFD procedures. Tabercil 23:47, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:BIO. Arbusto 01:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Just because something doesn't meet the specific line items of WP:BIO doesn't mean it should automatically be bounced. The article needs considerable work for sure, but I think there's enough there to warrant an article. Give it a little time and if the changes aren't made post it to AfD again. Lord Rasputin 19:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Porn in a different animal than any other aspect of the entertainment industry. According to Forbes magazine, Americans alone spend from $6 billion to $10 billion on porn [27]. With these kind of numbers, there's a conspicuously lack of mainstream media coverage on specific porn personalities, despite the gigantic popularity of porn. How many people openly admit to consuming porn? I think most will agree that it's not as many that admit to seeing A Prairie Home Companion, which grossed just over $20 million. Most just don't admit to it [28]. Even though a google search for "Tiffany Teen" will bring up over 1.4 million hits, Entertainment Tonight won't be profiling her. Just because the "typical" media outlets don't write about her, doesn't at all mean she's invisible or nn. --Marriedtofilm 01:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • She's not even notable within her niche... Valrith 02:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • How would you know that? Are you that familiar with the Non-nude photography niche? --Marriedtofilm 03:25, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment Notability isn't the direct issue here; it is verifiability. Notability (WP:BIO) isn't a criteria on which to delete but a gauge to determine whether the subject's notability is high enough that reliable sources exist (so that WP:V & WP:OR aren't violated). With out any external sources, how are we suppose to know any of the information is factually correct? —Mitaphane talk 04:23, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I agree. It's just with this genre, a "reliable source" is hard to come by as most mainstream journalistic outlets generally don't report on specific personalities. That's why my vote included a "weak". In porn, we just can't always verify notability even if notability exists. I'll look for proper articles, but I'm not keeping my fingers crossed that I'll find any. --Marriedtofilm 05:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • You must understand, though, that as an encyclopedia our scope is limited to what can be verified by reliable sources. If you're pretty sure she's popular but can't find sources saying so (because people won't admit it, according to your logic), then sorry but that's not good enough. The same argument could be used to insert all sorts of ludicrous stuff into Wikipedia: "I'm pretty sure lots of people secretly keep unicorns as pets, but I can't find any sources because nobody's willing to admit it." etc. Hopefully you understand why we strongly demand reliable sources. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • According to WP:PORNBIO one qualifying criteria is: "Performer has been the subject of a noteworthy news piece or controversy, whether through adult film industry news or (preferably) in "mainstream" news outlets." The paragraph about Tiffany Teen in the mainstream Wired News reference seems to be such a news piece. That article is even cited in the Wikipedia article Internet child modeling and so far nobody there has contested that article as unreliable.--Marriedtofilm 20:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • Take note of the wording: "Performer has been the subject of a noteworthy news piece". Not mentioned in. There's a big difference between the two, and Tiffany is NOT the subject of that Wired article. Valrith 22:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                  • It doesn't have the qualifier "primary" to "subject of" the news piece. It was already established that the reference to Tiffany Teen is brief. The primary subject is internet teen porn and it cites the Tiffany Teen subject as a controversial example. --Marriedtofilm 22:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I had a look at the Wired article. While it would be a great reference for a general article about sites of this type, it only mentions Tiffany once (bizarrely, the one fact about her it does verify, about a $75 video, isn't in Tiffany's article!). The facts that are in the Tiffany article are absolutely not backed up by this reference. If we cut the article down to what is verifiable based on the Wired mention, the article would be about 8 words long. You can see why more coverage than that is needed. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                    • It is true that the Wired article does not verify a majority of this article (as commented below). It does verify that this subject is controversial and was worth a citation in the Wired article. I won't value it any more than for what it is. I do agree that if this article stays (I doubt it by these votes), as strictly verifiable by WP:BIO guidlines, it should probably be no more than a couple of sentences. --Marriedtofilm 23:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                      • I agree wholeheartedly. However, I would also say that an article which can only ever have one or two sentences worth of verifiable information is a prime example of an article which should not be part of an encyclopedia... or, at the very least, is a topic better covered in a another article rather than its own. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I added one reference which briefly describes Tiffany Teen deep in the article. The source is very reliable (Wired News) but it doesn't verify most of details in the article so I kept the references tag. Take this info for what it's worth. --Marriedtofilm 05:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, if not the, atleast one of the most famous non nude models on the Internet. bbx 10:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in light of comments made by Marriedtofilm, albeit a somewhat weak motion to do so. Yamaguchi先生 20:12, 14 October 2006
  • Keep per Marriedtofilm, good Alexa ranking and the 1,540,000 Google hits. Prolog 06:37, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Ik!
  • Keep Ik! i searched for her and i find this article, is useful.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:06, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meg Henican

edit

NN volleyball player. :: Colin Keigher 08:20, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:39, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Qpst

edit

Unreferenced article about an extremely niche piece of phone technology with no assertion of notability. Deizio talk 08:29, 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 no consensus. --Coredesat 20:14, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ODIS

edit

Contested WP:PROD. Original concern was "369 Google hits". I do not think this qualifies for the advertising/spam clause of WP:CSD#G11, as the article just explains what the system does without even giving an external link. That said, there could be more sources and the relevance should be explained more clearly. Abstain for now. Kusma (討論) 08:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. MER-C 09:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, if the article is not sourced, it required sourcing, not deletion. The article is not vanity or advertiseement since it makes no reference to whoever distributes or sells this (it is government-developed). The software is used by several government agencies: [30][31][32] --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 09:50, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lack of sources is indeed a criteria for deletion, under WP:V. If you have sources, add them to the article before it goes away. --Roninbk t c e # 00:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • That is not correct. WP:V states than an article should be verifiable, not verified. Lack of listed sources is different from lack of existing sources. If no sources are listed, they should be added, if no sources exist, the article should be deleted. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 12:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Allow me to quote directly from WP:V, (emphasis mine) "Unsourced material may be challenged and removed."
          • If you found that, you probably also read the next two sentences. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 18:13, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • I did. And if you read further, it says "The burden of evidence lies with the editors who have made an edit or wish an edit to remain. Editors should therefore provide references. If an article topic has no reputable, reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on that topic." The point I am trying to make is that if nobody can be arsed to add links to the article, then it needs to be deleted. It is not enough that it is theoretically possible to find sources for the article. --RoninBKTCE# 01:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • And my point is that if an article is reasonably encyclopedic (which ofcourse is worth a discussion by itself), you should give editors some time to add sources. You cannot force sources onto an article by listing it at AfD. AfD is meant for deletion, not for asking for sources (there are tags for that). This article has been around only since the 6th of october and deserves some time to develop before it is listed here. Such a quick deletion after it was created might be suitable for really bad articles, but not if the main concern is the lack of sources. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 07:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • Let's take a step back here. The main concern over this article was that someone thought it was spam. It was taken here because of an edit war. This is why the article needs to be sourced, to prove it's not spam. And by the way, thank you for adding the links you found. That was all I was asing for. --RoninBKTCE# 14:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                  • You are quite right that we got a bit carried away. But the article ended up here because of one editor, who originally tagged it for speedy deletion and who did show quite some bad faith when others not agreed to the speedy [33] and to the prod [34]. Note that removing these tags is specifically allowed by policy. But then again, you are right any article should be referenced properly. Nevertheless, I hope the links I provided clarify things a bit and we will see what happens :). --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 15:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep: It's not an ad.. I am the author of the article and thought it might be nice to have. people are always asking me what ODIS is (I am a 911 police dispatcher) and now I can tell them to look it up on Wikipedia. Evaunit511 13:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems fairly interesting to me, though it does require a significant rewrite. ie: the article does not explain where this system is used until the very last sentence. Also, is it used exclusively in Oklahoma? There is potential though. Resolute 22:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, it may not be spam but it is useless. Arfenhouse is way more notable than this and it got deleted. Who the hell looks up this stuff anyway? Doesn't anybody here understand the meaning of non-notable? oTHErONE (Contribs) 02:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unsourced, unclear, and unnotable. Not spam, but entirely not spam. Eusebeus 17:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sourced enough to keep around. More sources would be wonderful, but as people have said, that can come with time. --Maelnuneb (Talk) 16:55, 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. - Mailer Diablo 15:40, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Simpsons (season 19)

edit

Wikipedia is not a crystall ball and this page can at best be speculative. They haven't even begun working on the episodes for this season. --Maitch 09:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add that the article would have to be rewritten anyway in the event of any real information emerging. This is most likely going to happen during the summer of 2007. I can't see why we should have an article of such speculative nature on Wikipedia for so long. --Maitch 19:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if Fox hadn't said they were renewing till the 19th Season as part of the press release for the 18th and the movie, I might agree with you, but since they did, I see this serving as a useful placeholder. Who knows when more information about it will come out, it could be tomorrow, or early next year. But it will come eventually. (Barring something like the entire creative staff being hit by a bus) FrozenPurpleCube 21:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So, if I created a page about the Olympics in 2030, would you still keep it as a placeholder? It will come eventually. --Maitch 21:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In case you didn't know, there are articles for the Olympics for 2022 and 2024, and dates in between. So if you've got information for the 2030 Winter Olympics, I'd not be inherently opposed to it, though I'd find it hard to support. Just like I'd find Simpsons Seasons 20-22 hard to support. OTOH, 2008 Summer Olympics is fine, as is 2010 Winter Olympics. FrozenPurpleCube 00:33, 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 Speedy deleted, G11 advert. by Deizio talk - Yomanganitalk 12:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Jubilee Academy

edit

This is an ad. Dcobranchi 11:10, 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 delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 10:10, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Belly (rapper)

edit

Highly non-notable. Only link is from Xplicit (also nominated). Another Lebo Thug co-operation. Lajbi Holla @ me 11:13, 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 All Speedy deleted, G11 advert. Deizio talk 12:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Grace Academy

edit

This is an ad Dcobranchi 11:16, 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 delete. Punkmorten 21:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pitsha Sritawan

edit

Untranslated Thai after several weeks at WP:PNT. Delete unless translated into an encyclopedic article in English by the end of the AFD period. Kusma (討論) 11:35, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete g7 per author request (see below). NawlinWiki 14:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conor j murphy

edit

Nonnotable porn video director NawlinWiki 11:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete Non-encyclopaedic tone, badly written, non-notable...awful yandman 12:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Why is this being considered for deletion? The Director is listed with IMDB. He is Googlable. harthansen 8:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is not a homophobia issue, there are no sources to this article and there is no attempt to establish context of any kind. Delete as unencylopedic, unless some sources are added. You can go ahead and rewrite the entire article as a stub with just a link to discogs, but that's only assuming it isn't already a copyvio. Also, the article name is wrong. You may want to change your vote from "don't delete" to "keep".  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  12:47, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Thank You Freshgavin for being helpful. I am trying to fix this, but to be deleted with no reason and no suggestions is very frustrating! I will ad footnotes. My Formatting is off. I admit it. I don't know what you mean by there is "no attempt to establish a context" Also what is "A stub with links to discogs? There is no copyright violation. How could there be? Is there some better manner to discus this? This site is very difficult to navigate, and use. Just to post an article you need to learn a book. The reason I thought it was a homophobic thing is because NalinWiki has 3 complaints against him for being homophobic, and I could get no constructive critismn. Thank you again.harthansen 2:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per yandman and fresh. OBM | blah blah blah 14:35, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn. Deizio talk 18:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not-homophobia. Has only 1 film on IMDB, and WP:PORNBIO (does it apply) says a IMDB is not enough. -Patstuart 21:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete' pending rewrite and more sources... I tried to do some research to add to this article but I couldn't find any verifiable sources. No results in google article search, no results in newsbank, only one film listed at IMDB. Does not seem notable yet, verifiable sources need to be found and the article needs a lot of work. --mathewguiver 16:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Delete it. I need a few weeks to get the sources correct. Plus the title is wrong. (the J and the M needs to be capitalized.) I understand what needs to be done and I jumped the gun a little on publishing the article. I have backed up the article and I will republish later. Harthansen 20:24, 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 advertorial for company of no evident significance. Guy 22:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HeirChex

edit

Company profile; no claim to notability Nehwyn 12:07, 9 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, Coredesat 20:31, 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, after discounting the !votes from non-established Wikipedians. Whether AOL4Free is notable enough (for at least a mention in AOL) can be discussed elsewhere, but otherwise, the consensus here is to deleted this particular article Deathphoenix ʕ 13:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AOHack programs

edit

It doesn't seem notable and there's always been a lack of sources. Looks to be from original research and unverifiable research, too. The one news source indicates that there should be an AOL4FREE article, but not an article on "AOHack programs" in general. Maybe AOL4FREE should just be a note in the AOL article and nothing more? Anomo 12:15, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments - most google hits look like Wiki mirrors. But there are a lot, including a mirror from answers.com. -Patstuart 22:03, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - 118 unique Google hits for "aohack programs", which drops to 81 if I exclude pages including the word "Wikipedia", and only 22 if I exlude those containing a fragment of a sentence from the Wikipedia article, with the remaining links looking pretty much like garbage -- i.e. no content outside of Wiki-mirrors. Confusing Manifestation 00:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • the underground aol scene was huge and a catalyst for many to go from IRC into mainstream. i think this page merits saving.The undertow 02:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nominator. Anomo 03:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep AOL4FREE was a program that became famouse due to Nicholas Ryan being prosecuted. The others, and there were 100s, didn't achieve the notoriety but were used even more. However, to ignore the fact that these programs existed and were a major part of the America Online community in the mid 90s would be wrong. These programs were the first mass distributors of pirated software and mp3s and is often recognized as the precursor to massive online peer to peer file transfer systems such as Napster and Bittorrent. By the way, my searches lead me to several websites with lists of the programs. Just because you guys aren't looking past page 2 on your google search doesn't mean you should delete it. My suggestion is this, in the program list, the unverified programs should be removed but I can find plenty of references to about 20% of the programs in there. Also, if you guys are search "AOhack programs", you are searching wrong. 68.196.250.47 05:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it There are several references you can get that these programs were valid and a significant part of AOL for a number of years. The previous poster was right. You can't serach "AOHack Programs" and expect to get results from google. There are way too many wikipedia mirrors that drown out the term now. AOHack Programs is just a generic term. Some people called them AOL Proggies, AOL Progz, AOLHacks, AOHell Clones, etc... There were a million names so a generic serach or one name, specifically the title of the wikipedia article itself will naturally not yield any results. There are legitimate lists of programs that were popular that still exist. [36] [37]. On top of that, these programs faded out nearly 10 years ago and the detailed information on them is not widely available. There were literally hundreds of programs and I do think that the "list" of programs needs to be cut down. The scene was described here [38] and programs were reviewed here [[39]] There is an old copy of a newsletter that reviewed many of the popular programs.[40]. And, that was just with 2 minutes of searching. There is a lot of info out there but you have to know how to find it. Part of the problem is that to have good search results, you need to have atleast a significant amount of knowledge of these programs, the AOL warez scene, and the state of AOL at the time. I'm assuming most of you who simply find "wikipedia mirrors" don't. That's no reason to delete it. I agree that this article has a lot of unverified information but that doesn't mean the rest of the article is non notable and should be deleted. I noticed a trend in the history of people adding single programs which were most likely the programmers themselves adding their program to the list. I suggest the program section be cleaned up and only notable and/or referencable programs be allowed on the list. I suggest the non-notables be added individually with a requirement to reference it. That way, we don't get someone cutting and pasting an entire list of 100s of programs into the article. Also, the private room list needs to be cutdown as well. As far as I know and can find, the only rooms that should be in the list were "Warez", "Freewarez", and "MacWarez". The fact of the matter is, these programs were very popular, used by millions of people at the time, and they were significant part of the history of AOL security flaws, warez developement, file transfer, and led to the prosecution of a few people which made national headlines. This article needs cleaning up not deleting. Please keep it. Coumarin 17:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's no reason to delete it. Just remove the unverifiable stuff. There's been more than enough links provided. Read them. Google search statistics mean nothing. TheArizona5 21:57, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but split the AOL4Free program into its own article. 24.55.106.132 01:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I disagree with doing this. AOL4Free wasn't close to any of the more popular programs in popularity. It wasn't used nearly as frequently as the others. It gained recognition from the media due to the legal ramifications. That doesn't make the others non-notable as they were used by more people.BenihanaLee 21:45, 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 speedily deleted by Mushroom as spam. MER-C 13:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sonic the hedgehog Comic (STE)

edit

Uncited page about a web comic. Fancruft.

Oh, crap. Sig: -- Chris chat edits essays 12:21, 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 Delete - Yomanganitalk 22:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

N.W.A Terms

edit

Seems to be a recreation of the proposed (and enacted) deletion of Orangutangzta. Presumably a reference to the rap group N.W.A., but no verifiable references despite the fact that the article claims lyrical use in N.W.A., Ja Rule and Limp Bizkit songs as well as patent disputes and appearance in a controversial cereal commercial. Despite this, there are no Google hits (for "Orangutangzta") apart from warnings on WP to User talk:JJFox117 and User talk:JDRH regarding lack of image source and proposed deletion. Canley 12:29, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:42, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duke Nukem 3D monsters

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. Punkmorten 21:29, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Japanese idol models

edit

There is no such classification of individuals as "idol model", and this list is nothing but an unfinished mess of links coming from List of Japanese idols and List of Japanese gravure idols, and has nothing to do with models, which are taken care of anyway with Category:Japanese models. I have checked all the links and created the gravure list to handle those that don't fit in with regular idols or porn stars, so there is no need to merge this article with anything else.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  12:34, 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 keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 22:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FCE Ultra

edit

No assertions of notability, fan-made project of no apparant significance, possible advertising. The Kinslayer 13:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The intention is to withdraw this AfD due to notability being established. In the meantime, please vote to keep it. The Kinslayer 21:53, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Notability isn't subjective. It's also not relative (Microsoft doesn't make all software developers, or even OS developers, notable). Even though I've definitely heard of FCEU, how does it meet WP:SOFTWARE? Of the sources in the article, I see 1 blog, 1 forum, and a site that doesn't really explain anything in the article. That's a terrible collection of sources. It's annoying to me that people are ignoring WP:V because WP:ILIKEIT. ColourBurst 20:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable among NES emulators. — Saxifrage ✎ 18:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:V and nn. Notability isn't relative. You can't, for example, say "I'm easily the most notable person in my family, so where is my article?" and have anyone take you at all seriously. You either are notable or you aren't, and no emulators are. Recury 20:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment you know, considering that there are over a half a dozen NES emulators in the catergory, the same for SNES, Sega Genesis, N64, there might be a need for a higher-level discussion of this first. See also console emulator . FrozenPurpleCube 21:26, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - notable NES emulator, often preferred among speedrunners [42]. --FlyingPenguins 00:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: no compelling reason to delete stated. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 02:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response Here's your reason Cyberskull: Per WP:V, "If an article topic has no reputable, reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on that topic." It also fails WP:Notability on 'a subject needs to be of sufficient importance that there are multiple reliable secondary sources, independent of the subject, on which we can base a verifiably neutral article without straying into original research.'The Kinslayer 09:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • And I assert WP:V is a cleanup criterion first, and a deletion criterion next, only to be applied when there's absolutely no question there's no reliable sources out there and even the program itself was written and documented by an unreliable madman. Barring damning proof to the contrary, the project itself qualifies as a source for the program's features. My sources, below, say FCE Ultra has demonstrable notability. Therefore, the whole thing doesn't preclude a stub that says basic information about the program. Because if you're unwilling to consider the subject a reliable source for certain kinds of assertions, you're in gobloads of hot water with bazillions of articles. In that case, we might as well wipe the Wikipedia database and start rebuilding it with a brave new policy "every character must have a source, or else". --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 18:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • All open source projects are "fan projects". Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 06:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep a well-known NES emulator with long history, included in Debian (and probably other dists as well) and has debian popcon rank of #8593 out of 60003 (package fceu) which is actually pretty good as it beats several other popular packages. Like this insignificant one. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 17:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment If you feel it's insignifcant, make an AfD discussion. I don't judge articles in relation to other ones, I judge the article on it's own worthiness. Saying 'if X has an article than this should have one' is a bad precedent to set. The Kinslayer 17:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • ::long blank stare:: And interpreting one's purely hypothetical reductio ad absurdum argument as an exhortation to delete articles is also not very productive. Okay, let's recap my argument: "The subject fulfills criteria set forth by WP:SOFTWARE by being 'included in a major operating system distribution such as Debian, Fedora Core or FreeBSD, and the maintainer of the distribution is independent from the software developer'." There. Better? --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 18:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, #8593 is awesome. So do you have any sources we can use to actually write a verifiable article on it? Recury 18:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Since people started throwing the Books around: "Material from self-published sources, whether published online or as a book or pamphlet, may be used as sources of information about themselves in articles about themselves..." -WP:RS --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 18:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • You forgot this bit: 'relevant to the person's notability, or, if the material is self-published by a group or organisation, relevant to the notability of that group or organisation' I'm substituing person for program here, but there is still the bone of contention. The Kinslayer 18:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Because law-book-throwing is the lowest form of comedy and everyone's having jolly good time reading this in, oh, 10 years, I'd like to remind that you forgot this bit: "Exceptional claims require exceptional evidence". Consider the implications of the logical reverse of that argument. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 18:42, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • If you can show me the bit where it says the reverse also applies, I will. (And FYI, it's sarcasm your thinking of.)The Kinslayer 18:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • *sigh* "Non-exceptional claims do not require exceptional evidence." As in "If the website says the software runs on Linux, and you can easily take the source code and compile it on Linux, finding a peer-reviewed professor to tell you that it runs on Linux is a tad bit overkill." And no, I absolutely was not thinking of sarcasm, because discussions like this prove that maxim absolutely wrong. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 18:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • I'm beginning to think we might have our wires crossed here. The issue was that there is no evidence to support any claim that this should have an srticle, no download numbers, no reviews (admittedly they are hard to find for emulators) no interviews etc. Only links to the site, forum and another site that seems to be an official one. I certainly wasn't questioning anything to do with the actual details of the emulator. The Kinslayer 18:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Okay, wires-crossitude is apparent, so let's all calm down. My apologies for everyone involved, it's been rough lately. Outdenting a bit, see below. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 21:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Even though this seems to have settled a bit, I wanted to interject a something that might be enlightening to those who are sitting on the sidelines. (It's a bit of an expansion of what wwwwolf is getting at below, too.) There are two different measures that care about sources: notability and verifiability. Interestingly, they treat sources in different, but overlapping ways. When notability is caring about sources, it wants multiple, non-trivial, independent sources. This is different from verifiability's requirements, which are they they are reliable and support the assertion in question. What's interesting is that a source that satisfies V can be one that doesn't satisfy NN (say, if it's reliable but trivial), and one that satisfies NN can be one that doesn't satisfy V (say, if it's major, independent, there are more than one, but it's contains nothing useful to the encyclopedia).

                      In this case, sources are irrelevant to notability because of the "included in a major distribution such as Debian" clause of WP:WEB. Thus, the fact that the website of FCE Ultra is not independent isn't an issue, since only NN cares about independence in this way. (Aside, V cares about independence, but for reasons unrelated to this discussion.) What results is a situation where a source can be both "bad" and "good" in an AfD, depending on what outstanding issues need to be satisfied. Specifically, a source can be useless to establish notability, but can be relevant to establish verifiability. It can be the case that no independent, multiple, non-trivial sources exist on a subject but the subject passes some other notability criteria, at which point these otherwise "inadequate" sources actually are enough to prevent an article's deletion on grounds of "unverifiability", because they make the subject verifiable.

                      I hope this has been interesting (and accurate? let me know otherwise), despite it being a long tangent. I've tripped over this subtle difference myself in the past. — Saxifrage ✎ 22:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment: Let me recap: Deletion nomination questions the notability of the software. WP:SOFTWARE says inclusion is warranted if it's included in a (e.g.) Linux distro, and is (NB.) among the most popular packages. Debian popcon, which is an external source specifically listed as an example of a tool for gauging package popularity in WP:SOFTWARE, confirms this. Therefore, notability per WP:SOFTWARE is not in question, and it's confirmed by an independent source. So what exactly is the problem with this? Inclusion in Debian and its apparent popularity there is solely enough to mark the software as notable enough in my opinion. You don't need anything else. Reviews, interviews, etc. are extra. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 21:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, based on that, I will agree that this achieves notability. How do you go about withdrawing one of these AfDs? The Kinslayer 21:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • You could put <del>...</del> around the nomination at the top and state you're withdrawing the nomination. Regrettably, since this debate is not at the moment unanimous, I'm not sure if I can close this AfD as it stands - I don't have that much experience about closing AfDs yet - but I'll see the policies and at worst I can close it normally when we're closer to the deadline. =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 21:47, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Congratulations, you've established notability. How about editing the article so it asserts said notability, thereby passing WP:V? Establishing notability in an AfD debate is useless, you have to establish it in the article... --Roninbk t c e # 10:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per above. Havok (T/C/c) 18:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep one of the most important emulators for one of the most important systems. — brighterorange (talk) 14:34, 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 - Yomanganitalk 10:56, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Move Management Center

edit

Non-notable company; article is not bad, but I can't see anything notable here. Prods removed by author. Brianyoumans 23:58, 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, W.marsh 13:22, 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 Delete, following the detailed analysis by Pavel Vozenilek. Deathphoenix ʕ 13:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Galerie Jeleni

edit

Seems not notable enough "Galerie Jeleni" on google only returns 650 results. →AzaToth 23:05, 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, W.marsh 13:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. It's not a blatant advert, and it doesn't look too obscure. yandman 14:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It is a small gallery, actually one of two (the second is open air one placed on an old fortification wall) operated by a a foundation. There are quite a many galleries in the Czech Republic, usually tiny and struggling financially (art isn't the best selling commodity here). The few large, state funded galleries like the National Gallery in Prague are worth an article, this one not.
Few details from annual report 2004 [43]: 3 employees, 18 exhibitions in 2004, concentrating on "presentation of new unproven trends in arts by young artists" (most of them are students, an example of exhibition is a presentation what a student saw on exchange in New York :), 2004 budget: 2 millions of CZK, 100% grants (such ability is perhaps the most remarkable as serious projects always struggle).
Diacritics is completely missing. NN, IMHO ad. Pavel Vozenilek 15:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Browsing their website, the next exhibition is an "amateur pornofilm" [44] (professional male + a female music group "Noise Pictures"). My tax money at work :-( Pavel Vozenilek 15:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, I hope you visit that exhibition :) →AzaToth 15:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's generally accepted in the WP:MOS that diacritics are not used in English-language titles. ColourBurst 20:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Gosh, now I must rework practically all Czech related articles. Pavel Vozenilek 20:51, 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 No consensus, following the major work done by Uncle G. Deathphoenix ʕ 13:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Health advocacy

edit

Delete. This article is original research. It's even signed by the author. Prod tag removed by anonymous user. ... discospinster talk 13:24, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete And the article was posted by the author. Emeraude 13:35, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've put it up for Speedy Delete under db-spam. yandman 13:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original research and unencyclopedic essay. Not sure what product or service is being advertised here, so I'm not sure it is a speedy deletion candidate. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it's the whole field/industry that's being advertised for, so I thought it could go under "group or service". Maybe I was a bit rash in proposing a speedy... yandman 14:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, an OR essay. --Nehwyn 14:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I posted this article as a first-time contributor to wikipedia, and I have been trying to edit it to address some of the objections raised. It is not in any way advertising. There is no product. I think the subject should be included in wikipedia because health advocacy is a growing field in health care and something that is important for people (consumers, patients, families, professionals etc.) to know about. This is not original research. I just put together existing information about health advocacy to explain it to readers. I hope this submission will be reviewed again. (yesterday's unsigned posting not intentional) Mhurst 13:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suspect that the opinions that this was original research were based solely upon the title and the presence of the signature. Both were easily fixed. This appears, to me, to be an encyclopaedia article on the subject of health advocacy that cites 17 sources. There are things wrong with it, such as its poor introduction that doesn't use summary style, its myopic focus upon the United States, and its lack of sourcing for an entire section, but fixing them doesn't require an administrator to use administrator tools. Keep. Uncle G 17:03, 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 Delete - Yomanganitalk 11:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marshall Van Alstyne

edit

Non-Notable, vanity page yandman 13:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I followed the link he gives, and there's about 20 per US state per year. It's not really a prize, more of a state-sponsored funding system (http://www.nsf.gov). So in my opinion, no. yandman 13:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A Career award is a fairly prestigious research grant, but I don't think something that in itself is enough. Career awards are given exclusively to junior academics with strong potential, so they don't imply much on their own. Mangojuicetalk 17:20, 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. Mangojuicetalk 14:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

İlber Ortaylı

edit

Does not meet WP:BIO. No facts in article to support weasel words "widely considered as one of the most prominent living historians of the Ottoman Empire" -Nv8200p talk 13:33, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:44, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Somers Women's Leadership Program

edit

Although this might make an interesting paragraph in the George Washington University article, I do not feel it is worth an article in its own right. As all universities provide programmes, clubs, societies etc for new and returning students, this does not seem to have any claim to notability. Unless someone knows differently, and can add to the article. Emeraude 13:44, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:08, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Phillipe

edit

A contested PROD. I think this a non-notable comic. It seems to be published only at DeviantArt. Joyous! | Talk 13:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - no assertion of notability. If it's a webcomic only, speedy delete it. MER-C 14:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete DeviantART piece, and not even a very popular one, with the latest episode having only been viewed (read) 20 times, and commented on 6 times (two of which are the author's responses). It's not uncommon for DeviantART work to get thousands of views and comments, so these numbers are pretty low. Besides, DA has over 40,000,000 individual works: there's no way WP can hope to document them all, or even the "popular" ones, and still hope to call itself an encyclopedia. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:48, 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 Delete - nothing to stop it being recreated if it achieves notability later on. Yomanganitalk 22:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jung super regulator

edit

An article that seems to exist merely to promote a product. There's nothing unique or notable about this voltage regulator. Atlant 13:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Pare down considerably and Merge to Voltage_regulator. The article is not actually spam, even though it kind of reads that way. Walt Jung, the designer, doesn't sell them, he just designed them and made the design publicly available. There are a fair number of G-Hits (about 2000 if you add up the various combinations). I think a brief mention in Voltage_regulator is OK. - Richfife 16:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I disagree with a merge; there's nothing notable about a dual-output regulator that uses two '709 op-amps.
Atlant 00:26, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reason for this article is to gather and condence the facts around this regulator topology because it's very interesting from a technical point of view and it has also a certain aura as something "super". There are a couple of commercial products and also a couple of DIY products which we can call "semi-commercial" or "hobby level". My contribution will be to point to the difference between a conventional regulator and this "super" regulator. What I had in mind was to draw a couple pictures with only necessary elements, only for pedagogical purposes. Those who want a very detailed description may read the articles by Mr. Walt Jung. Notice that Walt Jung has written about the regulator and also made together with Mr. Jan Didden a printed circuit board which neither of them sell. Audio Xpress sells this particualr pcb but remember that the article is 10 years old and the pcb is not very adopted to pratical usage. From the discussion over at www.diyaudio.com much info has been gathered but who have the energy to read all that. I admit that I sell a pcb once in a while but the main purpose here is to gathering knowledge. I don't think either that I would sudeenly sell thousands of boards. This will never happen. I don't mind to merge the article to voltage regulators but I plan to write much more. The 709 schematic is an example of a super regulator from the "stone age" sort of speaking and this serves as a background. I think also that a couple of photos of super regulators would be appropiate. I have take photos of a dozen different types and before publication I will the people behind those if it's OK to publish them.

--Peranders 12:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The problem here is that it's not notable enough to be included in an encyclopaedia, even if it is a very interesting circuit. yandman 12:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • How come? A few brilliant keystrokes and you'll get something extra in performance. I'll admit that this isn't basic knowledge exactly, more like expert knowledge but since many people have or will be hearing about this regulator type I think an article is pretty good. I don't know if you know electronics but this regulator is a factor of 1000 better in many parameters!

--Peranders 12:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Reply If you'll allow to play devil's advocate for a moment here, clever and useful things aren't within the scope of Wikipedia (one man's clever is another man's obvious). They have to be notable and recognized within their field. - Richfife 15:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, where do we stand right now? Should I continue or just give it up, let the article be as it is? --Peranders 11:04, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As insurance, you might want to copythe article content to a sub-page off of your personal page. For example, copy the article here. If the article ends up getting deleted, this archived text would allow you to recreate a better article sometime in the future.


Atlant 13:12, 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 The resulst was Delete AdamBiswanger1 19:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of All Pipe Bands in the World

edit

very ambitious listcruft ccwaters 13:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment an ambition doesnt qualify for an article, facts do. (Neostinker 18:10, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:44, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christine Leadman

edit

Article was speedied for non-notability. Creator has contested the deletion, so I'm bringing this up to AfD.Aecis I'm too busy acting like I'm not naive. 14:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And is the "Elvis Sighting Society" really a charity? yandman 14:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Running for office does not meet the WP:BIO criteria for politicians. --Nehwyn 14:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, a candidate for municipal office (unless it's something like Mayor of New York) is not notable. NawlinWiki 16:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I think in some ways Ottawa is comparible to New York--if not in size--given that it is Canada's national seat of government. That being said, it's city council seat, not a mayorship. She is mentioned in google news, but they are very brief mentions that tell you little more than that she exists. Fails WP:BIO as the press coverage must be significant, I think the G11 and A7 cases are difficult to make. I think it asserts why she is important (in a very POVish kind of way) and I'm not sure how I feel about G11 for candidates. I also initially prodded this article. Irongargoyle 17:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consideration for not deleting of this article. Christine has been a significant civic contributor in Ottawa and will continue to be an active community individual after the election. The charities she has worked with are all registered charities that do good work for the people of Ottawa. You should know that currently there are a number of candidates running in this election posted on Wikipedia who, like Christine, are candidates running for elected office for the first time, but are not ungoing any sort of similar consideration for deletion. Her civic awards and recognition are significant and well documented in press coverage. Please take this into consideration. Grahame5 13:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)grahame5[reply]

Which other candidates have an article on wikipedia? Aecis I'm too busy acting like I'm not naive. 13:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are 2 other candidates in Kitchissippi ward that have bios on Wiki - Gary Ludington and Vicky Smallman. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tanda1 (talk • contribs)

I've nominated both for deletion as well. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gary Ludington and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vicky Smallman. Aecis I'm too busy acting like I'm not naive. 13:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As to press coverage, on Jan. 11, 2006, Leadman was awarded by The Ottawa Sun (major daily paper) an award call "5 who made a difference" Leadman won hers for her contribution to business. And The Elvis Sighting Society is legit - http://www.elvissightingsociety.org/ - they have raised tens of thousands of dollars over the years for various charities. Tanda1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tanda1 (talk • contribs)

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:08, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brenda Ford

edit

This article fails WP:BIO. The 109 unique search hits do not improve notability. Informal precedent appears to be that candidates for municipal office are not notable, though precedent is not binding. Erechtheus 14:48, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete as hoax and utter nonsense. I'm Dutch as well, like Reinoutr, and I can confirm that nothing in the article is true.. Aecis I'm too busy acting like I'm not naive. 14:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dred

edit

Appears to be just a hoax. I am dutch and have never ever heard of this band. Also, I am unable to find any reference for it on Google. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 14:57, 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 No consensus, although from the arguments below it is clear it needs rewriting and/or moving. - Yomanganitalk 23:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sixth Party System

edit

Deleted through the WP:PROD system and requested undeleted through WP:DRV. There were actually 5-6 "endorse deletion", but since any objection to a PROD results in an immediate undelete, I have restored the article and bringing it here for discussion. No vote. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Sjakkalle, is it possible to please restore the article Discussion page as well? The original {{PROD}} notice refers to it. Thanks, Satori Son 15:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The DRV is here, though it may close and be archived in the next few minutes. Google results, including books and journal articles, clearly establish this as a real phenomenon. Someone just needs to add citations. Also per the JSTOR results Trialsanderrors cited in the DRV: 13 hits for "fifth party system", six for "sixth" and one for "seventh". Academic topics, even of narrow interest, should be covered if there are sources with which to do so. We don't have any notability guidelines for them and there's no other reason that I can see that they shouldn't be in a compendium of human knowledge.--Kchase T 15:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Counting hits isn't research. Research is exemplified by the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seventh Party System, where people actually read what Aldrich et al. wrote, and discussed whether U.S. political historians actually agree upon the existence of a seventh party system. It's clear that whilst Aldrich uses "if", "guess", "should", and "would" to talk about a seventh party system (John H. Aldrich (1999). "Political Parties in a Critical Era". American Politics Research. 27 (1). SAGE Publications: 9–32. doi:10.1177/1532673X99027001003.), xe is firm about the existence of the sixth party system. Uncle G 16:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In concurrence with Kchase and Uncle G. This system, even more so than the 7th, is widely utilized in political science discourses. Joseph 18:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per UncleG. Looks pretty clear to me. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:25, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the arguments made at DRV (I voted to keep deleted there), which I thought were pretty compelling. Eusebeus 18:35, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete, for undue weight bordering on original research. When V. O. Key published this periodization of American history in 1955, he divided it into five "Party Systems", with the latest beginning with the New Deal. There has been some publication on the idea since, some two dozen articles on the Sixth Party System (scholar.google). Some of these have been explanations of then current events as the end of the Fifth Party System, at dates ranging from 1960 to the present; some of them have been comments on the Fifth Party System still existing after so long. (The other four Systems all lasted about thirty years.) None of these appear to support the idea that he Sixth Party System has already come into existence, and has been replaced by a Seventh, as the article claims. Aldrich's article is a fringe variation on a relatively minor idea. There are hundreds of articles on political realignment in the United States (scholar.google). Septentrionalis 18:45, 7 October 2006 (UTC) Septentrionalis 19:21, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Septentrionalis, would you be comfortable with removing this article from the template (or perhaps retitling it to reflect it's exclusion from Key's book), and boldly noting that it is not one of his original five? To me, this other scholarship makes the SPS not original research, though one might argue that it's poor research.--Kchase T 19:44, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • It should certainly be removed from the template. The present article is worse than poor research; it is asserting one opinion, from one paper, in Wikipedia's voice. Scholar.google.com shows twenty-three articles that use the term with various dates for its beginning; at least two of them mention the SPS to assert that it does not exist. There is no consensus on any other claim on the SPS either; I think all that can be said is presently in Fifth Party System, which see. Wikipedia does not exist to abstract every academic paper in a separate article. Septentrionalis 20:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • What if we heavily revised the article to reflect that this is one logical progression from Key's ideas, but that it has been rejected by scholars and is only referred to as a null idea?--Kchase T 10:27, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • That is still in error on two points: Aldrich's is clearly not the only proposal of an SPS, and it has not been rejected as much as ignored. (There also appears to be a British series of numbered Party Systems, which has a handful of papers.) If I see a rewrite, I will react to it (please notify my talkpage); but why is a null idea notable? Why have an article on it? Septentrionalis 14:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • After a couple of days, I agree with you in part, that a totally null idea mentioned by a few scholars isn't notable enough. However, Aldrich and Niemi (from the summary, which is all I can see), is making an argument for a sixth party system, although it lacks a party realignment. Unfortunately, I don't have time to rewrite this article, now.--Kchase T 09:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a very important point. I am dismayed to see people voting Keep simply based on a google scholar count without thinking of the context of the scholarship, which does not change the fact that this is WP:OR. Eusebeus 09:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Septentrionalis, Your argument is against the Seventh Party System, not reason to dismiss the Sixth Party System. You provided an emphasis on and when stating that "support the idea that he Sixth Party System has already come into existence, and has been replaced by a Seventh." Qwertyqazqaz 17:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If we take out the chronological limits (which are not consensus), we are left with: "at some point between 1960 and 2006, the Fifth party system may have collapsed and given way to a Sixth." That's not an article; that's a tautology. Septentrionalis 19:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: your opinion is pure WP:OR, and is not an argument as to which guideline or policy would either favor keeping or deleting this article. If a description of American politics in "Systems" was moderately popular 60 years ago, and is very obscure now, then it is reasonable to have an article describing that old theory (the first five systems), and to delete an article describing later additions (sixth and seventh). Seventh is already deleted, and I see no reason in your "strong keep" why the sixth shouldn't go either. This is not about claiming that the fifth is continuing or has stopped or never existed at all, this is just noticing that further systems (sixth, seventh, eigth, ...) are hardly discussed and even then no agreement is reached on them. They are no viable, common scientific theories but the ideas of a very few scientists which do not get any attention and consequently have no place on Wikipedia. Fram 19:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response: Your comments are what reeks of WP:OR, as your only argument is that it has less scholars referring to the Sixth system than the Fifth system. And as I have demonstrated, that is because a) it is newer b) it came into existance after the initial author established the series. No one denies that the Sixth has scholars backing it. And as mentioned by others (above, and in the Seventh Afd) some scholars already have us in the Seventh Party System, let alone the Sixth. And logically you cannot argue with these scholars, given the time frame involved, and the series ~ 30 year per system. Qwertyqazqaz 16:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is actually no consensus of a "party system" enumeration beyond the third one (see Poole & Rosenthal quote below). The subdivision of the third, Democratic/Republican era into fourth, fifth, etc., systems is speculative and the higher the number, the less support it gets. The idea that the subdivision must follow a thirty year pattern is complete hogwash and unsupported by sources, as are most of the keep votes here. ~ trialsanderrors 07:13, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion from WP:DRV, mostly on the merits. Note: the duplication of the commentators below with their comments above and these comments, which are posted here as separate, but related, to the discussion above, have been removed as the only edit of an anon account; sockpuppetry is not welcome:

Sixth Party System was an article regarding the U.S. Party Systems, from the nations founding until today. It was deleted, leaving it the only missing piece from the 1st thru the 7th Party Systems.

The Seventh Party System recently survived an AfD. It is illogical to delete a previous party system, leaving an inconsistancy between the First Party System and the Seventh Party System.

Please excuse me if my formatting of this request is somewhat inconsistant. I'm not a habitual undelete requester (in fact this is my first :-) Thank You Joseph 19:38, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion. This series of article stubs does not describe a generally recognized system; it appears to be just one author's schema. I didn't see citations in other N-th Party System articles I checked (not all of them) to suggest that this topic meets WP policy. The others should probably be brought up for AfD as a group, so we can either identify sufficient sources or delete the articles in consistent fashion. Barno 20:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This term scores a few tens of unique ghits, and seventh party system scores even fewer. There only apears to e one fountain source of these neologisms. Guy 22:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I quote from Poole & Rosenthal, which captures the mainstream reading of partisan eras: "The United States has had three periods with distinct two-party systems. The first, the Jeffersonian Republican/Federalist party syste, ended with the Era of Good Feelings. The second, the Democratic/Whig system, was organized after the Era of Good Feelings and lasted until the early 1850s. The third, the Democratic/Republican system, was organized by the late 1850s and continues today, although we will frequently refer to this system as having perturbed into a three-party system (northern Democrats, southern Democrats, Republicans) by civil-rights issues that arose in the mid-twentieth century." (p. 35) The split of the D/R era into sub-eras is certainly a minority position that hasn't caught on in the poli sci community. I get 17 article hits on JSTOR for "fourth party system", 13 for "fifth", six for "sixth" and one for "seventh". (Compare with 112 for "era of good feelings" and 302 for "republican revolution".) Endorse Deletion but if you want to start an AfD for all articles past the third I'd be glad to contribute. ~ trialsanderrors 03:03, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion completely in agreement with TaE; the others should be mass nominated for AfD as unacceptable original research. in fact, I'll be bold and do it soon. Eusebeus 16:49, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per TaE. Maybe Poole & Rosenthals's book deserves its own article, but that's about it. --Aaron 18:47, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 October 7#Seventh Party System above; the five Systems postulated in the original idea should be considered separately. Septentrionalis 18:50, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy undeleted since the article was deleted through the WP:PROD system. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The DRV on Seventh Party System has been closed, here Overturn and Delete. Septentrionalis 15:09, 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. - Mailer Diablo 15:45, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Darkest Days (the novel)

edit

Article for a fiction novel that has yet to be published. As such, credible third-party sources are not yet available to verify the information here. Article should be deleted and may be resubmitted if and when the novel achieves the required level of notability. {{PROD}} notice removed by original author, so comes here for discussion and consensus. Thank you, Satori Son 15:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • DO NOT DELETE This article is fully verifiable, a simple visit to the publisher's website will confirm the author's legitimacy.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwin Roik (talk • contribs) (who had already voted below before posting this)
  • Delete Article is ad copy, book has been pushed back to next year (withdrawn, vote remains delete). The creator has not contributed anything that doesn't relate to this book or its author, so I expect they are either the author under a pseudonym or a paid publicist. The creator has already created a category for this author's books. I'm putting them all to Afd and CfD. If and when this article is delete, this IP's contributions should be reverted as well: [46]. - Richfife 15:26, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. & previous comment--except to note that publication hasn't been "pushed back". According to the article, the publisher just purchased the rights two months ago, and it typically takes 6 months to a year (if not longer) for a book to go from manuscript to publication. And it sometimes happens that publication rights are purchased but not exercised, so this novel might not ever make it to print. This is a book that doesn't exist--not even, as far as I can tell, as an item on the publisher's list of forthcoming titles. --ShelfSkewed [Talk] 18:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DO NOT DELETE (duplicate vote) This article is completely verifiable. Pan Macmillan is a major publisher. The comment herein stating that the novel's release has been delayed is unfounded and false. I confirmed with the publisher that the release date has not and will not be delayed. In fact there are indications that he novel's release will in fact be accelerated. All of the factual information on the author was aquired via an interview with said author and may be confirmed by contacting him directly via the posted website links. The comments above rely heavily on unfounded opinions and do not constitute valid support for deletion. The creation of catagories is meant to facilitate finding information useful to those researching this author. As a new contributor there has not been time to contribute information to other areas. Wikipedia is an incomplete informational source if it is not including information on all authors published or soon to be published by a major publisher. This is not a vanity novelist that is self published by a vanity press. The attacks upon this article sound in personal attacks, by individuals apparently uncomfortable with the subject matter of the novel itself. Rather than making the effort to research their assertions they have chosen to engage in speculation that disregards the factual support behind the infomation posted. If their assertions are based in fact then provide the factual support for the claims made. Deletion of this article on the basis of the arguments made by the other posts in this forum would constitute a viloation of Wikipedia's deletion policy and could perhaps appear to be discriminatory in nature.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwin Roik (talk • contribs)
    • Comment Wow, somebody has a vested interest in this article. This has nothing to do with the subject matter, and how the book is published makes no difference. See WP:N, specifically "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. As such, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate directory of businesses, websites, persons, etc. "johnpseudo 19:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment If you are referring to this link: [47], it doesn't come close to establishing notability. If and when the book is published and makes a public impact, consider putting the article back. Until then, wait. Also, considering the fact that you're talking to a guy that shows anti-Bush documentaries on the sides of walls in bad neighborhoods: [48], your assumption that I'm disturbed by the content of the book is laughable. - Richfife 19:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete When the book is published, we may judge its notability. Even major publisher release books that end up remaindered within a month. When it's published, and has reviews and sales, would be the time for an article. Fan-1967 19:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per nom and User:Fan-1967 Khukri (talk . contribs) 22:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Non notable. Appears to be an ad.  Funky Monkey  (talk)  02:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Book is not yet published and by an author of little note. Resolute 04:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, noted author, and it's a non-vanity title from a well-known publishing house. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment "Noted author"? Do you have some evidence of notability that nobody else has discovered? If so, please share. The funny thing is, I have some genuine respect for Mr. Gallon--for having the discipline & patience to sit down and write a novel, for finding a publisher, and for not sitting on his behind and waiting for the book to sell itself. And maybe he'll turn out to be the next Dan Brown, and this entire discussion will become moot. But right now, he's just another writer with a book coming out, and there are thousands of those every year, and very few of them will rise to the level where they deserve Wikipedic notice.--ShelfSkewed [Talk] 14:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No matter who wrote the book (unless the author is really really really popular and thus demonstrably the book is highly anticipated), no matter who publishes it (unless everything they touch turn gold, which doesn't really happen to any publishing house I know in these days of neo-illiteracy =), no matter when it's coming out (unless 99% sure it will come out any day now™), unpublished book means no article, welcome back when the book is actually out and sells by bazillions. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 23:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the proposed WP:BK. I don't know how badlydrawnjeff can argue that this is a noted author when his first book has yet to be published. Pascal.Tesson 14:15, 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 15:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stanley Gallon

edit
  • Author has not published anything. Only book mentioned has been delayed until next year (statement withdrawn. AfD stands). Article is hopelessly POV and I suspect either vanity or from a paid publicist. Opening sentence has inappropriate plural and past tense. Richfife 15:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DO NOT Delete: The statement that the author has not published anything is incorrect. The definition of publish is as follows: To bring to the public attention; announce. "publish." The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004. 09 Oct. 2006. The publisher in conjunction with the author has brought public attention to this novel to the public via the following public announcement that can be found by going to the web address posted following the announcement: "Peter Lavery at Pan Macmillan has bought Darkest Days, an apocalyptic thriller by former Washington lawyer Stan Gallon." http://www.thebookseller.com/?pid=230&did=20836.

The following comments are erroneous or without sufficient substance to justify deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.140.212.120 (talk • contribs)

"Ask yourself if several libraries or bookshops, or a no-subscription website have a copy of the book, so that other wikipedians can easily consult the book, or at least have access to on-line or press-published reviews of the book."

The book is not available yet, so this criteria can not possibly be met.

We both know perfectly well that "published" in this context means "the complete book in print currently or in the past". Cherry picking dictionary definitions is not helping. And above and beyond that, there is no significant secondary attention being paid to this book. No reviews, no chatter on literary websites, nothing but business announcements. The author's website doesn't count. You haven't denied you're a publicist, so you don't count either. - Richfife 23:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is with the personal attack's here? I am saying it now: I am not a publicist!!! Further your clain stated that the book does not exist, you also stated that the book was delayed. In other words you are makling a lot of statements you cannot support. Have you spoken with the publisher? Do you know something none of us know? Where did you get the information that the book was delayed? Provide evidence for your claims. Unsupportable conclusory statements have no place here.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwin Roik (talk • contribs)
  • *(multiple votes aren't allowed)DO NOT Delete: The following comment posted by OBM | blah blah blah is without sustance and is simply ludicrous. If User:Onebravemonkey has nothing more to say than "sockpupetry' (a form of name calling) the comment should be stricken. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.140.212.120 (talk • contribs)
    • Reply Sockpuppetry is a serious allegation about the very common practice of contributing to an article under multiple guises to create an illusion of public support. The substance of their post, however, is that they agree with the nomination. - Richfife 23:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then provide your supporting evidence that this has occured or is occuring. Otherwise read: WP:ATTACK or WP:CIV before you engage in name calling and insults.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwin Roik (talk • contribs)
I take it you have given up on attempting to argue the merits of this article and now have taken to simply harassing other users. Well done. IrishGuy talk 21:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OBM | blah blah blahplease read: WP:ATTACK or WP:CIV before you engage in name calling and insults.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwin Roik (talk • contribs)
There was no name calling or insulting in that statement. Please stop harassing other editors. IrishGuy talk 21:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • *(multiple votes aren't allowed)DO NOT Delete: There is no factual support for the following comment posted by --ShelfSkewed. It is contrary to logic and common sense. The book does indeed exist. The author himself can be researched via Pan Macmillan's website. The following is proof of the existance of the novel: "Peter Lavery at Pan Macmillan has bought Darkest Days, an apocalyptic thriller by former Washington lawyer Stan Gallon." http://www.thebookseller.com/?pid=230&did=20836.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.140.212.120 (talk • contribs)
That is your opinion and a mischaracterization of the facts. Choosing to ignore a dictionary definition simply because it does not suit you is not a valid reason to mischaracterize the truth for the sake of proving your point.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwin Roik (talk • contribs)

In the interest of fairness the comment posted below by --ShelfSkewed must be stricken.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.140.212.120 (talk • contribs)

  • Do not delete. I don’t understand these arguments. Wikipedia allows people to write about themselves or projects they have a strong personal involvement, as long as the article maintains a neutral point of view and verifiable. The focus of the arguments should be on neutrality and verifiability. On the neutrality, it is not too difficult to judge. If anyone thinks something is not neutral, point the portion out. On the verifiability, I don’t know how anyone can really verify where a person is born, who are their parents, …, unless you are the government. Regarding this specific case, the writer or his publicist claimed that “Macmillan Publishers bought Darkest Days in August of 2006.” So Wikipedia can verify with Macmillan whether they bought Stanley Gallon’s Darkest Days. Notability is not a requirement for Wikipedia articles. No one should be penalized for lack of notability. Wikipedia should not become a privilege for celebrities.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueorgreen (talk • contribs) — Blueorgreen (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Delete non notable, vanity possible spam article.  Funky Monkey  (talk)  02:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where is Funky Monkey's evidence that this is a vanity or a spam article? I’m tired of this new culture of accusing people of “serious allegations” without providing supporting evidence. There are many people on Wikipedia that are not “well known”. That’s the purpose of Wikipedia, to provide information that people may not know. Being signed by a major publisher is notable enough, it means the book will be published and it is irrelevant whether the book is on the market today or will be a few months from now. The author provided two sources, bookseller.com and the publisher's website, thereby satisfying the mutliple secondary sources requirement.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueorgreen (talk • contribs)
    • Reply Considering that you only registered on Wikipedia several hours ago, you tire very easily. The issue before all other issues is Notability. Wikipedia is not an indiscrimate collection of information. Other websites are, Wikipedia is not. There are literally thousands of websites where this content is welcome. MySpace comes to mind. There is no reason that it has to be on Wikipedia. Even if the book is published, it still may not meet notability standards. The fact that a large publisher is publishing it is not enough. It also has to be a success and make a notable mark on the public consciousness. Quibbling that it absolutely positively will be published isn't the point. If you have a problem with Wikipedia notability rules, take it up here: Wikipedia_talk:Notability. Do not take it up here. This is not the place for it. The fact that you only seem concerned that this article be allowed in clearly labels you as someone with an outside interest in the Gallon's public profile. - Richfife 03:48, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As yet unpublished author of little note. Resolute 04:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is irrelevant when I signed up. I'm very interested in Stanley Gallon's novel. Just like you are attacking the article about him, I'm defending it. Of course, it should not be a big deal at all whether the article be published by Wikipedia or not, but that is not the point. Right now I am here for the sake of argument, just like you are. If you act so much like a Wikipedia expert, what is Wikipedia's official definition of "notability"?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.140.221.116 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep as an author of a book from a non-vanity press. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It seems wikipedia is trying to create a society of elitists rather than an informational database. Let's put this in simple terms. Fact: Stanley Gallon is an author. Fact: Stanley Gallon is published by Macmillan. Fact: Macmillan is a MAJOR publisher. Fact: it can be verified that Stanley Gallon is being published by Macmillan on a specific date from at least three sources: Macmillan itself, Bookseller.com, and Publisher's Lunch, which I found by doing a simple Google search. With so much arbitrary value judgement being considered in the process, it begs the question as to whether Wikipedia is a reliable source of information or just another fluff site pandering to "famous people". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.85.254.32 (talk • contribs)
Actually, the fact is that Gallon may be published by Macmillan. He isn't yet published. Things can, and sometimes do, change between acquisition and publication. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball: The subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. A single book by an unknown auther isn't of sufficient wide interest. IrishGuy talk 16:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
...says the guy with only two edits, both of which are this AfD... IrishGuy talk 16:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I read Stanley Gallon's websites. If the book writes what it said there, I would recommend to all my friends. Hi, IrishGuy, what's the matter? You don't like the subject matter of the book? Sounds like your opinion is more politically motivated than anything else. 139.85.254.32 16:34, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Richfife, except name calling, you are good for nothing else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.85.254.32 (talk • contribs)
I haven't made any comments about the subject matter of the book. None. Please read WP:CIV before continuing your personal attacks and insinuations about myself and Richfife. IrishGuy talk 16:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • From what I am reading on this forum, neither of you guys are making any worthwhile argument. Instead, you are calling people sockpuppet, that's the only thing you guys are good at. Personal attacks are made by you guys, not by me. I only asked you questions. Now you are pretending to be victims? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.85.254.32 (talk • contribs)
If that is what you believe, then you haven't been reading what is written. This person doesn't meet the notability criteria. He hasn't yet been published and he isn't well known. Also, it isn't rude to point out when a new editor has only made edits in an AfD. It is common to do so as it usually illustrates a single purpose account and/or a sockpuppet of another account. IrishGuy talk 16:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
AfD = Articles For Deletion. IrishGuy talk 17:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the entire article and click on the blue text to go to other pages as they are referenced. Instead of transcribing reams of documentation about Wikipedia policies here, Wikipedia editors add links to pages where they can be found. - Richfife 17:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your logic doesn't make sense. I found this Wikipedia article on "Stanley Gallon" google search after I read about Darkest Days on the author's websites. I like the book's premise, that's why I participate in this forum. Are you going to brand every new editor coming to AfD "sockpuppet" if they oppose your opinions? It's strange that two of you guys live on this forum. Are you sockpuppets? -- see, at least I asked, not like you just branded people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.85.254.32 (talk • contribs)
  • WOW!!! Step away for a while and look what happens. As the writer of this article I am a bit shocked at this debate going on over this. Let me just clarify some things here, based on what I've read so far. I am not a publicist, I'm not the author of the novel, nor did the author pay me to write this article about him. I'm just a guy who found out about this novel called Darkest Days. I thought it had a fascinating premise.
    I noticed there were just bits and pieces of information on this writer when I did a search on him, so I figured I'd do a little research of my own and post something, you know, see what happens. Why would I do that you ask? I am trying to get into journalism, this author turned out to be very accessible, (I'm guessing because he's new) and I asked him some questions. He told me about why he started writing and I put together this simple little thing you all see posted here. I had no idea this site only posted articles about bestselling authors.
    So why this book? Tell me, when was the last time that a dystopian thriller type novel was published in recent history? Exactly, hard to name even one. I thought this was a pretty significant development in the publishing industry. It demonstrates a societal shift, a change in global perceptions (I say that because I learned through my reserch that the publisher is making a huge global push on this novel. By the way, notice I did not mention that in the article.) I tried hard to make certain I did not write anything slanted or that sounded too enthusiastic on my part, because I wanted to be as neutral as possible.
    Before reading these posts I had no idea what a "sockpuppet" was (Other than what kids make in elementary school), as I'm gussing most people don't. Whether or not this article stays posted is not that important. I am not one to argue if I posted something contrary to Wikipedia policy. My personal belief is that I did not do that. I think there is enough verifiable information in the article to let it stand.
    I was a bit surprised to see that someone did not feel it was a notable accomplishment to be published. I've tried writing a novel and submitting it, over and over and over, to no avail. It turns out there are tens of millions of people in the same boat all over the US, and who knows how many in the world. Out of all those people only a couple hundred thousand ever see their books in print. I believe that qualifies as notable.
    But I digress. If this is such a big deal to people I'd be willing to pull the article. I'm not here to promote anyone. I'm not here for personal gain, and I was planning to submit more articles in the future on topics I believe should be here. The author himself suggested I wait to post my article until his book came out, but I didn't think that mattered.
    So there it is for all of you who think there's some big conspiracy of sockpuppets running around trying to exploit wikipedia. If there is, I'm walking bare handed and barefoot. Have fun with the debate and remember, life isn't supposed to be so complicated. Take it easy folks, Stanley Gallon will be in here soon enough, if not now then later.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwin Roik (talk • contribs)
  • To date you have attempted to censor other editors comments: [49], you have attempted to remove the discussion from the log: [50] (also censorship) and, right now, you have refused to follow the procedure I've repeatedly pointed out and taken your complaints about Wikipedia's notability policy to the right place. Please don't try to grab the moral high ground. - Richfife 18:48, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Excuse Me? Now you are making personal attacks on me? Wow. This is truly amazing. I can see now why the other people posting are expressing frustration with this website. this entire forum is a joke. It is clear that whoever you are, Richfife, you have an personal agenda about this article. For the life of me I can't figure it out. I have not argued repeatedly about notability issues. I am not taking a moral highground. I am simply explaining why I wrote this article. It is utterly disgusting how you have demonstrated a pattern of insults and personal attacks in this forum toward anybody who disagrees with you. You should be ashamed of yourself. You take this far too personally and have clearly strayed from the facts of any discussion here. I have provided background information on the process through which this article came to be and all you have done is insult and show nothing but contempt for me and the other people who have posted here. You make unfounded arguments and assumptions that are unsupported. Every opinion expressed that you disagree with, you have written off as "sockpuppetry" and now you are trying to slander me and my intentions. You are a bully who likes kicking people when they are down. You apparently seem to enjoy denegrating other people. If you are representative of wikipedia then you are a violation of what I read somewhere that Wikipwedia is a comunity based in mutual respect. You are very disrespectful and I resent your comments.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwin Roik (talk • contribs)
Please read WP:ATTACK and WP:CIV before you continue to make accusations. IrishGuy talk 19:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am merely responding to the litany of insulting accusations that people are "sockpuppets" and that I am trying to take some moral highground. There is no evidence for either comment. and If Richifife is willing to withdraw his comment above I will be more than happy to remove my response for the benefit of the Wikipedia community.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwin Roik (talk • contribs)
Comments shouldn't be deleted during an AfD. Richfife didn't call you names he simply pointed out where you have willfully violated procedures and attempted to censor criticism. You, however, called him a bully who likes kicking people when they are down and that he seems to enjoy denegrating other people. This is highly uncivil behavior. Please refrain from continuing in that fashion. IrishGuy talk 19:26, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what you are talking about, and yes I did say that richiefife is a bully because that is exactly what a person who calls people names and provides no evidence to support the name calling. That is simply stating a fact. You are choosing to catagorize it as something else because the truth doesn't suit your agenda. Stating that someone is trying to "grab the moral highground" is a value judgement and an opinion, which again Richifife has chosen not to back up. It is a condescending and insulting remark that smacks of passive agression. Again when he removes his insulting and derrogatory comment I will remove my response to it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwin Roik (talk • contribs)
As I noted above, comments are not to be deleted. Richfife did provide evidence with links to your behavior. You, however, simply called him names and made wild accusations about his motivations. Please remain civil. IrishGuy talk 19:47, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • To Richfife: I have no way to know whether it is your real name or not. Anyway. Wikipedia's notability guidelines are too vague, subject to too much arbitrary value judgment. Wikipedia does allow people to write about themselves and their projects. Neutrality and verifiability are the 2 most important criteria, other tests exist to prove these 2 criteria. It should allow more content to come in, if it wants to build its viewer base. I don't think the article owner should take off the article. Richfife and IrishGuy do not own Wikipedia - it is .org, not .com. I think a lot of people will be interested in the subject matter of the book, because a lot of people, like myself, are tired of today's politics.

I feel the book is censored here. We should not let these "sockpuppets" with political agendas succeed.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.85.254.32 (talk • contribs)

Do you even understand what "sockpuppets" are? Richfife and I aren't, by any definition of the word, sockpuppets. Nor do I (I cannot speak on Richfife's behalf) have any political agenda for or against this theoretical book. This article doesn't meet any criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia. If you are so positive that this book will be a gigantic hit, wait until publication and then think about recreating the article. IrishGuy talk 19:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • In case you do not understand: A sock puppet is an additional OnlineIdentity used by someone who already has another OnlineIdentity for participating in a given community, particularly when done in a non-transparent manner and where the identities interact with each other in some way. The term originates with the metaphor of carrying on a conversation with oneself using a puppet in each hand.

You and Richfife must be sockpuppets. Both of you live on this forum all day, taking turns, and babbling the same arguments.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.85.254.32 (talk • contribs)

First, this isn't a forum. Second, a cursory examination of both or our edit histories will show that this is the first time Richfife and I have ever come in contact with each other. Third, please don't make accusations without a shred of evidence. Please read WP:ATTACK and WP:CIV for more information about civility. IrishGuy talk 19:47, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This comming from the two guys who call people sockpuppets "without a shred of evidence." Well, your comment is at the very least, evidence of hypocrisy.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwin Roik (talk • contribs)
Actually, the evidence is clear. Multiple users with no edit history at all have magically decided to come to this AfD and start communicating using the same arguments and attacking the same editors. Additionally, an act is only hypocritical if I were to chastise someone for behavior that I myself have engaged in. Please find an instance in this AfD where I called someone a sockpuppet. IrishGuy talk 19:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The use of heavily loaded words like "magically" shows your emotional involvement in something that should not be such a big deal to you. The evidence you speak of does not support your claim at all. What it does support, judging from the statements made, however, is that people view your personal attacks as insulting to the spirit of the Wikipedia community. Your lack of proof that sockpuppetry is even occuring is disturbing. Also everyone who has posted anything here that disagrees with you, you called sock puppets. What you are essentially saying is:
If you have never edited or posted in Wikipedia before, then don't bother. your opinion doesn't count, it does not matter, and you are nothing but a sockpuppet.
These are the same idiotic arguments that conned this nation into a war, has allowed unbriddled corruption to abound, and has contributed to the degradation of society. The fact that people are expressing their opinions should not be discouraged by you or anyone else. Nor should those individuals be labled, branded, insulted, or called names, because you disagree with them. And by the way the evidence of your name calling in this forum, post, bulletain (or what ever it is called) is proof of your unsupported name calling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwin Roik (talk • contribs)
So...to sum up...you cannot provide one instance of me calling someone a sockpuppet in this AfD. Also, you clearly haven't read WP:ATTACK or WP:CIV. Unless, of course, you simply don't care about being civil. You really aren't helping your argument at all by behaving in this manner. Please let me know when you feel like stepping down from your soapbox. IrishGuy talk 20:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There you go again, now you've lowered yourself to the same level as Richiefife. Your use of passive agressive attacks is not helping you convince anyone that you are justified in expressing your contempt for those who disagree with you. No one is standing on a soapbox, but you are clearly trying to undermine criticism by putting lables on it. When I refer to the accusations of sockpuppetry I am collectively refering to you and Richiefife together seeing as your tag team method of richiefife making the insult and your defense of his insults. That makes you complicit in his attacks. Now, if you are infact not complicit in his activity then you should post something here telling him to refrain his constant references to sockpuppetry "without a shred of evidence" to support it as unhelpful in this discussion. Also, you defended his characterization of my explanation for posting the article as "grabbing the moral highground" rather than what it actually was merely an explanation.

It is evident that you and Richiefife are not interested in discussing the merit of the article, nor to acknowledge my gesture to remove it. Instead you are more concerned with this banal argument you've chosen to engage in. Irish Guy and Richiefife it is time for the two of you to read: WP:ATTACK or WP:CIV.
I grow weary of your contempt and insulting behavior. Again read WP:ATTACK or WP:CIV.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwin Roik (talk • contribs)

Final warning. Enough with the personal attacks. Claims like These are the same idiotic arguments that conned this nation into a war, has allowed unbriddled corruption to abound, and has contributed to the degradation of society are nothing more than someone getting up on a soapbox and making moral pronouncements. If you cannot make an argument for this article based on Wikipedia policy, then simply leave the AfD. IrishGuy talk 21:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To IrishGuy: why didn't you tell Richfife to "read WP:ATTACK and WP:CIV for more information about civility" when he calls others "sockpuppet"?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.85.254.32 (talk • contribs)
As noted multiple times, when multiple accounts suddenly appear in an AfD with no edit histories at all and they all use the same arguments and attack the same editors, that is evidence of sockpuppetry. IrishGuy talk 21:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You mean that discriminating, insulting, and judging editors who are new is totally fine in Wikipedia. You and “Richfife” have every right to attack others, just because you are veterans here. Doesn't that sound rediculous to yourself? Oh, of course not to you, you came out with that argument.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.85.254.32 (talk • contribs)
You have NO edit history other than this AfD. You have provided no argument within Wiki policy for keeping this article. At no point have I attacked you. Anything else? IrishGuy talk 21:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just admit it, you are discriminating against new editors. SO WHAT I have NO edit history other than this AfD. My google search brought me here. Who said I can't make comments to support the article or oppose your opinions? Nonsense. Your earlier comment suggested I am a sockpuppet - that is not attacking? I have made arguments within Wiki policy, if you just read what I said.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.85.254.32 (talk • contribs)
I have no intention of admitting to something that isn't true simply to edify your paranoia. Sockpuppet isn't a personal attack and frankly, I didn't call you one. And no, you have yet to provide any valid argument which illustrates how this article meets any level of the notability requirements of Wikipedia. IrishGuy talk 22:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is you who said "please don't make accusations without a shred of evidence" when I said you and Richfife must be sockpuppets. - You viewed it as attack to you. You didn't call me directly, but you implied it when you told me your evidence of sockpuppet - anyone who is new to this and who oppose you and Richfife's opinions. My evidence is, as I have told you, you and Richfife are spending all day here, taking turns, babbling the same arguments.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.85.254.32 (talk • contribs)
Yes, to claim that Richfife and I are the same person is an accusation devoid of merit. I didn't say it was a personal attack, I stated clearly that it was an accusation. Richfife and I aren't here all day, nor are we taking turns. But if that is evidence of something, please look through the page history and note how many times you and Edwin Roik post within a minute or two of each other. IrishGuy talk 22:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You can't stand two people opposing you at the same time? you and Richfife posting an hour or two of each other (throughout the history of this "forum") is far better evidence.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.85.254.32 (talk • contribs)
Had I said that I don't like two people opposing me, you might have an argument. I didn't. Which identity are you going to reply with next? I'm curious. IrishGuy talk 23:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If I am the same person as Edwin Roik, I would be superman able of changing identities and making 2 arguments at the same time. IrishGuy, when will your other identity show up? Worry about hitting your own foot? Do not delete my comment, IrishGuy, you already did once.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.85.254.32 (talk • contribs)
Stop making personal attacks. I didn't delete anything. As the edit history shows it was Patstuart who deleted your comment, not I. IrishGuy talk 23:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • IrishGuy, Your discriminatory attitude toward someone who is posting for the first time is sickening. Let me remind you what I posted earlier and rather than taking it for what it was, it triggered another personal attack from Richifife.

I wrote: "Whether or not this article stays posted is not that important. I am not one to argue if I posted something contrary to Wikipedia policy. My personal belief is that I did not do that. I think there is enough verifiable information in the article to let it stand.
I was a bit surprised to see that someone did not feel it was a notable accomplishment to be published. I've tried writing a novel and submitting it, over and over and over, to no avail. It turns out there are tens of millions of people in the same boat all over the US, and who knows how many in the world. Out of all those people only a couple hundred thousand ever see their books in print. I believe that qualifies as notable."— Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwin Roik (talk • contribs)

There is nothing to reply to. That isn't an argument. What you feel is wholly irrelevant. There are policies about inclusion in Wikipedia. Your inability to get a book published and admiration for those who have isn't a Wikipedia policy. There is no book. It hasn't been published yet. Therefore, this person isn't notable. At all. If his book does get published and if it does sell a notable amount of copies garnering multiple reviews from independent sources...at that point he may be worthy of inclusion. Until then, your personal feelings about him and his manuscript are completely irrelevant. IrishGuy talk 22:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is a shame that you embrace such a condescending tone when you adress people's comments. I understand now what the draw for you in this unpaid editing of wikipedia is. The draw is your ability to lord power over those who come here to simp[ly contribute. You take their work and turn it into your own little petty crusade for deletion. I pitty you Irish guy, I pitty that you cannot even use your real name, that you hide behind a mask "Irishguy," History is littered with the embarassing remnants of such personalities as yours. I am sorry that all the world is ugly to you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwin Roik (talk • contribs)
So...still no arguments? Just more personal attacks? IrishGuy talk 22:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • I'll tell you what why don't IrishGuy and Richiefife, agree to delete all of the name calling and insults in here. I'll delete all of my responses to those comments and criticisms of them and lets get back to the issue at hand. Or is that level of civility not up for consideration here?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwin Roik (talk • contribs)
How many times do I have to explain this? There will be NO DELETING of comments from the AfD. What is said stands unless it is simply wanton vandalism. IrishGuy talk 21:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well there you go. You are capable of editing your own remarks. the fact that you are expressly choosing not to, is additional evidence that you are pushing an agenda. That you support the name calling, the insults, and the generaly uncivilized behavior that you and Richiefife are complicit in. You would rather distract and convolude the issue rather than address it. You should withdraw form this discussion unless there is something of value you wish to contribute.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwin Roik (talk • contribs)
I have nothing to edit. I have not engaged in petty personal attacks. If you cannot refrain from making wild accusations about some cabal pushing an agenda against you, then please leave the AfD. Until then, try to make an argument based on Wiki policy. Stop trolling. IrishGuy talk 21:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It was not I who came up with the sockpuppetry conspiracy theories. That was Richiefife, and you supported his allegations. Show me where I refered to a cabal? The fact that the two of you are tag teaming is evident and clear. It does not take a genius to see it. Whether the two of you know each other is irrelevant, wheter you are working in tandem or seperately is irrelevant, what I think of your relaionship or lack there of is irrelevant.
What is relevant, is what is obvious and clear from reading your posts. Both of you have an agenda. Richifife started this line of attacks and suddenly you appeared to defend hiim. You still have not answered the post adressed to you above asking why you did not ask Richiefife to read: WP:ATTACK or WP:CIV. Why don't you answer that. He had no evidence of sockpuppetry yet repeatedly accused everyone who disagreed with him of it, like some broken record.

Why don't you answer that question IrishGuy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwin Roik (talk • contribs)

I did answer. You simply continue to ignore my answers and continue on your soapboxing rampages. For the last time, stop making personal attacks. I don't know Richfife. We aren't "tag teaming". We aren't part of some grand cabal against you. My agenda is removing unencyclopedic articles like this one. Make a solid argument and stop wasting everyone's time. IrishGuy talk 21:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There's nothing more to say that's relevant to the task at hand and isn't repeating myself. Feel free to say whatever you like, just don't remove anything. - Richfife 21:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Who's grabbing for the moral highground now. Don't criticize someone then do the thing you criticize. BTW the dictionary, which you so brazenly discount, calls that hypocrisy
  • Irishguy, as for your post about cabals: Perhaps a course in remedial reading is in order. I CLEARLY disavowed any reference to a cabal. Those are your words not mine.

As For what I have to say on this matter let me repeat it for your benefit. Perhaps this time Richiefife will refrain from passing valuejudgements and you will avoid defending them:

  • WOW!!! Step away for a while and look what happens. As the writer of this article I am a bit shocked at this debate going on over this. Let me just clarify some things here, based on what I've read so far. I am not a publicist, I'm not the author of the novel, nor did the author pay me to write this article about him. I'm just a guy who found out about this novel called Darkest Days. I thought it had a fascinating premise.
    I noticed there were just bits and pieces of information on this writer when I did a search on him, so I figured I'd do a little research of my own and post something, you know, see what happens. Why would I do that you ask? I am trying to get into journalism, this author turned out to be very accessible, (I'm guessing because he's new) and I asked him some questions. He told me about why he started writing and I put together this simple little thing you all see posted here. I had no idea this site only posted articles about bestselling authors.
    So why this book? Tell me, when was the last time that a dystopian thriller type novel was published in recent history? Exactly, hard to name even one. I thought this was a pretty significant development in the publishing industry. It demonstrates a societal shift, a change in global perceptions (I say that because I learned through my reserch that the publisher is making a huge global push on this novel. By the way, notice I did not mention that in the article.) I tried hard to make certain I did not write anything slanted or that sounded too enthusiastic on my part, because I wanted to be as neutral as possible.
    Before reading these posts I had no idea what a "sockpuppet" was (Other than what kids make in elementary school), as I'm gussing most people don't. Whether or not this article stays posted is not that important. I am not one to argue if I posted something contrary to Wikipedia policy. My personal belief is that I did not do that. I think there is enough verifiable information in the article to let it stand.
    I was a bit surprised to see that someone did not feel it was a notable accomplishment to be published. I've tried writing a novel and submitting it, over and over and over, to no avail. It turns out there are tens of millions of people in the same boat all over the US, and who knows how many in the world. Out of all those people only a couple hundred thousand ever see their books in print. I believe that qualifies as notable.
    But I digress. If this is such a big deal to people I'd be willing to pull the article. I'm not here to promote anyone. I'm not here for personal gain, and I was planning to submit more articles in the future on topics I believe should be here. The author himself suggested I wait to post my article until his book came out, but I didn't think that mattered.
    So there it is for all of you who think there's some big conspiracy of sockpuppets running around trying to exploit wikipedia. If there is, I'm walking bare handed and barefoot. Have fun with the debate and remember, life isn't supposed to be so complicated. Take it easy folks, Stanley Gallon will be in here soon enough, if not now then later.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwin Roik (talk • contribs)
Constantly repeating yourself doesn't give your comments any more weight. When you claim that everyone who opposed you has a political agenda and they are working in conjunction against you...that is a cabal. It is irrelevant that you didn't use that exact term. That is the definition of the term. Definitions come from dictionaries...which you clearly own because you keep pointing it out. IrishGuy talk 22:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're like a parot, repeating the same nonsense again and again and again. I'm sorry for your mental health if you see cabals everywhere, or at the very least are so parannoid that you beleive everyone else thinks you are in a cabal. I recomend you take some deep breaths, calm down maybe drink a glass of water and take a nap. I'm sure when you wake up all the cabals and paranoia will fade from your mind.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwin Roik (talk • contribs)
Um...yeah...you are the one who claims that people are in cahoots against you and this article. You are the one who claims that everyone who opposes this article is acting with political agenda. Seriously. Let me know when you can formulate a valid argument. Until then, you are wasting everyone's time. IrishGuy talk 22:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't your mother tell you UMM is not a word. My goodness how obsessed can one person get. I said no such thing. But you just latch on like a leech and keep on sucking the well dry. Look, I know there are good psychiatrists in the phonebook they can talk you through this, calm you down help you smell the flowers and such. I'm sure your health insurance will cover it. Remember: deep breaths, water, and a nap. It'll help.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwin Roik (talk • contribs)
So...still no argument? Just more personal attacks? OK. IrishGuy talk 22:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hahahaha...IrishGuy, you need to make your argument as well. You just repeat the old stuff, which doesn't make sense.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.85.254.32 (talk • contribs)
Let me know when you have an argument. IrishGuy talk 22:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let me know when you have an argument as well, Irishguy or "Richfife".— Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.85.254.32 (talk • contribs)
All of the policies are outlines above. This article meets none. Considering that you and Edwin will go half an hour without posting, and then suddenly both post within minutes of each other to back each other up...I don't think you are in a position to make accusations of sockpuppetry. IrishGuy talk 23:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • you know what. This whole discussion and the attitude of Irishguy and Richiefife is completely unfair to the the subject of this article. Like I said he suggested, when I cantacted him, to wait. I got too excited and jumped the gun. So as the one who wrote the article on this author, I say delete the article. End this misserable display of uncivil attacks by Irishguy and Richiefife. Their name calling and their unsupported facts should not be a reason for deletion, however, they have succeeded in wearing me down. I'll admit I'm not as familiar with Wikipedia policies so I can't argue my points as well as someone who has apparently spent years memorizing these rules. Being new to wikipedia is clearly a disadvantage. It is even more clear that new contributors are simply not welcome. We all have to start somewhere, I started with this article, but wow, I am just flaberghasted at the ugliness here. A full day of this nonsense is too much to bare. I will no longer be posting anything on Wikipedia. It's too bad I actually liked this site before this experience. After seeing the politics behind it, I also question it's credibility.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwin Roik (talk • contribs)
So...you still have no argument? IrishGuy talk 23:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Irishguy and Richfife are not necessarily Wiki representatives - although if they are, it sucks - their translation of Wiki policies may not be correct. If you quit, you let them succeed.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.85.254.32 (talk • contribs)
Wow. Are you having a good time talking to yourself with your two identities? IrishGuy talk 23:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, you have only one tactic left to use, sad for you. When are you going to bring out your other identity? Guess not for a while, to avoid hitting your own foot.
  • WOW!!! Step away for a while and look what happens. As the writer of this article I am a bit shocked at this debate going on over this. Let me just clarify some things here, based on what I've read so far. I am not a publicist, I'm not the author of the novel, nor did the author pay me to write this article about him. I'm just a guy who found out about this novel called Darkest Days. I thought it had a fascinating premise.
    I noticed there were just bits and pieces of information on this writer when I did a search on him, so I figured I'd do a little research of my own and post something, you know, see what happens. Why would I do that you ask? I am trying to get into journalism, this author turned out to be very accessible, (I'm guessing because he's new) and I asked him some questions. He told me about why he started writing and I put together this simple little thing you all see posted here. I had no idea this site only posted articles about bestselling authors.
    So why this book? Tell me, when was the last time that a dystopian thriller type novel was published in recent history? Exactly, hard to name even one. I thought this was a pretty significant development in the publishing industry. It demonstrates a societal shift, a change in global perceptions (I say that because I learned through my reserch that the publisher is making a huge global push on this novel. By the way, notice I did not mention that in the article.) I tried hard to make certain I did not write anything slanted or that sounded too enthusiastic on my part, because I wanted to be as neutral as possible.
    Before reading these posts I had no idea what a "sockpuppet" was (Other than what kids make in elementary school), as I'm gussing most people don't. Whether or not this article stays posted is not that important. I am not one to argue if I posted something contrary to Wikipedia policy. My personal belief is that I did not do that. I think there is enough verifiable information in the article to let it stand.
    I was a bit surprised to see that someone did not feel it was a notable accomplishment to be published. I've tried writing a novel and submitting it, over and over and over, to no avail. It turns out there are tens of millions of people in the same boat all over the US, and who knows how many in the world. Out of all those people only a couple hundred thousand ever see their books in print. I believe that qualifies as notable.
    But I digress. If this is such a big deal to people I'd be willing to pull the article. I'm not here to promote anyone. I'm not here for personal gain, and I was planning to submit more articles in the future on topics I believe should be here. The author himself suggested I wait to post my article until his book came out, but I didn't think that mattered.
    So there it is for all of you who think there's some big conspiracy of sockpuppets running around trying to exploit wikipedia. If there is, I'm walking bare handed and barefoot. Have fun with the debate and remember, life isn't supposed to be so complicated. Take it easy folks, Stanley Gallon will be in here soon enough, if not now then later.
  • you know what. This whole discussion and the attitude of Irishguy and Richiefife is completely unfair to the the subject of this article. Like I said he suggested, when I cantacted him, to wait. I got too excited and jumped the gun. So as the one who wrote the article on this author, I say delete the article. End this misserable display of uncivil attacks by Irishguy and Richiefife. Their name calling and their unsupported facts should not be a reason for deletion, however, they have succeeded in wearing me down. I'll admit I'm not as familiar with Wikipedia policies so I can't argue my points as well as someone who has apparently spent years memorizing these rules. Being new to wikipedia is clearly a disadvantage. It is even more clear that new contributors are simply not welcome. We all have to start somewhere, I started with this article, but wow, I am just flaberghasted at the ugliness here. A full day of this nonsense is too much to bare. I will no longer be posting anything on Wikipedia. It's too bad I actually liked this site before this experience. After seeing the politics behind it, I also question it's credibility.
  • Enough is Enough I'm tired of this. These two jerks are unrelenting. DELETE THE ARTICLE IF YOU WANT I DON"T CARE ANYMORE!!!!!!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwin Roik (talk • contribs)
More personal attacks? It's pretty illogical to claim that you are leaving, and then turn around and repost two lengthy screeds, one of them has already been reposted twice. Are you just attempting to make this AfD more difficult to read? IrishGuy talk 23:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
except branding people, what else are you good at, IrishGuy. Do not delete, Edwin Roik. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.85.254.32 (talk • contribs)
Did you just admit that you and Edwin are the same person? IrishGuy talk 23:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • IT IS UNFAIR – IrishGuy deleted my posting. I said: If I am the same person as Edwin Roik, I would be superman able of changing identities and making 2 arguments at the same time. IrishGuy, when will your other identity show up? Worry about hitting your own foot?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.85.254.32 (talk • contribs)
Actually, I have deleted nothing. Check the page history. As the edit history shows it was Patstuart who deleted your comment, not I. IrishGuy talk 23:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Irishguy, the supposed "policy" guy, I would like to see you attack Patstuart. While I am making honest comments, Patstuart is vandalizing. I guess you do not want to attack your alter-ego.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.85.254.32 (talk • contribs)
The reason I "vandalized" was that I am on recent -pages patrol, and reverted before I had a chance to see what the problem was. But actually, I realized that this person's comments were a complete attack anyway, so, if I could do it again, I wouldn't; but it's not worth adding attack comments back in. Thank you. -Patstuart 23:48, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article states no solid claims of fame, besides of a book that isn't published yet, and even that is a bit questionable until it's actually out. Lack of sourcing and a little bit essay-like and advertisatory tone doesn't help. And I find this behaviour, if one can call it that, of some editors in this debate somewhat unconstructive. Oh, as an amateur writer I know how stating good, deep, philosophical points can take a lot of words, but in this particular medium of deletion debates, conciseness and sticking to the facts counts in particular. =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 23:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
finally out. No more time talking to you today.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.85.254.32 (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 Speedy delete per CSD:A7, a whole rake of nn-bios. Stifle (talk) 19:03, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Famous Runescape Players

edit

A very good article, yes, but is this needed? Just because a few people are famous on a game does that mean they deserve a Joint article? J.J.Sagnella(Happy first wiki-anniversary to me) 15:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because when we do AFDs it means speedy repost deletions are possible and rogue subpages like this for runescape crop up a lot. J.J.Sagnella(Happy first wiki-anniversary to me) 18:53, 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 delete. --Coredesat 20:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James Tait Kirkhope

edit

Unsourced biography of non-notable WWI soldier, whose decorations consist solely of those that were commonly given to soldiers who fought in the war. Wikipedia is not a memorial. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 16:09, 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 keep. — CharlotteWebb 21:43, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shawn Woolley

edit

Is this really notable? A guy who commited suicide who happens to be a games player? I understand it's had some news coverage, but this seems like some weird necrophilliac form of fancruft to me. Artw 16:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep [51] is just one of many links which can be used as cites. The broader issue of MMOGs and addiction, the video-game industry's demonisation by some quarters and backlash from quarters such as Child's Play (charity) and other parts of the videogaming world are all things which receive a lot of press, this is just one piece of the puzzle. QuagmireDog 16:47, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it is notable, it is because of the coverage that the story got. If I remember correctly, his mother was on 60 Minutes accusing the game of causing the death. Perhaps it could be merged with the article for Game addiction since anyone interested in this case would undoubtably be interested in it because of the addiction allegations. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 156.56.137.90 (talk) 16:47, 9 October 2006 .
    • It's exactly because of that coverage that this can and should have a seperate article. This one can be cited and well-presented, Gaming addiction on the other hand is not well-written, is undergoing a merge proposal with Computer addiction and contains a subheading detailing the pathway of addiction with the line "These stages mostly work with the infamously addicting MMORPG Runescape". Funnily enough, RS is not amongst the games mentioned in the article for being played by someone who has died, yet it is 'infamously addicting' (notice there's no cite for that). Until it has been merged, had the POV/OR knocked out of it, has been cited etc. etc., that article is the last place something which can be cited should be merged with. The main article (when it eventually happens) can be wikilinked from Shawn Woolley's article, but when there are so many cites for this individual case there seems no reason to merge it. QuagmireDog 17:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it's had sufficient news coverage to pass WP:BIO. We've got enough verifiable info on him to write a good article Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per above arguments. Ppe42 01:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Gil-Galad 17:25, 11 October 2006 (EST)
  • Keep It's notable because he was the inspiration behind Liz Woolley's founding of her gaming addiction crusade. Jabrwock 21:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is important in the realm of videogames probably more than 90% of game news. Someone ending their life over a videogame is a big deal to me personally as a person who played EverQuest. Tyson Writesel 20:36 PM, 11 October 2006 (EST)
  • Frankly, I don't see why we should delete a page just because someone believes it is not relevant enough. It is an interesting and even provocative story, and although it may not have any true value to anyone, it is interesting. I personally think it should be merged into a more general category, if not the Everquest series page itself, then perhaps an "Everquest controversy" page...
  • Delete. This guy apparently didn't do anything notable during his lifetime, and his death doesn't warrant an encyclopedic entry about him. —Brim 18:42, 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 (and cleanup). — CharlotteWebb 04:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Coeur d'Alene Resort

edit

Fails WP:Corp, suspected spam due to use of 'world famous' and the like. Contested speedy Nuttah68 16:38, 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 delete. Punkmorten 21:32, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heathly Computing

edit

Wikipedia is WP:NOT an advice manual on computer use. Also nominating same author's Green Computing. NawlinWiki 16:39, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Drausio Haddad

edit

Does not meet the test of notability for WP:Bio SteveHopson 16:44, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article started as a copy of Drausio R. Haddad, a article that was started earlier but whose AfD was started after this one. -- Hoary 07:17, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Only 15 google hits and does not assert notability. Vegaswikian 02:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note Subject or sockpuppets have twice removed the deletion notice from the article. SteveHopson 03:13, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article makes great claims for his youth: has been working with art since his early childhood. Starting out as a musician at age 8. These do not seem to be verifiable. Its claims about what he did since then are more muted: Drausio lives and works in Paris(France), where he continues his career as a freelancer, developing websites, graphics, videos, as well as interactive projects & installations. It's always good to be reminded where Paris is, but the rest is very humdrum. The only reference given is his site, a nightmare of browser-sniffing, etc. that for my particular browser shows no more than this advert for software I don't want. Not verifiable, and so delete. -- Hoary 03:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a bunch of graphic designers with their own bio on wikipedia that also does not meet the notability. I dont see anything wrong with this article. I will scan some articles that were posted in GQ magazine and the newyorktimes talking about this artist and some of his art. Its true that his website is not up to date, but there is nothing to do with his bio. Thanks in advance to all for keeping this article. ... added by User:Drilho (contributions) on 13 October
  • Speedy Delete, non-notable biography. Vectro 18:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Punkmorten 21:35, 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 - information is taken from the creator's thesis rather than being the thesis, hence not original research. Yomanganitalk 23:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interaction information

edit

Original research. First edit confirms that the source is the author's thesis.

Alos including Total correlation Nuttah68 16:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I will admit that I don't understand any of this, but can you please explain in which way these articles contribute new knowledge beyond what follows from the references? If they don't, I can't see how the content would be original research. up+land 19:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The seminal McGill 1954 article exists and uses the term in this sense. Therefore not original research of the author of this article. --Ioannes Pragensis 20:35, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I wrote this page, and I cannot comprehend why someone is so eager to delete it! The text is largely from my thesis, as I said, but IT IS NOT MY ORIGINAL RESEARCH!!! I have cited enough sources to make this OBVIOUS to anyone. Look up the sources!!! If you feel there needs to be additional citations, then please stick a [citation needed] where warranted, and I (or someone else) will try to address the problem. Dfass 22:48, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. You have stated that both pieces come from your thesis, by definition -A dissertation advancing an original point of view as a result of research- If you are now saying that the fact that it's is from your thesis is irrelevant and it is merely a reproduction of previous work that contains nothing original, and can show that, I'll accept that this AfD is not needed. Nuttah68 08:31, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Response: Dear Nuttah68, a Ph.D. thesis typically contains a long literature review. The contents of these two articles are adapted from the lit review section of my thesis. The relevant sources are all given on the article pages. Why are we having this discussion? What part exactly do you feel is original research? Let me know, and I will try to address it. Otherwise, please un-flag these articles. Thanks much.
  • After the comment from (author) Dfass, I suggest a speedy keep, as I assume that any doubts the nominator may have had have been dispelled. Unless there are objections not mentioned in the nominaton, of course. (Nuttah68, I think you should have asked about it at User talk:Dfass or at the article talkpages before taking it to AFD.) up+land 04:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep, this is a well-written and well-cited article on a notable topic. Vectro 23:29, 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. Catchpole 20:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Bradley (composer/producer)

edit

This is vanity. This man has no notability whatsoever that I can find. Dev920 (Tory?) 16:47, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I accept I was wrong. If there's a passing administrator, I'd like to withdraw this nomination. Dev920 (Tory?) 22:25, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am Mr Bradleys agent and would like to point people in the direction of the Xenomania discography and also discogs for more references to Bob's work credits.

http://www.oocities.com/xenomaniasite/sugababesround.htm http://www.discogs.com/artist/Bob+Bradley

Also.. Bob's webste :

http://www.organiqmusic.com/

and.. one of Bob's many sponsors :

http://www.line6.com/artists/312

...why does a notable man need his agent to promote him on Wikipedia? Dev920 (check out this proposal) 19:02, 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. —Cryptic 23:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Northwest Royale

edit

Not Notable, no links to it, but primarily unsalvageably POV & hype Invisifan 16:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, whilst their label [53] doesn't scream "Major record company", this group has released 3 CDs which are listed on Amazon.com [54] - BUT only one of them is listed as being published by Rock Ridge, the others appear self-published. Which all adds up to failing WP:MUSIC in my book. Judging by the acts they've supported, I think sooner or later these guys are going to hit the big time, at which point there'll be some good secondary sources to make an article. Till then, I think this is bordering on advertising (google them and check out the results). QuagmireDog 17:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, even if it satisfies WP:MUSIC (it doesn't appear to), it has serious problems with WP:NPOV, WP:RS, and WP:V. Vectro 23:33, 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 Redirect to The X Factor UK and Ireland series 3 as merge has been carried out. Yomanganitalk 23:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leona Lewis

edit

As yet non-notable reality TV contestant. I suggest deleting this, and recreating if she goes on to win or gets a record deal after the show. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 17:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

  • This article would help someone to get information on a X Factor contestant.Let's just edit the information instead of deleting the whole article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ansildrall (talk • contribs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Punkmorten 21:35, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arabia.pl

edit

Prod tag removed by creator without explanation. Doesn't seem notable per Wikipedia:Notability (web) - but of course I invite proof that I am mistaken.  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete G11, G4. Protected. Deizio talk 18:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New york habitat

edit

Corporate advertising for rental booking company. Recreated twice after speedy; bringing here for consensus decision. NawlinWiki 17:33, 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 delete. Punkmorten 21:36, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Random Hand

edit

Delete as non-notable band, only one self-released album that's on MySpace. Akradecki 17:35, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy Delete G3 (vandalism) by User:NCurse. ColourBurst 20:24, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Possum throwing

edit

Apparent hoax, can find no information about this "sport". Prod removed by author. Wildthing61476 17:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Apparently a New Zealand newspaper published a picture of a purported "dead possum-throwing contest", and a reader complained to the NZ Press Council about it. But that's not enough to create an encyclopaedia article that is anything more than a restatement of its title. Moreover, this article purports to be about throwing opossums, not possums. The article cites no sources, and I can find no sources. Delete. Uncle G 18:21, 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 Delete - Yomanganitalk 23:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Subdivert

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:47, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nic Grant

edit

Fails WP:BIO. A sound recordist is hardly notable. IMDb entry, but no other sources cited asserting notability (coverage in non-trivial works, etc.) The JPStalk to me 18:35, 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 delete. Punkmorten 21:41, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Augusoft, Lumens, Lifelong Learning Management Systems, Cem Erdem

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}}.

A private software company (no assertions of notability), its main product (no assertions of notability), a list comprising that one software product, and its CEO. —Quarl (talk) 2006-10-09 18:52Z

  • Or, to put it another way, the anonymous users arguing against deletion should be aware that votes that ignore the stated reasons for deletion, and that do not address Wikipedia guidelines, will not weigh in the decision. Fan-1967 20:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Registering is not the issue. The issue is whether people's comments recognize Wikipedia standards. A hundred votes that ignore the standards will still count for nothing. Fan-1967 15:36, 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 15:47, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Simcloti

edit

Since this is a dictionary term (and because it is already in Wiktionary), I think it should be removed from the encyclopedia. -- P.B. Pilhet / Talk 19:01, 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 keep. — CharlotteWebb 04:17, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

F.Y.P

edit

Fails WP:BAND. Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 19:03, 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 Delete. The clincher was the article itself, which failed to assert properly-sourced notability. Deathphoenix ʕ 13:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cancerslug

edit

Fails WP:BAND. Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 19:07, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:49, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Siennax

edit
  • don't get the point its a just a small historic back ground of a well know Dutch ASP. No selling or marketing.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:19, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frightwig

edit

Fails WP:BAND. Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 19:16, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:50, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Corpus Vile (band)

edit

Fails WP:BAND.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 19:20, 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 delete. Punkmorten 21:49, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FysikRevy(TM)

edit

Non-notable event. Mike Peel 19:29, 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 consciously deleted. Punkmorten 21:55, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consciousness theory

edit

Contested Prod. Not remotely an article. Personal essay, Unsourced, Unverified, Original Research with a hint of Neologism. Just about everything Wikipedia is not. -- Fan-1967 19:48, 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 delete. The suggested transwiki to Wikinews isn't possible; they're licensed under CC-by-2.5, so cannot accept GFDL material. —Cryptic 00:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oscar the Pug

edit

News item, not encyclopedia item. Samw 19:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Interesting, but not encyclopaedic. More fit for Wikinews. The coverage of Oscar is tangential, really - it's not about him but an event with which he was connected. Should Oscar himself become famous, then no prejudice against bringing his article back. GassyGuy 20:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete - It's a story of about a dog that ended up having an impact on society in a strange sort of way, similar a court case. User:bdwmonaco\bdwmonaco 22:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to Wikinews  Funky Monkey  (talk)  02:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete - encyclopaedic because it was something that altered university honor codes all around the country. Henry1948 12:53 EST 10 October 2006
It happened in September! There's no way a national revision of university honor codes has even come close to occurring yet. It's not like this was even news that spread to campuses all over the country; it's much more of a local interest story, unless you've some sort of proof to the contrary. GassyGuy 19:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete - a google search for the words 'oscar', 'myspace' and 'vcu' should offer proof that it was more than a local interest story. concerning the universities, you may be right. however i was emailed the story (even though i am from richmond and had thus already heard about it) by a friend of mine who works for a major university in Minneapolis. i guess it's just one of those things that's hard to define. Henry1948 16:24 EST 10 October 2006
  • Delete. Even if the information in this article was properly sourced per WP:V, which it is not, the subject is not sufficiently notable to warrant an article. Perhaps the event is notable, but not the dog alone. --Satori Son 03:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to wikinews, if they don't have an article on this topic. If the topic does ultimately have a widespread effect, then it might be notable at that time, but at present, it fails the test. Vectro 23:35, 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 check out of Wikipedia. Punkmorten 21:58, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hotel Pronto

edit

Advertisement for non-notable hotel site(s); fails WP:WEB. Creator removed my prod tag and stated in the edit summary: Feel this article is no less valid than many others in the travel websites category OhNoitsJamie Talk 19:57, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:51, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peter F. 'Rius Jílek

edit

Non-notable bio, about 10 related Google hits, prod contested Ioannes Pragensis 20:22, 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 Camouflage. Yomanganitalk 23:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Special_Operations_Camouflage

edit

I feel this article should be deleted or merged with camouflage as it is not notable and appears to come exclusivly from a commercial source. There are many types of camouflage patterns but no specific "special forces camo". L0b0t 20:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Looking at the edit history of this article it seems pretty clear that this started as commercial spam by a manufacturer of "special forces camo". I must stress again, THERE IS NO SUCH THING as camo just for SF. L0b0t 11:23, 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. Deizio talk 21:26, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Brunner

edit

Contested prod of non-notable person. Article shows no evidence of satisfying WP:BIO. Valrith 20:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Ohio Secretary of State may very well be a notable person, but Brunner is still only a candidate, and being a candidate is a completely different thing. Also, please sign your posts on talk pages. Hemmingsen 16:40, 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atul Chitnis (second nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Deizio talk 21:22, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hellbound Hackers

edit

Disputed prod of non-notable website. No evidence of satisfying WP:WEB. Valrith 21:10, 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 delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mike bailey

edit

Questionable notability. I'll let the community decide. -- P.B. Pilhet / Talk 21:25, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • (Somewhat Weak) Delete per somewhat unnotable also unsourced. Hello32020 21:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This niche is under-represented- Do not Delete!it is my intention to document and index educational software companies, their software libraries, and the talent who created them. This information is relevant and important. It is currently under represented on the internet perhaps due to a casual disregard of the educational software niche. Thank you for your serious consideration. (MBailey 22:24, 9 October 2006 (UTC)=MBailey)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable and vanity. Even if his credits actually exist, he's still not significant enough for Wikipedia. "Mike Bailey"+"KnowWare" = 5 total Google hits. "Mike Bailey"+"Rugrats" = 28 total hits. "Mike Bailey"+"Aladdin" = 130 total hits, but I don't think a single one is relevant. Etc., etc. -- Kicking222 22:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an unverifiable nn bio. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 00:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per Sarah Ewart. Also this niche (computer and software people) is overrepresented, not underrepresented. --Calton | Talk 01:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Computer and software people? the niche is "educational software"information on educational products, companies, and talent is severely lacking. As someone has suggested, just search Google and you'll find out. Perhaps wikipedia is not the place for information pertaining to the history of these software libraries, their production, or the talent responsible. This does seem inconsistent to me. You'll find articles on comic books, games, and movies of all types but this article is objectionable? I would argue that this article is no less relevant to "educational software" than "John Krifaluci" is to "animation" or "Richard Garriot" is to "video games". I am not arguing important as none of these articles are important. But, it is valid and accurate and will be substantiated by the growing wealth of information in the severely underrepresented niche of educational software.(MBailey 02:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)=MBailey)[reply]
  • If you divide categories finely enough, you can justify including pretty much anything ("Croatia's first slasher movie!"). But skipping over the question-begging in your assertion (assuming that there exists some required or appropriate level of representation for your finely drawn category of "educational software" people, you STILL don't qualify, unless we bring notability/verification standards down to that of the Yellow Pages. --Calton | Talk 05:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There really was very little need for this personal attack. I was simply arguing at the level of detail in the previous note. Also, please realize that you are attacking a work in progress as I am quite qualified and accredited and the verification is forthcoming. This article existed literally existed for 3 minutes before it was marked for automatic deletion. Please dont assume that you know everything and are simply judging some wiki-troll egomaniac.(24.27.23.5 05:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)=MBailey)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Deizio talk 21:15, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

African Behemoth

edit

Prodded with "Sources cannot be found for this subject". Prod removed with the comment "Behemoth". No discussion or article change. Google lists 23 unique results, none for this creature. TransUtopian 21:26, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The term behemoth came to the English language from the Bible, where it is a transliteration of the Hebrew term bəhēmôth (written bē-hě-mõth in the KJV). Job 40:15 hardly describes this creature - in fact, the Hebrew word is plural (from bəhēmāh [sg.]), meaning "large, powerful animal" (typically a mammal). Hebrew lexicons and biblical commentaries alike suggest that the bəhēmôth of Job 40:15 is actually a hippopotamus, and though this will forever remain an open question; no credible scholars think that it is a sauropod!
  • Weak Redirect, only if it can be established that "African Behemoth" is indeed an alternative name for Mokele mbembe. (I did a quick Google search and turned up nothing.)
Em-jay-es 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 - information in the article is trivial, so if a merge target is identified at some later date it can be requested back. Yomanganitalk 23:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

INES (NES emulator)

edit

Delete - No sources, non-notable, seems to have been created solely to compare unfavourably to other emulators The Kinslayer 21:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I'm going to repeat my comment from the earlier FCE Ultra discussion and say that this is just the tip of an iceberg. Or look at list of emulators. Sure, some, for example, those with commercial releases, are going to be fine. But what about the rest? Should Wikipedia have information on them or not? Where to draw the line? FrozenPurpleCube 21:38, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You do have a point, so do you have any thoughts? Because you can't just include every emulator ever made, as many of these pages seem to be for advertising or vanity reasons and have no notability at all. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, so a line needs to be drawn. All the ones I've tagged are ones I feel fail to make any claims, and no reliable sources are turned up when searching the net. As for it being the tip of the iceberg, maybe a few of use should look specifically at Emulators as part of the CVG project? The Kinslayer 21:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm holding off on releasing my thoughts till they've had time to develop a little bit, and maybe till I've had a chance to see what other people think. I do know I don't agree with using the typical Wikipedia buzzwords to support a deletion, but that's not specific to this discussion, but rather an opposition to the practice of reducing a thought to a policy. Too much in the way of a mindless hidebound bureacracy for me. That, however, is really another matter. In this specific case though, I don't think we should nominate anything till more of a discussion happens, no matter how trivial an article might be. That way, we don't have to worry about what might slip through the cracks between proposal and consensus. FrozenPurpleCube 21:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The only reason I use 'buzzwords' is so people can see at a glance the exact reasons I nominated the articles. If you want to set up a discussion, head over to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Computer_and_video_games and set up a discussion outlining the points you think should be tackled, and then we can get a general consensus from the rest of the CVG project community. Is this OK with you? The Kinslayer 22:06, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll do that, though I'd prefer you to defer on further deletions till some sort of consensus was developed. Buzzword discussion is for another time and place. FrozenPurpleCube 22:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, I'll hold off nominating any more articles like this until we can reach a group decision. The Kinslayer 22:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Whether or not we need to draw a line regarding the notability of emulators may be important, but it is a moot point regarding this specific article. Per WP:V, "If an article topic has no reputable, reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on that topic." This article clearly falls short of that line, which trumps everything else. --Satori Son 21:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Would it help you to know that there are emulation sites that describe iNes? And other such emulators? Check [60] or [61] Sure, they're not the New York Times, but how often do you think the Times writes about console emulators? Or any other such topic? Some things simply get less attention than others. Does that mean Wikipedia shouldn't have information on them? I don't feel I can concur. FrozenPurpleCube 22:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Three lines of text and a link to the official site? I stand by my reason that this page seems to have been solely created to have a go at this emulator and should be deleted as an attack page.The Kinslayer 22:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, remove the questionable parts if you want, I was thinking about how to do that myself. Or how to find information to verify/dispute the claims. Those are clean-up problems though, not necessarily deletion issues. Personally, I think given that the author of iNes has produced several emulators, it might be more worthwhile to see if he's notable enough on his own to make him the article and instead redirect iNes and the rest to a page about him. FrozenPurpleCube 22:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have to question those sources though. All they do are prove that this exists, rather than if they are worth making a note of. The Kinslayer 22:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I doubt the argument is that it exists, which serves to differ an article like this, which is about something tangible, from say something that is more theoretical and inherently argumentative, like say, Racism in Star Wars(I hope that article doesn't really exist, mind you). For ones like this one, I see a need to clean-up, for the other, I see a need to prove first. FrozenPurpleCube 22:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But just existing shouldn't be enough to warrant a wikipedia article. For the same resons you can't have an article about a living person just because they are alive, you shouldn't have an article on an emulator that's (by the searching I did) completely unremarkable just because it was made. The only way I see is if the Author proves to be notable, and following what you propose in that case. But other than that, I really see no reasonable justification for keeping this article. The Kinslayer 22:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, proving notability is often a problem with things that are under the radar of the mainstream media. Me, I think if a search for NES emulators turns up with something, it's enough to stay. Still, I'd probably prefer one single article on NES emulators rather than a dozen)or more) seperate ones. It'd save a lot of trouble. FrozenPurpleCube 23:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be open to the possibility of consolidating it all into a single list of NES emulators, as well as doing the same for other systems. The Kinslayer 23:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The point of this wasn't to clean up the article. I'd prodded it, Manticore contested it, so it moved to AfD. The discussion about clean up just follwed on from our debate. The Kinslayer 18:26, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As I stated, AfDing articles because they don't meet WP:V and WP:RS is not the way to do things. I would rather you tag it and see what comes of it. You don't even give anyone a chance to verify it. And even if it was verified while tagged, it would get deleted the way this vote is going. INes is actually one of the more well known emulators and as such is deserves to be here. The article is not even tagged as a stub. Next time, help make things better by working on the article, and not just blatantly AfD it. Havok (T/C/c) 09:11, 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 Speedy delete, db-bio. Deizio talk 21:12, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Daggett

edit

The only assertion of notability here is tied to DeskSwap, apparently a screen saver utility that's questionable under WP:SOFTWARE - therefore, he fails the guidelines in WP:BIO. I couldn't find any non-blog coverage for sources.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Neither "keep" vote addressed the reason this was nominated. Deizio talk 21:08, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FCEUXD

edit

Seemingly blatant advertising The Kinslayer 21:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, The point of this wasn't to clean up the article. I'd prodded it, Manticore contested it, so it moved to AfD. The discussion about clean up just follwed on from our debate. The Kinslayer 18:30, 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 11:12, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Serebii.net

edit

This is, admittedly, a popular site. Someone may even link the previous AFD, filled with handwaving about popularity. There isn't a single word in this article, however, that is verifiable, though. Nothing has ever been written about this site in a reputable source, meaning that there's no material to use in writing this article. The current article shows this fact clearly; the intro is written based on direct observation of the site, then degenerates into unsourced waffle about the forums, more unsourced and unsourcable waffle about the history, and then half the article is about the site being hacked. Google News gives me nawt, and searches of the major game sites give me nothing but forum hits. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:06, 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 delete. Let's not drag this out any longer. -- Steel 12:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chairball

edit

Contested Prod. A bunch of cubicle dwellers invented a game and decided to share it with us. Not Verifiable. No Sources. Wikipedia is not for something you made up at the office -- Fan-1967 22:12, 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 Delete AdamBiswanger1 18:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of people with a numerical suffix after their name

edit

Listcruft, brings together people who have similar part of their name. Would collide with royal names Pavel Vozenilek 22:19, 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 Delete. Deizio talk 20:58, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Colt 45 porn star

edit

An article about a porn star. Contested prod. Completely unreferenced, some of the material is completely unverifiable, and the article is completely unencyclopedic in its current state. No obvious claims to uniqueness. Fails WP:PORNBIO, WP:V, WP:RS. Mr Stephen 22:45, 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 closing in favor of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fleshlight (fourth nomination) as the result of the deletion review. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 05:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fleshlight

edit

This article was speedied by Danny, and mistakenly taken to be a WP:OFFICE action. It was not, rendering this deletion out of process, and something that should be taken to the community. As such, I am listing it here. I have no vote on the matter. Phil Sandifer 22:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For reference, previous deletion debates are here:

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

The result was speedy delete per CSD G11. -- Steel 23:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Snoosy

edit

the article is nothing but an advertisement Swpb 23:03, 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 Delete - Yomanganitalk 00:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pivotal eRelationship

edit

Looks like an adverisement of a not-notable software product to me. I have deleted it as G11 but the speedy is contested abakharev 23:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I went to WP:SOFTWARE to figure this one out, but since that is still only a proposal I don't feel comfortable using it. And I don't know enough about software to be able to say whether or not it's notable. The article is poor with no sources - or even any links - but that doesn't mean the article can't be improved. It seems to have won a Users Choice Award in 1999 and the Microsoft Industry Solution Award in 2000. Is that a notable accomplshment? And would adding those and other sources make the article less like advertising? - Lex 01:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unreferenced ad. Deizio talk 13:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Author response, Let me clarify a couple things. I don't work for the Pivotal Corporation. I work for a company that uses Pivotal's products. I wrote the article with more interest in the product's problems than in its virtues, so I doubt deleting it as an advertisement would help anyone much. I'm not sure I can help you decide about "notability," but from reading CDC's annual reports, I believe more than $100M per year are spent on licenses for this product. If you want me to put in links, I can do so. User:Mage0 talk
    • Comment: To confirm sufficient notability, we need non-trivial coverage of the product by "credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." If you can provide such references, please put them in the article and let us know here. Thanks, Satori Son 18:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete spam... yum yum /Blaxthos 12:06, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless we get some reliable sources. Vectro 23:36, 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 No consensus - unfortunately there doesn't seem to be a clear opinion as to whether this meets WP:MUSIC or not (if the canvassing for votes had any impact I would have discounted them, but I don't think this would resolve matters here). Yomanganitalk 22:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Jackson Jihad

edit

Previously deleted following discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Jackson Jihad, but despite the new claims of notability, the band still does not meet WP:MUSIC. Where are their albums? What spots have they reached on notable charts? What national or international tours have they been on? Basements don't qualify, sorry. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:50, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong, speedy keep- The article has been rewritten (it is not a "re-creation of previously deleted material" because of the new content), because it meets OTHER criteria of WP:MUSIC besides the album releases and charting requriements, which if you'd bothered to read the article and the talk page, you would have discovered. The band has received more media coverage and awards since the last AfD, which I have cited in the new article. I have notified other editors about this article and its AfD as to gather more input for a clear consensus. PT (s-s-s-s) 00:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see reliable sources meeting WP:MUSIC. A Phoenix weekly paper (note: article link doesn't work) supporting an unreleased album isn't enough for me, sorry. I'm holding off on voting for the moment, but this looks distinctly non-notable to me, though I wish them the best. bikeable (talk) 00:34, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems like the article shows the media mentions, so it meets WP:MUSIC. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Local bands get local press mentions. An article, in a national magazine, would be more fitting. It is trival and common for local acts to have interviews/reviews done or played on local radio. Arbusto 18:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per PT. I looked over the article and all the sources. This article seems to meet the requirements in WP:MUSIC. - Lex 00:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I am holding my vote too. This article is well referenced and written, but I am unsure about their notablity. Although there's no result of the band on All Music, but from the band's official website, they seemingly do go on national tours in a sense which should meet WP:MUSIC. AQu01rius (User | Talk | Websites)  00:48, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete I still see nothing that passes WP:MUSIC. Every newspaper mention is from that of some college where they played with the exception of the Phoenix New Times, which doesn't appear to be the most reliable of sources. -- Kicking222 02:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • There seems to be some dispute over whether or not the ASU paper, the Arizona Republic, or the Phoenix New Times are reliable sources (they are), but what cannot be disputed are the awards, nor the talk of the band in HeartattaCk, a very notable zine. PT (s-s-s-s) 17:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The claims to notability are unsourced with reliable sources, and therefore don't satisfy WP:MUSIC. Citing New Times as reliable is laughable, especially for a Phoenix native. I've been mentioned in the New Times for nothing much, and the story misquoted the other interviewee, too. The New Times is not a good measure of anything, and it's certainly not reliable. That and a blog and a student-written college paper (and it's an interview where they mention themselves offhandedly that they went on a tour): none of these are reliable. And after reading the article, I still don't know if they're even signed to a label. They're not even on allmusic. Nothing here meets WP:MUSIC, and Parsssseltongue's been spamming this AfD to boot. Dmcdevit·t 07:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It would be spamming if I went to a bunch of editors and said "PLEASE COME VOTE KEEP ON THIS AFD!" As I mentioned above (does anyone on Wikipedia actually bother to READ anything or anymore, or do they just work off assumptions?), I alerted editors to the article and the AfD to get their opinion, I didn't try to sway it one way or another. You claim to be a Phoenix native, one that has been in Phoenix New Times even, so you should know who AJJ is. And it doesn't matter that they're on a label or not, that is not the end-all be-all of WP:MUSIC. What too many editors on here are clearly missing is that other WP:MUSIC criteria has been met, as noted in the article and on the talk pages, with reliable verifiable sources (whether Dmcdevit has a grudge against them or not). PT (s-s-s-s) 17:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Dmcdevit does not have a grudge, but actually his opinion is based on sound reasoning. But thanks anyway for your insinuations. (Oh, and I "claim to be a Phoenix native". Nice.) The bottom line is that you have no reliable sources here, so no inclusion guidelines can be met. Dmcdevit·t 20:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I am just curious why someone who claims to be from Phoenix and implies they are well-versed in music and media in the area would refute New Times as a legitimate publication, as well as refuting AJJ as a legitimate band. PT (s-s-s-s) 20:27, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - User:Parsssseltongue sent me a message, probably due to my opinions on the Rival Schools AFD. Sorry, but this is completely different situation - I haven't heard of them, their biggest gig was supporting Flogging Molly, hardly a huge band in themselves, there doesn't seem to be anything supporting a national or international tour (individual shows in different states IMO don't really count), nothing non-trivial, and they don't have CDs for sale on Amazon or anywhere in my country. 172 hits on Google, 126 listeners on last.fm, they don't seem to pass WP:MUSIC, so this is nn and probably vanity - albiet a well written vanity page. Halo 12:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It would be vanity if I were a member of the band. This is not the first time I have been accused of being the subject I wrote about, nor will it be the last (I also am accused of being certain banned editors, from time to time). Nevertheless, while there are WP:MUSIC criteria this article DOESN'T fit (radio play, album releases), the talk page will direct you to the criteria it DOES fit, and the sources are cited within the article. PT (s-s-s-s) 17:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I did state probable vanity - I didn't say it /was/ vanity. I checked the talk page. Specifically, I don't think they've done a full national tour, I wouldn't describe the competition as major, I don't think the articles are in major publications and the band doesn't establish a new notable style for a city (well, one that's /itself/ established enough to itself be notable and varifiable). -Halo 18:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • To answer: the article is not vanity. You not feeling the competition is major doesn't make it not major. The articles are in major publications. The style, as well as the city, as well as the band's placement in both, are notable and verifiable. PT (s-s-s-s) 23:01, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, Dmcdevit, and Halo. Even with recent revisions, there are still no assertions of notability that both meet WP:MUSIC and are supported by WP:Reliable sources. --Satori Son 13:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, potential but not up with WP:MUSIC. Deizio talk 13:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - OK, this is REALLY weird... there was an article about HeartAttaCk on Wikipedia for a long time, and yesterday was the last time I saw it. What has happened to it in the last 24 hours? PT (s-s-s-s) 17:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per User:Zoe; fails WP:MUSIC Eusebeus 18:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: PT has asked me to look into this. I voted keep in a previous round at AfD, but I'm not clear on what "new information" has been added that should overide the weak consensus from that debate. The article is well-written and well-sourced, but the band at best treads just on the edges of our notability criteria. Vote withheld (for now at least). -MrFizyx 18:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per arguements above, cite information, notable group, media coverage. While the coverage is college papers, which i dont think are RS, others have repeatedly told em they are including the people at WP:RS. --NuclearZer0 19:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No released albums, the "awards" are extremely minor, the coverage seems to be in local rags. Read the intent of WP:MUSIC, not the strict legalistic wording, as it was hardly written to legal rigor. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. College newspapers and community newspapers are reliable when they do their job properly, as most of them do. "Local rags" are perfectly acceptable as sources. The rule is that a band is notable if it meets any one of the criteria, and this band does. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 21:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a local band having news mentions is completely normal. Any proof the band has sold 5000 records per WP:BAND? That would have this. Arbusto 01:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It doesn't need to have sold 5000 records. It already meets WP:MUSIC, as stated on the talk page. PT (s-s-s-s) 02:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • 1) You created the article. 2) You posted comments on the talk claiming it meets WP:MUSIC, but no one else agreed. 3) The only sources that meet WP:V are local papers. Even then there is only three articles; none meet WP:MUSIC. 4) Taking all that into account and the policy at WP:MUSIC, this should be deleted. Arbusto 04:31, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • So you're claiming that all of the media mentions are "trivial?" --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm not sure about Arbustoo, but I am. Four barely qualifies as "multiple", the mentions tend to be trivial (a gig listing in a local newspaper) and I'm not convinced of the reputability of something using using the ___domain "ecollegetimes" as notable. They aren't MTV, put it that way. The whole thing goes against the spirit of WP:MUSIC. The fact that the article was written "with WP:MUSIC in mind" makes me stroke my chin and wonder if WP:MUSIC is a little too broad, and if people want to scrape the barrel they could get any local band's articles kept. Halo 13:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • I have seen the hordes of non-notable bands whose members put up a page and get speedily deleted. This is not one of those bands. There seems to be a prejudice against this band, whether for where they hail from or what kind of music they do. You've gone as far as to pick apart the reliability of the coverage, when there should be no question about the Arizona Republic or Phoenix New Times (or HeartattaCk, for that matter, though an overzealous deletionist is now trying to get even THAT article deleted). Yes, I created the article. You point that out as if it affects my credibility, when in fact, I am well versed on the topic and can speak more to its notability than you. PT (s-s-s-s) 16:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • I'd like to point out that you pointed me to this article, along with a bunch of other people who voted "keep" on AFD. I hadn't heard of them before you messaged me. I'm not biased against them at all, I'm thousands of miles away. Independently, I've decided that based on all the criteria claimed, they aren't notable, and yes, that includes the small mentions in local newspapers and even smaller websites/music magazines, and even the nowhere-near-a-full-tour. Halo 19:22, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Answering Badlydrawnjeff, yes I am claiming those as trival. I'm in favor of keeping a notable band, but these articles are not convincing of anything other than a local band. Arbusto 18:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's kind of misleading. I mean, every band is from SOMEWHERE, every band is a "local band" in some town. It's not like AJJ hasn't toured. And give WP:MUSIC another read - a band who is prominent in their hometown is still under consideration for notability. I think the problem now is some editors in this AfD are horribly misjudging the reliability of the sources, and I'm not sure what that stems from except a failure to recognize anything from Arizona as notable because it's not New York or L.A.. PT (s-s-s-s) 19:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd argue they aren't even prominant in their home town. Seriously, you've given references to articles in local newspapers, all of which are minor mentions that list several bands, or articles in other publications whose notability is stretched. Halo 19:22, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Which links are you clicking? I'm giving references to publications that have done feature articles on them or bestowed awards upon them. PT (s-s-s-s) 20:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Phoenix New Times is just a very short mention in an article, it's trivial. AZNightBuzz is a very short mention in a blog, so I wouldn't call that non-trivial. The eCollegeTimes is a longer article, but I can't establish notability of the site (there's only 50 unique hits on Google). StatePress seems more like it, but is still an article in a local University newspaper. As for Heartattack, I'm unsure of its notability or contents, but even if we count that, it doesn't count as "multiple", and even those articles that do count are still marginal at best. -Halo 21:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Parsssseltongue give one source in the national media. Give any source to prove this is band has a following outside their local area. Arbusto 00:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do a Google search, and you will see where they are mentioned in several places, as well as verification of their tour dates. PT (s-s-s-s) 23:01, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per overkill above :-) /Blaxthos 12:04, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:MUSIC. As for reliable sources, I really don't see one. The ASU article is expressly out per WP:MUSIC: "Has been featured in multiple non-trivial published works in reliable and reputable media (excludes things like school newspapers, personal blogs, etc...)." The AZ Night Buzz is a blog. And the College Times? Definitely not something I would consider reliable. The article in the Phoenix New Times is not displaying for me, so I am unable to judge the content of the article itself, but the publication as a whole is a local paper for a large city, but it is still not a far reaching paper, leaving its value rather limited as well. Even if these articles were considered to be reliable sources, the next question is, would this band meet WP:MUSIC? They have not gone on a national tour. They have toured a portion of the U.S. They don't have two or more albums on a major label, no major music competition, no major award, they aren't getting radio time, and they don't have any independently notable members. As for "Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or the local scene of a city...", I see nothing to support that argument, even with the sources given. So with or without the sources given, I believe this band does not meet WP:MUSIC and should be deleted. --Maelnuneb (Talk) 16:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/note to closing admin - I don't see a real consensus here. I would ask that we default to keep, for the time being, and allow the article to expand. While there is some disagreement about the notability of the sources, I feel a convincing case has been made for this band meeting parts of WP:MUSIC. Please allow time for more content, and for events to unfold that may change the minds of those who feel the band hasn't "done enough yet." PT (s-s-s-s) 21:14, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_October_9&oldid=1081097728"