Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 September 2

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log

< September 1	September 3 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Delete. Little or no context, little sense and an attempt to contact - speedied.. Shell ^babelfish 17:55, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rubber Octupus Kirby

Not important enough to have an article to itself. Delete. Green caterpillar 17:34, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Couldn't this be speedied as nonsense? ---Charles 17:35, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete CSD A3. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 16:02, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's Hang On (To What We've Got)

Delete. All this article contains is a Youtube link. Marcus 13:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as per WP:CSD A3 ST47 14:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --- Glen 00:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bulldog In The Bathtub

See WP:HOAX. Non-notable probable neologism; Google only brings up about 5 results, and not even Urbandictionary knows about it. Crystallina 00:20, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I definitely think this is a hoax. It's written in such a weird, yet funny, manner. Besides, we try not to write about neologisms on Wikipedia. --Nishkid64 00:39, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, definite hoax, see the Gsearch --- Deville (Talk) 03:50, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NEO and/or WP:BALLS. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per everyone else. NeoFreak 06:26, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete kill all neologisms in the face ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 08:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. VegaDark 10:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete is not a seldom used Wikipedia "vote" when a neologism like this is added. Erechtheus 21:06, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 22:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong and unconditional Delete per WP:HOAX - Blood red sandman 22:37, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Kinu --Icarus ^(Hi!) 00:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Kinu. Michael 01:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Kinu says it all. Cain Mosni 13:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Even if it's not a hoax, how is a three-sentence article about a "seldom used" sexual position worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia? Take it to Urban dictionary. Wavy G 15:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't any respectable encyclopedia be open to publishing any information that it can locate? Even if the article is proven to be a hoax (which it likely cannot), the article should remain present acknowledging the entry as a hoax. To delete it would be censorship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.110.8 (talk • contribs)
- Comment: No. Read WP:V, WP:NOT, and most importantly WP:ENC. --Kinu ^t/_c 14:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Additionally, if it's a new term, who would be coming to Wikipedia to research it if the term is only known by its originator (who is, no doubt, the article's author)? Wavy G 21:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Kinu. If I roll a baseball around my keyboard and post the new article dpccvvgh, would deletintg that be censorship? Among other problems, the article would be original research.–♥ «Charles A. L.» 12:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm the author of that article, and not the originator of the term. I searched everywhere for the term's origins and couldn't find it, that's why I wrote the article, so that if ever someone else may find the term confusing or comedic or vulgar that there is verifiable evidence that others have as well... just like all of you. The phrase and its definition are now verifiable by the very existence of this message board. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.86.40.216 (talk • contribs) 09:34, 6 September 2006.
- Comment: No one cares if the term is offensive or vulgar; WP:NOT censored for the protection of minors. The real issue, as stated above, is (by your own admission) the lack of verifiability of any of the information about this word... aside from some random message board, which does not count as a reliable source, even if it was cited, which it is not. Thus this phrase is thus a suspected protologism, and an article about the term probably violates the no original research policy as well. I hope this addresses the concerns you might have as to why other editors are advocating deletion. --Kinu ^t/_c 16:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If you'd read WP:NEO referenced above, you'd know that's utter nonsense. The existence of an article on WP does not prove the worthiness of an article on WP. It should be patently obvious that the article cannot be offered as proof of its own provenance! Cain Mosni 16:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --- Glen 00:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Witchelny

I originally prodded this article with the following reason:

not a place that really "exists", just mentioned on some cards in a card game. Information already contained on character articles. Very crufty, made in haste, does not meet WP:FICT recommendations.

User:Kappa, however, deprodded the article with the reason "looks mergable".

Which promted this discussion:

I know we tend to disagree on these kinds of things, but before you re-deprod that article again I'd like to point you to this talk message by the article's author. The bulk of the article was created in one edit, the second edit slightly changed some wording, and then the last two edits were adding Digimon links at the bottom. Bandai has not defined this place any more than a brief mentioning on the cards for those 4 Digimon, who's articles all mention Witchelny. This article doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of being kept in an AfD. Deprod it if you must, but I don't see what good that will do. -- Ned Scott 19:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since this is supposedly the home of 4 digimon, it will only be recreated if it isn't kept or merged somewhere. Kappa 20:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article is completely inappropriate, whether or not someone will try to recreate it should not mean we accept things that violate core policies. Why do you think you are helping by mass removing prods on things you know nothing about, or for reasons that are.. absurd, such as this? It's clear as hell that this article needs to be deleted and a discussion for deletion is unnecessary, which is why we have prod in the first place. You are totally violating WP:POINT, and if I have to I'll bring this to arbitration. -- Ned Scott 00:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh, OK which core policy is it supposed to be violating? Kappa 00:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. It clearly violates all three of those policies, and doesn't follow the strong recommendations of guidelines such as WP:WAF and WP:FICTION. I should not have to tell an experienced user such as your self about these basic things. -- Ned Scott 00:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by my previous statement that this article doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of being kept, and I move for a delete -- Ned Scott 00:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. -- Ned Scott 00:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge as fancruft; one mention doesn't merit an entire article, especially when it's doubted as canon. Crystallina 00:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fancruft. We don't need an article on a fictitious place in Digimonland that can't itself be verified. --Nishkid64 00:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge somewhere, maybe Wizardmon or keep. Kappa 00:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete solidly in the fancruft category. Opabinia regalis 03:41, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- ATTY 04:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge with Wizardmon TJ Spyke 05:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We can't merge unverified information, and without a source I can't help but think it's a likely copyright violation as well (it's worded just like you'd expect to read right on the card or from a Bandai website). The only information that is somewhat verifiable is what cards say they are from this place. This is already included in those 4 character articles, and has been long before this article came into existence. There is nothing to merge, thus nothing of the edit history of this article is needed. -- Ned Scott 06:02, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like to note that just about every single Digimon card (there's hundreds of them) all have some little insignificant write up similar to this, that Blahblahmon comes from the planet Nebulone and wears green pants. Don't get me wrong, I'm a fan of Digimon, that's why I've gotten myself so involved in these articles, but even I know when something is extreme cruft and totally insignificant. When these characters appear in the anime series of Digimon they have new histories and personalities that are usually not based on their description in the card game (not only that, but a single Digimon can have several different cards each claiming a different thing about that same 'mon). -- Ned Scott 06:02, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Extreme cruft, not even worth the effort needed for an attempt at verification. Delete with a blunt instrument or small twisted horn. -- Hoary 06:18, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom. WP is not paper, but it's also not supposed to be a load of cruft. Tychocat 09:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with a relavent article. Hurricanehink (talk) 20:36, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Michael 02:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Cain Mosni 13:20, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge and Redirect to List of television show casting changes. --- Glen 00:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Darrin Syndrome

Another WP:OR black hole. If Chuck Cunningham syndrome was nuked, I see no reason this should remain. Dhartung | Talk 00:37, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. --Dhartung | Talk 00:37, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOR. It's already mentioned to quite an extent in Same Character, Different Actor. --Nishkid64 00:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as pointless WP:OR - it makes admissions that it is Same Character, Different Actor reworked in the article itself. Yomangani ^talk 01:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of television show casting changes --- Deville (Talk) 03:52, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 04:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pointless. Neologism. The content of this page can, and should, exist only on the Bewitched, and Roseanne (TV series) articles. Asa01 04:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The phrase is not in common use, judging from the Google hits, most of which refer either to Wikipedia and its mirrors, or to the Bewitched movie in which the phrase was apparently used. Only 1 Google Groups hit [1]; "Chuck Cunningham syndrome" at least got 12 [2]. --Metropolitan90 06:08, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 06:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. THIS ARTICLE ALREADY SURVIVED AN AFD NOMINATION NOT ALL THAT LONG AGO. The Chuck Cunningham Syndrome got deleted mainly because it was a never-ending list of original research. Darrin Syndrome is more clearly defined than the Chuck thing. Merging it into the List of television show casting changes is a problem because (1) that's just a list and (2) that article is a dadgum mess. And why discount hits related to the movie? It is not Same Character, Different Actor worked into a different article. It's a specific kind of SCSA. Doczilla 07:26, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment' Prior AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sargent York Syndrome, result was no consensus. ~ trialsanderrors 08:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 08:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as OR Computerjoe 's talk 12:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect - List of television show casting changes. The term is definitely notable, but the article has been pared down to basically nothing but a mention on Roseanne, and everything else is already covered under the "Same Character, Different actor" section on that page. However, people coming to Wikipedia to search for this will more than likely be typing in "Darrin syndrome," so redirect. Wavy G 14:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, per above. Hurricanehink (talk) 20:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I just don't see the use as a search term, and I don't see much to merge. Erechtheus 21:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is totally pointless. —Khoikhoi 22:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of television show casting changes, merging if necessary. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 00:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Notable definition, but I don't think it's notable enough for its own article. --Dennis The TIger 01:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per usage. Michael 01:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect it's a pointless page, cover quited sufficently on the "Same Character, Different Actor" section on the casting changes page. Duggy 1138 06:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge on proviso of providing reliable citation. Cain Mosni 13:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOR. Sandstein 17:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Redirect, or Merge This is notable and very likely searchable. The other articles seem to have more information, though. GumbyProf: "I'm about ideas, but I'm not always about good ideas." 18:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --- Glen 01:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of transgender-support organizations

Indiscriminate list of external links. See WP:NOT. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 23:22, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no web directory. Gazpacho 23:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This one's easy. WP:NOT a directory. JChap2007 23:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above and delete List of transgender-rights organizations along with it. wikipediatrix 23:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. This is not an article. I've put an afd on the one mentioned above also. Friday (talk) 00:48, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- comment nominee of a related AfD detailed below. LinaMishima 02:25, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's just a bunch of links. Listcruft, WP:NOT. --Nishkid64 00:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep or~~Merge identical verdict to AfD for List of transgender-rights organizations, a highly related article. Note the points about the purpose of a list. Yes, the article could do with cleanup and redefinition to prevent endless expansion, but AfD is not the place to debate such things. LinaMishima 02:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Added Merge to my main input (AfD is not a vote) - As I suspect that it may be more sensible to merge this and the -rights article into List of transgender organizations ~~(I thought we used the 's' spelling variants according to MoS?)~~ LinaMishima 14:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ahh, we use organization with a 'z'. I'll have to dig out and have another read of the WP:MOS, I think LinaMishima 14:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete giant linkfarm. Opabinia regalis 03:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The lobbying organisations have a public profile, and deserve a list; these organisations will never have articles, and can be just as easily located on Google. Rebecca 04:08, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT NeoFreak 06:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete linkcruft ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 08:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT and delete comments above.--24.20.69.240 09:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom ST47 14:31, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Rebecca. —Khoikhoi 22:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a web directory. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 00:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Well meaning, but this should be placed on somebody's own web page. --Dennis The TIger 01:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Michael 07:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It meets all the criteria of Wikipedia:List guideline. It's identical in both purpose and structure to the List of transgender-rights organizations, and it's AfD page provides voluminous reasons to keep both. Mugaliens 14:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't see the harm in it, and it is not dissimilar to over 100 articles in the Lists of organizations category, such as List of veterans' organizations. ntennis 02:31, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Note that in the example cited, the majority of items on the list have Wikipedia articles, unlike this list of external links. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 06:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Would you prefer another example? How about List of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies? What about lists of things with NO wikipedia articles, such as List of Proto-Indo-European roots? I think there is a real divergence of viewpoints here about the purpose of lists. ntennis 06:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment I think there is a real divergence of viewpoints here about the purpose of lists. Agreed, I see this happen all the time with list AfDs. In the case of the two lists involved here (as this is the same as the aforementioned other AfD), most of the groups featured actually warrant their own articles. Yes, the list is fairly raw, but I see nothing which intrinsically prevents it from being enhanced. A notariety requirement, as foul as notariety is as a concept, is a much-needed addition. These are not "List of cool websites", these are "List of established organisations", many of which are national bodies deserving of their own articles (and indeed have them, but are often not linked). LinaMishima 11:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOT a directory, nor is at a social support framework. Noting the comment suggesting arguments about a similar article support this list, but it's not concluded, and I sense that most respondents have an agenda. Cain Mosni 13:39, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above comments. RFerreira 19:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --- Glen 01:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sharpst.org

fails WP:WEB Zephyr2k 01:02, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Nishkid64 01:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't show up on alexa, no real claim to notability in the article in the first place --- Deville (Talk) 03:53, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:WEB Computerjoe 's talk 12:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per computerjoe ST47 14:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. Erechtheus 21:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above, plus probable WP:VANITY. Cain Mosni 13:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --- Glen 01:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

World Wrestling Entertainment tours in the Philippines

Prodded because Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Deprodded without explanation. There's no other articles on WWE tours. There are articles on some of the individual tours, but I think this could be made into a category if nothing else, not a list. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fancruft. Resolute 04:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete TJ Spyke 05:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hybrid 09:02, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fanlistcruft Computerjoe 's talk 12:31, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom ST47 14:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Cain Mosni 13:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as vandalism. This is, simply, not an article. It's a page that purports to allow people to find Wikipedia vandalism to "laugh at". At best, this is a project namespace page. But we already have BJAODN, which already covers the ground of things that made people laugh. And much of the vandalism listed was in fact perpetrated by the editor who then listed it on the page. It does not further the purpose of Wikipedia to allow vandals to create brag lists of their own vandalism. Uncle G 03:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiComedy

88.110.104.37 (talk · contribs) believes this is not nonsense, as it has been tagged by many. Quoting: I don't feel that the article is nonsense, in the very least it enables administrators to find vandalised articles. I have no idea why this is justified or needed with AFD, prod, and CSD categories and such, but I'm going with AfD in the name of WP:AGF. (|-- UlTiMuS 01:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The fact that the article specifically states that it is non-factual make it by definition non-encyclopedic.--Anthony.bradbury 01:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-encyclopedic, and violates WP:ASR. We do not have Wikipedia articles about Wikipedia articles. The contents are inherently POV, OR or just plain wrong (Fatboy Slim is not a joke; he's a famous musician). Fan-1967 02:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 88.110.104.37 (talk · contribs) seems to be using this page as a way to keep track of his/her own vandalism. As pointed out above, this page violates WP:ASR. --Tachikom a 02:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --- Glen 01:07, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flimap

This article appears to be nothing more than an advertisement for a service (Fli-Map) provided by a single company (John Chance Land Surveys). This article has been edited by a single author, User:Verminaard510, who also published links on the Lidar page in order to advertise this service. It is in violation of the Wikipedia policy against advertisement.

Justin 01:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC) $Insertformulahere$ [reply]

Weak Delete - The FliMap system actually seems to be in use in a number of countries. (See Flimap.nl for instance.) I'm not sure how prominent it is compared to other similar systems, or how widely it is used. I don't get an enormous number of google hits for it (581). --Brianyoumans 02:20, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete with no prejudice. As written it is too spammy. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 08:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing WP:CORP, lacking multiple non-trivial third-party articles, no national awards, no evidence service has suffered genericization. Fair amount of Google hits also shows press releases and product listings. Concur on article being advertising. to quote WP:CORP, "Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article". Tychocat 09:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per all above, plus the article was contributed by a user with no other substantial edit history - probable WP:VANITY and smells distinctly of pork product. Cain Mosni 13:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Could be rewritten as a real article, if some sources exist. GumbyProf: "I'm about ideas, but I'm not always about good ideas." 19:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily kept per WP:SNOW. No chance that this will succeed so it might as well be shut down here. FCYTravis 16:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SCO-Linux controversies

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

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

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

POV fork, mainly unreferenced, may infringe on WP:LIBEL. Better left for Groklaw. Electrawn 01:39, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and keep updated. It seems that this matter has proceeded through the courts over some three years already, and more info on where it stands and when finality can be expected would be of interest. There is talk of criminal proceedings surfacing out of this matter and that could also be of interest to a wider audience. Michael J. Mullany
Fork from what article? Gronky 01:56, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How come it's POV? It doesn't say "SCO is wrong", it says that "X and Y say SCO is wrong, because...". Keep as an article on an important subject from recent history. - Sikon 02:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cleanup and update as per Sikon above. MER-C 03:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup. --Ter e nce Ong _{(T | C)} 03:55, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (e-c) this doesn't seem even POV to me, much less a fork. And in any case, there is no reason why the subject of this article in inherently POV, which would be the only valid reason for deletion because of POV. Unreferenced, maybe, but this is certainly not a reason to bring an article here. And is there a reason why {{afdanons}} is already here while there are only three comments before mine? --- Deville (Talk) 03:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case if a few inexperienced (with respect to Wikipedia) people from Groklaw come over here. MER-C 04:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm one of those newbies from Groklaw, but I'd hate to see an online reference like this site surrender it's credibility via self-censorship because of fear that some overly-agressive company might take offense. It's my understanding that truth is a defense against Libel. Check out Groklaw's extensive database - you'll find the truth. Clean up is always good, but depriving history of a record of this lawsuit due to fear that unsubstiated libel charges might be filed (if SCO even survives) seems to be over-reaction. Wait to see if there is any threat of lawsuit first. If you start deleting articles because of a fear that someone may get offended by the truth, then this site loses much value. 66.134.134.124 04:34, 2 September 2006 (UTC) Ed Freesmeyer[reply]

Keep. May need a little editing to clean up the text and wikify it, but I see no reason why it should be deleted. StuartCarter 04:37, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article seems relatively neutral, especially compared with some of the comments posted on Groklaw. If NPOV is disputed, better to correct the article, since a success by SCO would impact the whole Internet (much of which is powered by GNU/Linux). Murray Langton 04:49, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - For any unreferenced sections, a trawl through the legal documents, computer news sites, and the likes of Groklaw should find plenty of pointers to information that will back this lot up. And your reference to WP:LIBEL is just silly IMO. As for POV - explain what's POV about it (I can't see the problem), and then perhaps the article might be edited to eliminate your concerns. A biased article on a notable subject shouldn't be deleted, just re-edited. --Aim Here 05:37, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep It needs a LOT of work, but if deleted it would only come back soon, and it's a noteworthy subject. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 08:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Who initiated this deletion procedure?! 09:06, 2 September 2006 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.22.10.85 (talk • contribs) (unfortunately a user named "SWATJester" decided to prevent me from removing my own question to which I found the answer. He even threatened me: "If you continue to do so you may be blocked") 12:35, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Important subject. POV?? --MaNeMeBasat 10:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup and update This is a complicated topic, and also a current event. I don't see any particular NPOV problems, but there's some emotive language which doesn't belong there. Elronxenu 12:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and copyedit I've scanned through the article and can't find any instances that would meet WP:LIBEL as the nominator claims. If this is a WP:POVFORK, what is it a fork of? The article has been around since 2004. I will say that the article needs copyediting because the language trips over itself and doesn't flow well from one point to the next. Also the references should be made inline per WP:FOOT. --TheFarix (Talk) 13:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and copyedit I agree with TheFarix above -- the article is two years old and there's no evidence that I can see that it was created as a POV fork -- the only articles it could be forking from are either SCO Group or Linux and I don't see a lot of disparity of "pov" from the sections on this controversy in those articles and this one. Rather than delete this article, I'd suggest merging the following ones into it: SCO v. IBM Red Hat v. SCO SCO v. Novell SCO v. AutoZone SCO v. DaimlerChrysler Dina 13:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - If there's POV issues, clean it up. This is a clearly notable event in intellectual property law. FCYTravis 15:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - but it needs a total reorganization It's accurate - however there's been soo much detail added that what I think the page really needs is to be re-ordered and sectioned. I'm stupid enough to take a shot at it. UrbanTerrorist 15:27, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - but it still needs work It's fairly accurate, but the situation it describes is changing daily. If there are errors, let us work at fixing them, not deleting an entire article about a very real and relevant situation. Tiger99 17:21, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the nominator fails to provide an example of Libel, and I'd rather not guess what he means. I see tons of extlink references (rather than proper citations) which could be fixed -- maybe they weren't there at the time of nomination. POV should also be fixed rather than deletion. -- Cjensen 18:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. Article is in need of some polishing, but the topic is important and worthy of a Wiki article. Proposal for deletion is unfounded and possibly originates from a SCOX socket puppet or shill. 66.32.158.10 19:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Please assume good faith on the part of the nominator. Especally when the accusation is not supported by his or her edit history. --TheFarix (Talk) 19:55, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment An interesting fact is that the nominator has also tried to remove or modify entries for Darl McBride, Ralph Yarro and Marc Rochkind. That should have people wondering what the motives of the nominator are.
Comment I think we can safely close this AfD under WP:SNOWBALL. Even eliminating the votes from anonymous IPs and single purpose accounts, the keep comments have been unanimous. No point in continuing this discussion for another four days. --TheFarix (Talk) 19:55, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because it's a well written article and I can't think of a single reason why it should be deleted. --Eugene2x -- ☺ Nintendo rox! 21:06, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but reorganize because it is relevant to IP law.--Icephoto 21:21, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because these controversies have done more than anything to shore up the legal standing of the copylefts type of licenses Wikipedia itself is released under. --Ruby 21:36, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. IANAL, but IMHO it is not libel, and seems to put out a pretty neutral stance on what is going on with SCO v. Linux. --Dennis The TIger 01:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are several Wikipedia entrys that also talk of and cite this SCO-Linux controversy, this page has a use. --Salgat 02:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Please choose the right expressions, especially in a free encyclopedia. There's no such legal term as "intellectual property law", there is patent law, trademark law, and copyright law. RMS discourages using this term. - Sikon 14:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --- Glen 01:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James Spurgeon

A blogger who published one book with what is debated to be a vanity press (see the Wikipedia article: PublishAmerica). Google doesn't turn up much in the way of outside sources. Seems non-notable. Crystallina 01:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ex-blogger , vanity press - not notable. Dlyons493 Talk 03:00, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, NN, "best known as a blogger..." I think says it all --- Deville (Talk) 04:00, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think there is room for blogger entries in this encyclopedia, but this guy isn't that case. Erechtheus 21:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notable information about a blogger who's given up doing it anyway. BTLizard 09:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete CSD A7. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 11:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rlj records 2006

I tried googling this and got 16 google hits, mostly from myspace. It probably doesn't exist and if it does it is not notable enough to be in WP. Zephyr2k 01:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as unsourced nonsense that does not assert notability and is probably vainity LinaMishima 02:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: Almost complete nonsense and no assertion of notability. (|-- UlTiMuS 10:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, and I've tagged it as such. VegaDark 10:52, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --- Glen 01:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Return of the Ghostbusters

non-notable fan film that hasn't even been released yet. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, nor is it a place for advertising a film you and your buddies made. IrishGuy ^talk 01:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What does "not a crystal ball" mean? Also, other movies "Promote release" on the site. Matt Mosley 19:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can see that point, honestly. But the film is really only a trailer at the moment--there are other fan films on wikipedia that are nothing but a trailer. Hanksta2 04:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fanstuff. To Hanksta2, if you'd provide links to those films, I'd be more than happy to put them for AfD as well. Danny Lilithborne 06:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP is not a crystal ball. Please see WP:NOTFILM for an idea of what we'd be looking for out a movie article. True, this is only an essay, but we'd be applying the same general concepts in looking at a book, biography, or company. Tychocat 09:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Revelations is on Wiki. This is the Revelations of Ghostbusters Fanfilm, except it won't suck and it's feature length. It should stay up and be allowed it's poster. BojacRedleif 13:41, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Star Wars: Revelations that'd be Revelations. BojacRedleif 13:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Difference is that Revelations was covered by USA Today. It's also a complete film. ColourBurst 14:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Let it come back when/if it's notable. Tonywalton | Talk 14:34, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete if on its release it generates verifiable media interest, then recreate it.--RMHED 14:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete for now. Film has not yet been released, but if it becomes notable I have no problem with article recreation. "It won't suck" is hardly a qualifier at the moment, though. FWIW, however, the original Freddy vs. Ghostbusters has no WP page - I don't know if that's a result of a previous AfD or if it never got made. MikeWazowski 16:41, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't believe a Freddy vs Ghostbusters page was ever made. Although it was definetly notable as it was all over the place, it went so far to be British media. (They called them Canadian Youngsters), Bloody-Disgusting.com even said something around "If you ever took the time to download something, this should be it". It won best film at the MicrocinemaFest in South Dakota. It's also on IMDB and if IMDB actually adds a page for it then it's definetly noteworthy.
  for the record, It will be finished. Hanksta2 was Hank Braxtan who is the director. If you took the time to look at the official page you can cleary see that IT WILL BE FINISHED. Stop with this "If" stuff.
  You know what, I might just make a Freddy vs Ghostbusters page today BojacRedleif 17:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, but not to be protected in the event it is produced. --Dennis The TIger 01:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I tink it shuld b kept cuz it is lik so cool. ROTG>>>>>>YOUR MOVIE ROFLLOSLSSS!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.177.218.206 (talk • contribs)

How do you know if you like an unreleased movie? IrishGuy ^talk 05:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Michael 07:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete This movie may turn out to be a major piece of film history in which case it can have an article, but at the moment this is advertisng pure and simple. BTLizard 09:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Many Ghostbusters fans will welcome this information. WIkipedia is for public information. This is the first time that I knew about these fan-made Ghostbusters continuations. Googling for "Return of the Ghostbusters" got 56600 finds. Anthony Appleyard 16:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

However, the more relevant number is unique hits. As of right now, out of 44,100 returns, I only get 171 unique hits. [3] That's more telling, IMHO. MikeWazowski 06:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is a "unique hit"? Anthony Appleyard 08:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Google is able to detect similar pages and when it displays results that seem to be similar, it automatically hides them. The initial larger number refers to *all* hits, including dynamic pages generated on the fly with potentially duplicate content. The lower number of "unique hits" is the more accurate gauge of how often something is actually referenced on the net. MikeWazowski 14:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. --- Glen 01:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Industry Standard" "What If (album)" "Free Fall (album)" "Night of the Living Dregs"

NN. Delete, and merge. While I respect the notability of the producing band, I don't feel the individual albums are notable enough to warrant their own individual pages, and that short summaries within the main article about The Dregs could achieve the same aim as this article. Other bands, for instance the Beatles, have individual albums well-known enough to be notable on their own, and are widely analyzed by music professionals for content, both musical and lyrical. While I don't insinuate that the Dregs' album is devoid of either of those, I'm doubting there are published, peer-reviewed sources available that provide such information, as a result of the album's non-notability. Shazbot85^Talk 02:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all. The artist is notable, the albums are generally notable. 13k hits on google. Bada beep, betty boop.-Kmaguir1 02:34, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep all per precedents. A merge is also possible but that does not seem to be the current way to do things. In any case deletion is not an option. Pascal.Tesson 13:08, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm not calling this a bad faith nomination, but it is clear that there is no chance of deleting these albums. Erechtheus 21:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How could it be considered a bad faith nomination? I found the original article through the random article tab, it's non notable, so I threw it up for deletion. Shazbot85^Talk 01:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep... you're kidding... right? We have thousands upon thousands of album articles by bands far less notable than The Dixie Dregs. Even if these were deleted now, someone would come around and re-create them eventually. -/- Warren 22:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Of course I'm kidding. Keep the condescension to a minimum and disagree with me civily. Shazbot85^Talk 03:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Never heard of the band, but they do appear prolific and notable. It also appears that the general culture of deprecation of "notability by association" does not apply to albums for some reason. Personally I think as the only 4 with articles these particular albums could stand to be merged as sub-sections into the band article, but I'm not casting a vote in either direction. Cain Mosni 14:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --- Glen 01:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wellstone Communities

Not notable corporation; previous prod removed; started out as a advert, but now is just not very notable. Brianyoumans 02:08, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (as prod'er). Thousands of homebuilders in the US. This is one of them. Fan-1967 02:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I could name a couple local companies that would certainly be NN, like Trend Homes. They run local ads on the cable system here for new Trend Homes subdivisions and Classic Communities lofts (also Trend-owned). Tracker/TTV (myTalk|myWork|myInbox) 04:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:CORP for lacking multiple third-party non-trivial articles very clearly since there are only 47 Ghits for "Wellstone Communities, LLC", of which six are distinct, of which one is a press release and another is an article on the Medical News Today website. The latter is arguably notable, but is clearly based on the press release and fails, by itself, WP:CORP's requirement for multiple articles. I don't believe Google is necessarily the final arbiter of notability, but at 47 Ghits that's pretty symptomatic. Tychocat 09:36, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, small community planner. Nothing in their media section is anything other than pres releases. No other information available. Slightly promotional. Kuru ^talk 04:43, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --- Glen 01:24, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Www.psaresearch.com

Already speedied [4], but recreated. Let's settle the matter here. Non-notable website, fails WP:WEB. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 02:26, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating the following additional similar articles:

--AbsolutDan ^(talk) 02:33, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ---Charles 03:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete spam. Opabinia regalis 03:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete recreated content. Delete the others. Dlyons493 Talk 04:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as recreated content. Resolute 05:03, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without speedy and protect so it can't be recreated. Danny Lilithborne 06:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete recreated. Delete the others.⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 09:31, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and protect to prevent recreation. This is recreated non-notable spam.-- 24.20.69.240 09:26, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. Nigel ^(Talk) 12:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, speedy under WP:CSD G4, protect, and warn recreator with {{recreated|Www.psaresearch.com}} ST47 14:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per Dlyons, Resolute, and Swatjester. —Khoikhoi 22:31, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Pia 23:48, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --- Glen 01:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Darren Kane

He does exist but a contributing editor with a cliamed artcile read on Howard Stern plus a non-existant televison show adds up to non-notable. The original link to "All-Nighter" went to a bus company. A search of MTV shows nothing for "All-Nighter" or Darren Kane and the selling of the show has been in the article since the original edit in 2005. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 02:33, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:BIO - lacks multiple non-trivial articles about him by third parties; no national awards, no evidence of lasting contribution to his field. Appears to be a resume, and WP is not a free webhost. I was at least able to verify his Howard Stern interview, but I got only 58 general Google hits for "darren kane"+"howard stern" which suggests there was little controversy among Stern's fans, particularly as there were only 19 distinct Ghits out of this lot. Speaking of which, somewhere under 900 Google hits for "darren kane" -racing -speedway, mostly xanga, myspace, and other self-entered websites and mirrors. Tychocat 10:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO as explained above. Pascal.Tesson 13:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous.
Such material is not meant to be taken seriously.

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

The result was Speedy Keep (bad faith nomination). --Ter e nce Ong _{(T | C)} 02:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Earth

I've waited many months for this: my very first AfD nomination! I'm really excited to be able to do the honor of starting it, and I hope all bodes well.

Earth is nothing special and we should all know it! --PeterJohn2 02:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep and close as incredibly pathetic lame joke. Fan-1967 02:49, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as the very model of a modern bad-faith nomination. I've waited just as long to be able to say that. BigHaz 02:50, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --- Glen 04:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dead Men's Hollow

Non-noatble per WP:MUSIC -Nv8200p talk 02:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Sounds like something I'd like - might check out their album - but, fundamentally, a good local bluegrass/trad band that doesn't play out of its area much. If they toured around the country a bit, I'd change my vote. --Brianyoumans 05:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep they are not mainstream and it was obviously a creation of a member but with some clean up it could be a good artilce. NeoFreak 06:33, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:Music. If they were notable enough, someone significant would have written about them ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 08:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Amazon sales ranking of their CD is somewhere about 295,000th, no evidence of charting, no national tours. They've won a local award, but needs more for WP:MUSIC, in particular, multiple non-trivial articles by third parties. Only 790 Ghits, mainly music directories. Being mainstream has nothing to do with notability. Tychocat 10:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. fails WP:Music. TerriersFan 02:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --- Glen 04:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Yellow

Contested prod about a non-notable character in a non-notable TV show. MER-C 03:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It states it in the article: NN. Tracker/TTV (myTalk|myWork|myInbox) 05:33, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:FICT. Wikipedia doesn't even have an article about the show. --Metropolitan90 06:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um, it does, but thankfully it's been prod'd. Tychocat 10:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, my reason for deletion is that the show is unverifiable, as the show is not listed in the Internet Movie Database, nor is the actor who plays this character, and I can't find any relevant Google hits. --Metropolitan90 15:34, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Tychocat 10:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - why do folks feel the need for an article on every character in a show when putting it all in the main article does a better job? TerriersFan 02:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was flagged as copyvio. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 11:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pritam Sadaphule

Blatant spam, contested prod. MER-C 03:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Any article that uses the word "We" that many times is automatic. No indication they come even close to WP:CORP to make it worth rewriting as a genuine article. Fan-1967 03:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Fan, also that can't be the title of a company, it has the be the name of the person involved in writing this article, not that that matters --- Deville (Talk) 04:03, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Original version of the article ([5]) was a personal résumé. After removing the Prod, he changed it to be look like a company, but gave no company name or contact information ;-) Fan-1967 04:06, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all Dlyons493 Talk 04:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete die spam die. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 08:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --- Glen 04:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PFTB

Only some fringe sources, like answers.com, not much else indicating notability to any substantial degree, lots of confusion with an obscure chemistry term, looks like Wikipedia could do without it, or have it merged into else. Kmaguir1 03:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

answers.com is a Wikipedia mirror. And this article is unverifiable. It cites no sources, and a search for sources turns up nothing. The obscure chemistry term is perfluoro-t-butanol. Delete. Uncle G 03:52, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. I don't think this is a hoax, but the label Line Out Records doesn't list anything like PFTB, nor does the OVNI website, which goes to WP:V. Allmusic was uncharacteristically baffled. Fails WP:MUSIC in any case, lacking any multiple third-party non-trivial articles. Tychocat 10:34, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Tychocat. Zaxem 02:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above. GumbyProf: "I'm about ideas, but I'm not always about good ideas." 19:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --- Glen 04:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lake Owego Camp for Boys

Another nn camp in my general area. I can't see how notability could be asserted. Daniel Case 03:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ---Charles 04:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable camp. --Ter e nce Ong _{(T | C)} 04:34, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm assuming that summer children's camps are not usually considered notable, and if this is so, this one seems to be no different from hundereds of others. Herostratus 05:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think most camps are generally notable in the same way schools are, but this one reads like an advertisement. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 08:49, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. —Khoikhoi 22:31, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and consistent with Hero's proposition that childern's summer camps are generally non-notable, toward which one may consider, inter al., the reasoning of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Camp Wachusett. Joe 00:30, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This camp appears to be a private business as it was "created by the Black family", so WP:CORP applies. There is no assertion or evidence of meeting WP:CORP in the article. GRBerry 01:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'd imagine that most summer camps are private businesses, but so too are some for-profit schools (and, for that matter, bands), and so, in situations such as this, I'd suggest that a camp could fail WP:CORP and nevertheless be notable in view of other characteristics (similar to those for which we'd think a group to be notable), although I can't conceive of what any of those characteristics might be (in view of camps' being generally non-notable); in any event, I don't suppose the distinction matters vis-à-vis this AfD. Joe 03:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --- Glen 04:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of world's tallest women

Unnessarry, violates WP:OR and WP:V, the list looks like very incomplete, how can someone tell the height of every woman listed, Delete-- Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 03:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LC delete per nom and WP:OR and WP:V items. Tracker/TTV (myTalk|myWork|myInbox) 04:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, listcruft, WP:V. --Ter e nce Ong _{(T | C)} 04:34, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Lists like these have been in reference books. That said it needs to be verified as well as possible and possibly renamed to something like "List of women deemed to be among the world's tallest" or some such.(Unless there is now a Wiki-Almanac where lists go)--T. Anthony 05:08, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I was confusing this with the List of famous tall women--T. Anthony 05:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge minus red links as List of tall women. Gazpacho 05:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator and T. Anthony --Hús ö nd 17:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. NeoFreak 00:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Arbusto 21:31, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 17:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. --- Glen 01:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amafanius

About 127 hits on google, mostly just in lists, there's little else verifiable about this dude, this is the outcome of history: the best arguers write it. He's in one category, but so little is sourced or linked--it just seems like this history stub is not a relevant one for wikipedia. -Kmaguir1 03:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, 127 Ghits isn't much for someone with a Myspace page, but for someone dead > 2000 years? Any writer named by Cicero reaches the bar, IFAIAC --- Deville (Talk) 04:06, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Google isn't really an appropriate criterion for Roman philosophers. He gets mentioned in Cicero and Montaigne - not bad for an old dude! Dlyons493 Talk 04:08, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- But mentioned in Cicero only to reject categorically his system...-Kmaguir1 04:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The argument that anyone mentioned by Cicero deserves an article doesn't sway me. wikipediatrix 04:20, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Wow, a Roman writer. I'm so used to seeing minor characters in Codename:Kids Next Door and whatnot that this makes head spin. Let's keep a few Roman writers around with the Pokeman characters and such. Herostratus 05:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- But wait a second, the Pokemon characters, a lot is known about them. Here, Amafanius is as much of a victim of history as anything--that's not our fault. And again, there is no sourcing that says we have any of his works, that I've read--so we have, essentially, a name. And that's just it--nothing we can attribute to the name, not his works, not his life characterized in other works, nothing. Mention in Cicero and Montaigne is not sufficient--this is a classic case of the difference between use and mention--in fact, Cicero draws this distinction clearly in that he mentions Amafanius, about whom we apparently know nothing, either biographically, or historically (if we do, it's not on the net, and hasn't been sourced outside of it), but again, Cicero doesn't want to do Amafanius' thing--according to the article itself, the mention in Cicero is to briefly say what Cicero does NOT want to do, and thus, he doesn't USE him. While he may have been someone, all we know about him is that he existed and Cicero and Montaigne mentioned him, Cicero not agreeing with him. That does not notability make. What this is essentially is list-pushing; it's trying to accompile a list when not all members of the list are notable. History is what makes Amafanius not notable, not us, and not him. That's the judgment you should make--that we can't control history, and also, we should avoid considerations that Roman philosophers are somehow more significant than Pokemon characters. Significance is not a test--verifiability, notability, these are tests, and what we have for history of Amafanius flunks both.-Kmaguir1 07:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - For Cicero's evaluation of Amafanius's importance see the book Cicero’s Social and Political Thought by Neal Wood. Dlyons493 Talk 11:40, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per failing WP:BIO. I see no need to invent new policy or guidelines when the existing ones work. Subject lacks multiple non-trivial articles by third parties, no evidence of lasting contribution to his field (and we have historical hindsight to show this), no awards, his works haven't been adopted for movies or as textbooks. I am amused that someone is impressed by the fact he's a Roman writer. Yeah, wow, but that's not WP:NOT or WP:BIO. Tychocat 10:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all classical authors, even those only mentioned by others. If Cicero considered him significant enough to censure him, and others have mentioned him while citing or discussing Cicero, I think that is enough. Everything in Smith's Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology should be included in Wikipedia. The number of Google web hits is a irrelevant deletion argument for anything but modern, Western culture, sports etc. – I don't know how many times this needs to be pointed out – and he gets 433 hits on Google Books. up+l+and 11:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are historical reasons why Epicureans don't get as many google hits as follows of Plato (and not just that the bloggers aren't that into them this year) and that not as much is generally known about them. The fact that some ancient authors aren't as "notable" as others is an outcome of centuries of debate, with some thinkers being pushed forward and others left behind, all of which was heavily influenced by Christianity. That doesn't mean they weren't influential to their contemporaries. A classical Roman scholar, whose name and a bit of bio has survived the centuries is notable, even if only for that. I don't believe that WP:BIO exists to dumb down wikipedia, but rather to prevent folks from writing about themselves, their neighbors or their brother's band. I essentially agree with Kmaguir1's statement to the effect that the best arguers write history, but I don't like the implications. Should we just start purging wikipedia of all women and non-western men before the 19th century right now? Substantially less is verifiable via our methods about many of them as well. Dina 13:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:BIO also ensures that Wikipedia does not become a genealogical database of dead people. Historical figures that have been the subjects of multiple non-trivial published works independent of those figures themselves, i.e. that have been written about by historians, satisfy the WP:BIO criteria. Uncle G 18:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Subject" is disengenous. Billy Graham's "My Life" has one subject, a principal subject. To be a subject here indicates mention, and not use, as I explained above, and that mention is brief, and not notable. In fact, I don't see anything on the page, nor was I able to find much, about what historians have written about him. Cicero and Montaigne have mentioned him, not used him. That doesn't make him notable. If George W. Bush mentions a yu-gi-oh price guide, does that fact weigh in determining its notability? No. Powerful people, notable philosophers, mentioning, as opposed to using, is a weaker notability standard.-Kmaguir1 21:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I know of nothing in WP:BIO that makes an exception for the "If he's ancient, he must be notable" argument. wikipediatrix 14:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Well, I'd argue that perhaps there should be. There is one exception quoted at the top of the guideline ie. This is not intended to be an exclusionary list; just because someone doesn't fall into one of these categories doesn't mean an article on the person should automatically be deleted. I believe a lot of the editors are making the argument here that ancient scholars are an example of that more general exception. I think it's worth noting that most of the criteria on WP:BIO would not really apply to any Presocratic scholar. The only one that does is The person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field. "widely recognized" is what's at issue here and the discussion seems to me to be whether any ancient scholar other than the big names could fulfill that criterion. Thales, Anaximander and Anaximenes aren't exactly household names either -- and we don't even know when Thales lived, and Anaximander's thought survives only in fragments and references in other people's work . However if you stop by at the first lecture of any intro western philosophy class, you'll be hearing as much about them as it's possible to know. It's specialist knowledge and infinitely encyclopedic in my view. Dina 14:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Just to clarify my point on reread, I'm not suggesting that Epicureans were Presocratic (cause they weren't) but using the Presocratics as an example of ancient writers about which very little can ever be known. Anaximander just came to mind as a good example. Cheers Dina 14:56, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But if I want to know about Anaximander or Anaximedes, I can pick up Plato and role with it, or even Heidegger, for that matter. The Presocratics are all eminently notable, without question. Here we have a figure who was mentioned by just one guy, and seems to have little historical significance, like the Presocratics did--you know, the beginning of Western philosophy, all that important stuff. But the Presocratics wouldn't be notable without Socrates, and so forth. So the fact that Cicero names this guy, this isn't an antecedent of importance like the Presocratics. Hundred of other philosophers held these claims, and here's the big problem: it's his membership on a list that gets him onto Wikipedia to again be in a list. Two lists does not a notable bio subject make.-Kmaguir1 21:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep To understand the mindset of the Republican circles in Rome one must understand their repugnance for the new ideas coming from Greece, ideas such as those popularised by Amafanius/Amafinius and Rabirius. They really are the philosophical precursors of the bread and circuses tyrannies of the Caesers. Cicero even claims that Amafinius was the first to write in about Epicureanism in Latin (although he may have been wrong). He may not have appeared on the Simpsons but he is definately notable. JASpencer 14:53, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Good point. The fact that we know so little about some ancient writers is the result of an historical debate that is, in itself, eminently notable. The very foundations of our way of thinking -- at work in even the way we frame our arguments right here, are the result of these ancient controveries. If that ain't notable, I don't know what is. Dina 15:08, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It fails criteria for WP:BIO. It does't have any third party commentary, etc. (per Tychocat) Hello32020 16:05, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep obviously. This writer has an article in an encyclopedic work, Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology, and there's no reason why this information shouldn't be included on Wikipedia. Suppose someone reads Cicero and comes across this name, and wants to find who that is by looking him up on Wikipedia. The current article then would give all information that is available, and Wikipedia has done its duty. If, however, there's nothing at all on Amafanius on Wikipedia, then Wikipedia would simply appear a deficient resource. Even short articles can be important, and I don't think the article as it stand now is a stub. (And by the way, the nominator's argument about few google hits is absolutely out of place when applied to a Roman philosopher.) Ekjon Lok 16:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Cicero is a third party, as is the Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology. They are both verifiable. Thus, the article's subject more than passes WP:BIO. The Google test - as WP:NOTABILITY points out - can be problematic with historical subjects and in this case is very near moot. Crystallina 16:31, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per all above. Cicero's remark is third party commentary. - Smerdis of Tlön 17:35, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Uppland and others. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Was he notable? Cicero thought so; even if he only brought him up in order to refute and reject him, that means he must have thought he was worth refuting - you don't do that to people who are non-notable. Obviously it's unfortunate that his work didn't come down to us, but we can say what we do know - that at one point, his philosophy was engaged by one of the greatest orators of Rome. He has third party commentary by reliable sources. That tells us he matters enough to get an entry. --Mnem e son 21:50, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep of course, multiple third-party refs exist as required by WP:BIO, the fact they aren't included in the article is a cleanup issue not an AFD one. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per JASpencer and Uppland. Pia 23:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong KEEP. The fact that this was brought up for proposed deletion but Yu-Gi-Oh (which I never heard of until today) is well-entrenched is a sad indictment of the state of our society and of society's intellectual priorities. —ExplorerCDT 03:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Might find the time tonight to add to this article and make it worthwhile, as above, this is a cleanup issue, not an AfD matter.—ExplorerCDT 03:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: It is also a sad indictment of the state of our society and of society's intellectual priorities when people use Google count as the final measure of all and everything. Gabriel Knight 16:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Amafanius seem to be a legitimate subject for a Wikipedia article - it just needs to be written, that's all. BTLizard 09:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. But only if there's more information out there other than "He was mentioned by Cicero". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frenchman113 (talk • contribs)

Comment, I expanded the page with details about what Cicero had to say about him. Beyond this, there doesn't seem to be much preserved of him. - Smerdis of Tlön 20:41, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the general sentiment of just about everybody and an extra dose of the "we need more articles on subjects outside of very recent pop culture" sentiment. Sandstein 17:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Sandstein and Dina. GumbyProf: "I'm about ideas, but I'm not always about good ideas." 19:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy redirect Deville (Talk) 04:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reem Kalani

Non-notable Palestinian folk singer, whose "impressive" Google hits come up mainly as Wikipedia and its mirrors. CFIF ☎ 03:25, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but not for notability reasons. This is a misspelled title, and the singer is much more famous transliterated from Arabic as Reem Kelani (the article of which is admittedly a stub, but a much longer one). BigHaz 03:37, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gah, redirect is what I meant. Thanks to those who read between the lines. BigHaz 03:56, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So change it. Ryūlóng 04:06, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Redirect per BigHaz; no need to delete a misspelling. Ryūlóng 03:41, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Redirect per BigHaz. --My old username 03:53, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --- Glen 04:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Snook, It's a big big World

Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) says major characters should be covered within the article on the work of fiction unless the description is particularly long. This character already is covered in It's a Big Big World, there isn't much on him there, and it's a children's TV show. Galaxiaad 03:25, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, there is more on Snook in the TV show's page than in this one, as per nom WP:NOTE is clear on this --- Deville (Talk) 04:08, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom and Deville. Zaxem 02:32, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --- Glen 04:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Masi

was tagged speedy and then removed, but there is an assertion of notability, so not really speedy. I would definitely say not-notable in any case. Deville (Talk) 03:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:MUSIC. Cute trick here, though, putting a link to Band behind all the band names that would otherwise be redlinked. If the bands all showed the redlinks, it would be a lot more obvious. Fan-1967 03:49, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I just sort of figured that this was unintentional and that the original author wasn't completely familiar with our Markup, but you make a good point...:) --- Deville (Talk) 04:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:MUSIC. Also note that User:Edmundt and User:Artistpost seem to have created their accounts for no other purpose than for this article, and that both their userpages are mirrors of this article. wikipediatrix 04:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per wikipediatrix --Ageo020 19:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Zaxem 02:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --- Glen 04:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BuySell Home Price Index

Referred from prod. Suggest either delete as advertising or merge with BuySell Real Estate, which appears to have originated the index. Delete both is an option for the deletionists. :-) theProject 03:48, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It's a privately produced index of real estate prices... in Cyprus. It might be worth mentioning in an article on the economy of Cyprus, if there are no other such indices available. --Brianyoumans 04:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The very title of the article is a copyright violation (from the article: "The BuySell Home Price Index™..."). That's enough for me. Herostratus 05:05, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per all Dlyons493 Talk 11:56, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per all Nigel ^(Talk) 12:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Zaxem 02:30, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete - BuySell Home Price Index is a valid real estate index produced and announced by BuySell Real Estate in the country of Cyprus. It is the only real estate Index in Cyprus and it is widely used and respected in Cyprus by private financial institutions and even by the Government as per EU requirements. The Index was developed by Economist Dr. Stelios Platis and his team at a local University. All the research is available for your information. Demetrdc 11:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --- Glen 04:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WWE Superstars Debut

WP is not an indiscriminate list of information, this is a odd list that is just cruft and will be hard to maintain. The individual wrestler's pages can provide this info if needed. Renosecond 03:49, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete TJ Spyke 04:08, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:LC delete Tracker/TTV (myTalk|myWork|myInbox) 04:27, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This has got to be very incomplete, it was created on June 16 and not worked on since then. Not useful. Herostratus 04:53, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hybrid 09:03, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not even sure what this list is about.--Darren Jowalsen 23:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Zaxem 02:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, incomplete and difficult to check facts. McPhail 21:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Oakster ^(Talk) 17:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --- Glen 04:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Rohloff

non-notable author of a couple vanity press books Akradecki 04:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

afterthought note: if/when this is deleted, would the closing admin also please close the redirect page Robert rohloff? Thanks. Akradecki 04:39, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not appear to meet requirements of WP:BIO. Absolutely no sources provided, so fails WP:V. --Satori Son 04:27, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 11:55, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Zaxem 02:28, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge. --- Deville (Talk) 01:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Rachel Stevens awards

Listcruft, summarized version should be merged into Rachel Stevens. Tracker/TTV (myTalk|myWork|myInbox) 04:26, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, listcruft. --Ter e nce Ong _{(T | C)} 04:33, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Rachel Stevens. Don't delete the material. Herostratus 04:48, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Herostratus. Other musicians have their awards listed on their pages. BigHaz 05:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per BigHaz. NeoFreak 06:36, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Neilajh 23:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per everyone else. --Cloth Ears 14:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. --- Glen 05:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shadowclan

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

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

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

this is all original research. not a single source or reference. why??!!?? Metspadres 04:48, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious Keep AfD is not a way to go about finding sources for articles. An AfD has already been done and the consensus and ruling was to keep. The clan is notable and lack of sources is not grounds for deletion. I suggest you retract your nomination. You can go about noting lack of resources in other avenues, which are actually the correct way to go about it. This is faulty. Shazbot85^Talk 04:55, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. The article is a little over-laudatory... I doubt the word 'revolutionized' is appropriate, and it doesn't really explain what Shadowclan really is all that well--but it is certain notable, per the sources, and shazbot. Do not suggest, however, pointedly, a speedy keep.-Kmaguir1 05:00, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There're enough links in the article to show that the entity exists, that it is popular (active forum), and that is has at least a bit of notability, although much of the text in the article is unproven and a bit over the top. Herostratus 05:02, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You mean, the word "revolutionized"?... that one struck me as off base.-Kmaguir1 05:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right. I mean, feel free to edit the article and take that out. But that doesn't mean the article itself should be destroyed. I mean, I don't know if they're notable, not being invokved in that mileu, but their forum is big anyway. Herostratus 05:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It appears the only support this nominator has for deletion is lack of sources. If you want to see about citing sources, I suggest the user refer to the citation page to go about that. I urge the nominator and everyone else to kindly refer to the deletion guidelines, particularly the "Renominations and recurring candidates" section. There, re-nominators are warned to be careful. Now, if you'll kindly refer to the "Problems that may require deletion" section, you'll see his nomination reason falls nowhere in there. I believe the re-nominating editor was brash in his nomination of this page, due to his new user status (refer to his contrib's page and note he has few contribs). I reiterate that this should be pursued in the proper manner, through WP:Cite. I urge the nominator to withdraw his claim, post-hast. Best Regards, Shazbot85^Talk 05:21, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We've already been through all of this and the reasons cited to go through it again aren't sufficient. Bagginator 05:49, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KeepThis article was already nominated for deletion once and the result of the discussion was "keep". There are many sources of information and references linked at the bottom of the page; If you are upset about not having an in-text citation I am sure that can be corrected. If you cannot provide sufficient proof that this article somehow violates Wikipedia's policies then I suggest this nomination for deletion be removed. Khasha'an 16:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article has already once proven itself in previous deletion debates. If you have offense to some of the wording in the article, simply comment that you wish it to be changed, do not nominate it for deletion. This article does not violate any policies, and is properly sourced and has been proven notable once before. I also suggest that this nomination for deletion be removed. Zinian 14:48, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article was already discussed and proven to be notable. In agreement with others, this nomination for deletion should be removed as violation of the policies for deletion. Fishermen1 16:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete just a guild plain a simple and we don't allow guilds or clans on wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lenapeco911 (talk • contribs) 22:39, 4 September 2006.

Comment Annonymous votes aren't even considered from my understanding so it's wise for you to sign your comments. You also need to provide a reason, that actually contains substance for your vote, not simply a "me too" comment, devoid of anything pertinent or rational. Note to all The user posting the above vote is also someone who has repeatedly tried to add his advertisement link to the Shadowclan page, and everytime it has been removed. He has been warned twice informally and once formally now for this behavior, and the barring of his website brings his sudden intrest in this AfD to question as far as I am concerned. Seems vindictive at least. Regards, Shazbot85^Talk 01:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Further Comment It appears the voter in question has made an admission of association with a rival guild of Shadowclans' that existed on a different server. Their guildpage apparently got deleted because they were not notable in the fashion that this guild is, and it seems like this jealousy issue is a possible fuel, either primary, secondary, or tertiary, to his baseless vote on this page. See User talk:Lenapeco911 for the exchange. Regards, Shazbot85^Talk 02:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The author of this single dissenting vote, User:Lenapeco911, is in fact the author of the Bloodclan Wikipedia page. His guildpage is up for deletion for non notability. I question his motives for his vote. Bloodclan was similar to Shadowclan in that they inhabited the same server as the one Shadowclan started on, and they also roleplayed orcs. However, Bloodclan never reached notoriety that even came close to rivaling Shadowclan from game developers and the like, which is why I can see the article being deleted and the Shadowclan one kept. I hope there is a way to circumvent his voice in this discussion being that it is biased. Regards to all, Shazbot85^Talk 05:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would prefer it if the entry for Shadowclan and/or Bloodclan not cause Wikipedia to become a battle-ground for these two groups. The point is, Shdadowclan has more hard evidence and sources than the other, and that is why it should be kept and the other deleted, regardless of who came first or whatever else they want to argue about. This online encyclopedia is a place to get information, not where two clans can squabble over notoriety. Zinian 05:39, 5 September

All these keeps are Shadowclan members http://www.shadowclan.org/darkmoot/viewtopic.php?t=37944&start=0 they posted on their game forum to get guild members to support this online guild. The fact is there is other guilds who even have more sources and fame and are deleted daily. Shadowclan should not get a pass. --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lenapeco911 (talk • contribs) .

It's often etiquette to warn the page's author(s) that their article is up for deletion. I don't see how this is relevant to the non-existant claim that this article should be deleted. I'm still waiting on a claim to refute or some shred of evidence to be presented. Shazbot85^Talk 04:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shazbot are you a moderater here?

Keep - This discussion is very interesting and all, and I probably would have chosen Delete in the first nomination had I participated in it (it is difficult to imagine a situation in which a computer game group has the kind of notability for Wikipedia). However, the article survived a notability AfD nomination fair and square, and this current nomination is not based valid criteria—there exists a tag for unsourced articles. Simoes 17:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - While im not voting on notability, I do take it with a grain of salt. First redirecting people from the clan homepage to the wikipedia AFD as it has happened here is not a nice thing, and might have moved the tides of the first Afd as well, Also take e.g. the "Victory!" section on User:Shazbot85, considering this to be a kind of fight-game ... note as far I have seen shadowclan got already deleted twice bevore, but now they semm to have got their way (so this is actually the 4th nomination). And second this might open a pandara box, as then every clan wants to get a page... then they post two interviews upon some side with a headsperson and thats it, they are notable. Not that every game has its own fan site, and yes most likely will post interviews to some clans on that game.. tada a big can of worms umms clans is open, that take their childish fights now on wikipedia. --Jestix
Comment Alerted the writers that the article was up for deletion, and you misinterpret "Victory" to fit your own uses. Anything else you want to take out of context Jistix? Shazbot85^Talk 20:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CommentI interpret "Victory" as the end of "game", and I honestly don't like that notion of "game". --Jestix 20:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Or as one ideal prevailing over another. That idea and thos who hold it are the prevailers, or the "victors". I suggest you think a little bit more before you talk and be a little more NPOV. As it is, you seem to see things the way you want to see them and you assume bad faith on a consistant basis. Perhaps it's time to cool off or take a wikibreak? Best regards, Shazbot85^Talk 20:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The arguments for and against deletion have been well made in the previous discussion of the topic. In that discussion, the consensus decision was that Shadowclan is notable. The criteria have not changed since then. To reiterate, this article does not exist because Shadowclan is a gaming guild. Gaming guilds, as a general rule, are rightfully not notable. Even though Shadowclan was the largest guild ever in Ultima Online (UO) - the first major massively multiplayer game (MMORPG) - that does not make it notable. Neither does the fact that it was the largest guild in Dark Age of Camelot. Size does not make a guild notable. What is notable is what was done for the very first time. That action -- that creation -- was named Shadowclan. The fact that Shadowclan is a gaming guild is irrelevant to its notoriety. It is the action that is notable, and the results of these actions that made it notable. There are at least two highly notable aspects to this action. Both have been recognized by key developers of the MMORPG genre and the MMORPG media, and these have influenced the design of several MMORPGs, and influenced how many people play MMORPGs. In fact, many derivative efforts based on Shadowclan have been spawned. The first notable aspect is that an organized highly successful effort was made for the first time ever to take the place of the artificial-intelligence-controlled monsters in a major MMORPG by having people roleplay these monsters. This took Ultima Online in a direction unanticipated by its creators, yet recognized and supported by the creators, even to the extent of creating special servers that better supported this type of gameplay (Siege Perious). The second notable aspect is that a large vibrant virtual online collective-oriented roleplayed community was created. This community was active 24 hours a day, every day, for years. As MMORPGS will continue to grow and develop (World of Warcraft for example has over 6 million players), they may become in many ways more like real life. As this happens, strong Shadowclan-type organized communities will likely become more common. Perhaps even they will begin to rival the size, activity, and economies of small countries. The origin of this can be traced back to the orc community in Ultima Online known as Shadowclan. One could also argue that Shadowclan is notable as being the first and largest Tolkein-style Orc-based community effort, even integrating Tolkein’s Black Speech into the language. Most people familiar with the history of MMORPGs have heard a great deal about Shadowclan and many probably also understand its influence. This article is for those seeking to become better educated about an aspect of the history of this increasingly significant development of the internet era - online worlds and the resulting virtual communities. Berog 05:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --- Glen 05:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

.me

WP:OR, and erroneous. There is no factual basis for the article. It is mere speculation with no citations --kjd 04:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for crystal balling. I'm no expert, but the article itself almost seems to imply that there's another TLD they could easily use. BigHaz 05:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until it's formally established. Herostratus 05:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's no use for this article
Delete as speculation. --Metropolitan90 06:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:OR and WP:NOT a crystal ball. (|-- UlTiMuS 10:18, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete —Khoikhoi 22:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per BigHaz. Hohohob 01:32, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Note, it sounds more like a weak attempt at DNS humor. --Dennis The TIger 01:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless there's proof that this ccTLD is actually "reserved" as it says in the article. Otherwise, this article is just guessing that there may (or may not) be this ccTLD eventually, and there's no information whatsoever on who's going to run it. Welcome back when the country code is in ISO, at least. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 11:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
strong Deleteper nom - Blood red sandman 14:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If you only know to read references in English, please consider that there are other languages, too. ("At the meeting of August 24th 2006. Government of Montenegro accepted two letters (ME) and three letters code (MNE) for Montenegro. Technical administration of .ME ___domain is delegated to the Agency for development. Source: http://www.internodium.org/node/2683") --millosh (talk (sr:)) 15:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The vast majority of net business is done in English as a standard, mostly by handshake agreement. Besides, this is also the English language Wikipedia. Further, and as wwwwolf states, there needs to be evidence of a ccTLD reservation. You've turned up nothing other than a URL to an article in Cyrillic. --Dennis The TIger 15:55, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
1. All relevant encyclopedias accepts references in other languages. If you think that English Wikipedia shouldn't do so, I think that you are at least someone who is not relevant to contribute to one encyclopedia. Besides that, such claim is xenophobic. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 16:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. You showed that you don't know to make a difference between Cyrillic and Latin alphabet. And you are using Latin alphabet. Source is written in Latin alphabet. (Also, I made a mistake about the first link; it is non-existant; correct link is http://www.rsr.cg.yu (not http://www.rsr.cg.GOV.yu). And you couldn't se a Cyrillic alphabet there, too.) --millosh (talk (sr:)) 16:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. I have a current event news and I added it into the relevant articles. Saying that this is about crystal ball is extremely rude if you are not introduced in such issues. The only relevant comment here gave Herostratus. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 16:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I proposed this deletion is I work for the IANA, and am involved in the deliberations of the ISO 3166 Maintenance Agency, and know for a fact that evaluations are still ongoing. The Government of Montenegro doesn't decide either what the code is, or who runs the TLD should it come to fruition. The fact is it is crystal balling to say otherwise. For ".me" to be a TLD it needs to be decided by both ISO 3166 MA (comprised of ten organisations) and IANA itself, and if that reference says otherwise it is incorrect. --kjd 23:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm... My translation was not so good: The original news say that Montenegro government at August 24th accepted ISO proposal for two and three letters codes. So, ISO proposed and Montenegro government accepted. If agreement about two letters code with ISO doesn't mean that it would be an Internet ___domain, then this article should be deleted. Otherwise, it should be kept. Information is based on Montenegro pro-government newspaper Vijesti. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 00:34, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Yes, this is wikipedia in english language, and it should not provide to its users speculative or original research articles, but Wikipedia has also two ground rules:

to be free enyclopedia (anybody can edit it - users who know languages other than English can add content which is not easy accessible to others, meaning users who know only english language) (Wikipedia:Five pillars - 3rd pillar)
Wikipedia does not have firm rules - (Wikipedia:Five pillars - 5th pillar) as such, wikipedia is following popular culture and is more often more accurate to reality than Britannica or other sources of information

And yes, as of today .me TL ___domain doesn't exist, but as I am informed (as Internet user since 1994.) if every island with some degree of independance has its own TLD, Montenegro as a new state has the full right to get it. And fact (reason) that new ___domain is not already here is only of IANA (or Montenegro state request to IANA) procedure. SpeedyGonsales 16:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As I see, some steps are done: (1) Montenegro asked ISO; (2) ISO said proposal; (3) Montenegro government decided to accept proposal; and some are not done: (4) Montenegro didn't send a letter to ISO (or ISO didn't get letter yet); (5) ISO didn't announced that it is done (but, if both sides agreed there I don't see any reason why not to announce it in the near future); (6) Montenegro didn't send a letter to IANA (or IANA didn't get letter yet); (7) IANA didn't accepted ISO proposal, but as the article about two letters ISO codes say, the main purpose of those letters is usage for ccTLDs. (Yes, of course, I know that it can be different, but different ccTLD and ISO TLC is an exception, not the rule.) (8) IANA didn't send a letter with acception to Montenegro; (9) Montenegro didn't say "yes, we agree" about something which is ageed; (10) Montenegro didn't send a letter to IANA with it's agreement; (11) IANA didn't list that as a ccTLD. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 20:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The steps listed here have very little correlation to reality, which again reinforces this is WP:OR and should be removed until such time the appropriate authorities make a determination. (More than one code has been under consideration by ISO 3166 MA, not just "ME") --kjd 20:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, if Wikipedia may have the article 2024 Summer Olympics, I see no reason to delete this article which would be a formal fact in a couple of months. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 20:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is little contention that there will be olympics every 4 years, however the new codes used for Serbia and Montenegro are not determined. Whether ISO has been doing consultations with the Government of Montenegro on possibilities is not germane. --kjd 20:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you have informations from ISO, please, let me know is the claim of Montenegrin government truth or not (as I said, they claim that they accepted ISO proposal for the codes). I am not saying that it is not possible that they badly understud ISO proposal. At least, if claim of Montenegrin government is correct, ISO sent some proposal to them. So, do you know anything about that proposal? --millosh (talk (sr:)) 00:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no reason to suspect it is not true, although I suspect it is a consultation by the secretariat to see how they feel about the code, and doesn't symbolise ratification. Other codes have been under consideration also. --kjd 01:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Following the rules for naming the country top level domains, it is absolutely obvious that alpha-2 code will also be the top level ___domain for Montenegro--Vitriden 00:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to Montenegro. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - if Montenegro gets .me it will be recreated in any case, if not it will be deleted. All the other top level domains have articles and this one does contain some encyclopaedic material. TerriersFan 03:07, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --- Glen 01:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RAW episodes from 2001

WP:LC, WP:NOT. Sss666 05:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. NeoFreak 06:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hybrid 09:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as is. This could be useful in the future if those weren't all red links, however. VegaDark 11:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Final Fantasy X-3

WP:NOT, nn game.--Sss666 05:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the game is notable but the article is in desperate need of attention form FinalFantasy editors. NeoFreak 06:40, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. There is no Final Fantasy X-3 and no such game has ever been announced or even hinted at by Square Enix. TJ Spyke 07:39, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. TJ Spyke 07:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Wikipedia is not a rumor site. Havok (T/C/c) 08:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a classic crystal ball situation. Disagree with nominator - the game would be notable, it just doesn't necessarily exist, and there's no sign that it does. Kill it, don't give it a phoenix down. Captainktainer * Talk 08:40, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete hoax ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 08:50, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Delete: unless sources show up, this is WP:OR. (|-- UlTiMuS 10:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, though I don't feel like speedying it. I assume good faith. - Richardcavell 10:49, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced. Can be recreated if this is ever confirmed. VegaDark 11:03, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as hoax. However if sources do come up after deletion, I wont oppose its recreation. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 12:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete "Rumoured to be in development" means it doesn't exist. BTLizard 12:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. To all the speedy deleters, there's no speedy deletion criteria for hoaxes. ColourBurst 15:21, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentActually, a hoax would be eligible for speedy deletion under the "Pure Vandalism" rule CSD G3, the vanity rule CSD A7. See bottom of the CSD page "Hoaxes: Articles that present unverifiable and probably false ideas, theories, or subjects. Occasionally these can be deleted as vandalism if the article is obviously ridiculous, but remotely plausible articles should be subjected to further scrutiny in a wider forum."
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Svde 16:56, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This page should not exist until another site at least hints at a rumour of this game's existance. --Benjaminx 18:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The only possible hint to this game comes from [IGN]. I doubt the credibility of the article, though, because news such as that would definately have been jumped on by multiple sources. Kopf1988 00:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Dennis The TIger 01:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as hoax. No sources, no evidence, no reason to exist. Daveydweeb (^chat/_patch) 03:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sourced speculation and "possible hints" that the game is in works should be mentioned in any of the existing articles (X or X-2 articles, perhaps). There's no reason to go for an article yet - if Squenix goes forth and says "yes, X-3 is in works" and there's something more besides that, too, then an article, but not before. Right now, the article is in a sad state and will not improve unless there's actual substance to the claims. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 12:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. Final Fantasy X has only one sequel, and no more have been announced. If it's being made by someone other than Square, then it should still be deleted as non-notable.--Frenchman113 on wheels! 15:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia ain't a crystal ball. --Ixfd64 19:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Burn it with fiar! Seriously, as interesting as it might be, no crystal balls. Axem Titanium 01:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above comments. RFerreira 19:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm a big fan of the Final Fantasy series and I never heard of any such rumor. --Pinkkeith 23:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --- Glen 01:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Young Unity

nn NPO--Sss666 05:20, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Unity Party. Flying Jazz 00:43, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Unity Party. If you look at their event page, we just missed the Basketball Night... next event with a date is the Xmas party. Not real active. --Brianyoumans 08:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete G1 -- Samir धर्म 05:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit this page!

WP:V, WP:OR.--Sss666 05:21, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete; and I have tagged it as such. Ryūlóng 05:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

G-Corporation

nn fictional company--Sss666 05:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why should it be deleted? - The 4th Snake
- Per Wikipedia:Notability (fiction), "Major and notable minor characters (and places, concepts, etc.) in a work of fiction should be covered within the article on that work of fiction. If an encyclopedic treatment of such a character causes the article on the work itself to become long, then that character can be given a separate article." Under that guideline, there's no reason for a one-line stub on a minor character or place, or in this case, company. Delete. Fan-1967 15:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Also per that guideline, the way to solve this is to merge it into a list of places in Tekken article, to parallel the list of minor Tekken characters, not delete it. Uncle G 18:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per reference by Fan-1967. --Dennis The TIger 02:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Zaxem 02:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why not add more information? - The 4th Snake
Delete, per nom. Utterly pointless article. Terraxos 17:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Daveydweeb (^chat/_patch) 03:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kohler Award

Looks like something made up in school one day. I speedy-tagged Classic Log and Good Log as nonsense before discovering this whole set of buddycruft. Also including Herman Alexander Weck (purported award recipient) and Kohler Hall (linked only from this series of pages, and doesn't appear to be notable enough for its own page otherwise). Opabinia regalis 05:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Save. I assure you, this award exists. I understand that there are not many pages linking to and from this page, but it is a very small ordeal as of now (in fact, as you can see, the ceremony takes place in the woods!). This award was indeed given, and we are hoping to award another Kohler Award very soon! Hopefully, the recipiant will be excited to see the award up on Wikipedia! -SpaceNeedle 05:25, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but your assurance doesn't meet the verifiability requirement, and this is not the place to announce the next winner of such a small award. Opabinia regalis 05:34, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The award needs to become famous before it appears on Wikipedia, rather than the other way around. BigHaz 05:39, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Save. Please, survey the students of Lawrence University, it is a well known award. We are just a small school; I question whether you have asked actual students about it. Consider other Lawrence traditions, such as the trivia contest... -ICanDoItNineTimes 05:50, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The trivia contest is notable, verifiable and sourced. When this award becomes the same, it can be here. BigHaz 06:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If the only way for readers to find out something is to travel to one particular country and repeat the primary research of interviewing a lot of people, then it is original research, which is forbidden here. The places for documenting something that has not been documented before are a journal article, a magazine, a book, or your own web site. Uncle G 18:39, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. It's not even a university award; it's a dorm award. Fan-1967 07:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Dorm award. Wooty 07:34, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable; Also Kohler Hall, per nom. -- Ratarsed 08:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both as non-notable. -- Kjkolb 09:02, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable award as unverifiable. --Metropolitan90 15:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BigHaz WVhybrid 17:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn —Khoikhoi 22:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - an award that takes place in woodland is not particularly notable. Also unverifiable OR. Kohler Hall is also nn. Molerat 23:25, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; perhaps merge into something that it is relevant to? --Dennis The TIger 02:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment is there anything it's particularly relevant to, though? It seems to be just a bunch of college buddies hanging out in the woods at the moment, which doesn't strike me as being connected to much. BigHaz 02:41, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both Even if verifiable, this prize given to a person who is a member of a student halls of residence in Lawrence University is clearly much to small a subset for a wiki article. Ohconfucius 05:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete Naconkantari 04:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Game junkie

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

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

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

Contested prod about a non-notable store. MER-C 05:31, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While Game Junkie by no means is a notable national store, it is notable on a local and regional level due to the amount of innovation it shows over your standard brick and mortar locale. The ideas that the store has put there, such as tournaments and the selling of the Bawls and SnoBawls beverage, predate their appearance on a more national level, making them notable as trendsetters. The videos mentioned in the videos by Sobrider, also predat similar efforts by groups like Mega_64. Due to knowing a lot about the store, I will be likely editing and adding more content to this article to show its worthiness to stay in the Wikipedia database. Yes, people like TJ Spyke aren't going to know about the store, but I do not believe that the inability to be nationally notable is reason for deletion. sav2880 16:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: sav2880 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply]
Delete per nom. TJ Spyke 05:33, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Edited and made notable changes (being one of the top sellers of a beverage in the USA is noteable) Sobrider 05:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I never even heard of that drink before seeing that article. TJ Spyke 05:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Do you suggest that we delete the Bawls entry as well since you have never heard of it? Sobrider 05:49, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, just that it may not be as big as you think. TJ Spyke 05:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment note that Sobrider has only edited this entry, the article in question and uploaded two images concerning the article. MER-C 05:56, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It was just brought to my attention that the entry existed and I was trying to make it look like a artical should be. I decided to register because of the negitive light surrounding editing without having a username behind it. I added better information, a link to a newspaper artical that was a cover story. I am just a loyal customer of the store and it is different and noteable. Other stores don't do the things this store does. I think a great accompishment is for a store of that size to sell 20,000 of anything, let alone be a top seller in the USA. Sobrider 06:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Do you have a source for that number? TJ Spyke 06:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - From the manager of the store This comes from the stores own system. If this isn't good enough then you may contact them directly. Sobrider 07:08, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You've clearly never been to game junkie if you find it non-notable. Game Junkie is an amazing store where you are actually an individual with needs, instead of money to some greedy corporation. I love Game Junkie & am offended that you call the best game store non-notable. Ask any gamer in West Chester & Cincinnati, OH how notable the place is. It RULES.Makegodscringe 07:25, 2 September 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Makegodscringe (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply]
- Notability has nothing to do with how good or bad something is. TJ Spyke 07:36, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CORP --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 12:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Arnzy you posted the WP:corp and Game Junkie meets the requirement of being noteable since it does have a newspaper artical talking about it listed on the external links. This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations except for the following Here is the said online version of what was printed Sobrider 17:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's one. Are there any others? Uncle G 18:33, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If two to one people are claiming the store in notable, it is notable. I don't understand the personal battle you have going on here. Sobrider has provided the things necessary to prove the store is notable. The article should stay due to Wiki requirements being met. Makegodscringe 18:21, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Wrong. Notability is not subjective and we do not employ personal testimony of Wikipedia editors here. Sobrider actually has the right idea, and is citing sources attempting to demonstrate that the WP:CORP criteria are satisfied. This is Wikipedia, not Wiki, by the way. Uncle G 18:33, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a store that is only "notable on a local and regional level." And for the record, WP:CORP says that your store must be the subject of multiple non-trivial published works. One minor article about the store's owner doesn't come anywhere near filling that requirement. There is also a terrible dearth of reliable sources for this subject. --Hetar 18:41, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, it does, since it discusses the store. It tells us about events held at the store, for example. The non-triviality requirement is there in order to exclude sources that are nothing more than business directory listings. The article doesn't provide much in order to source an encyclopaedia article, but it isn't a mere directory listing, or a report of opening hours. Uncle G 19:36, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Here is another source entry i found on the store [[6] They are breifly mentioned here [[7]] May not be the best source in the world but it is a mention of one of the previous tournements the store has had [[8]] This is way out of Game junkies region but it talks about the store. [[9]] Sobrider 19:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - The azcentral article is a reprint of the CiN Weekly article that you linked to before, as it clearly says in its byline. Uncle G 20:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Even being a reprint I have shown more than enough evidance of being notable. The cin weekly article was nationally syndicated and it shows how noteable some people think the place is. Sobrider 23:08, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Here is even more [[10]] It may be a little mention but none the less it shows off the stores unique bathroom. Here is another one on the stores BATHROOM [[11]] Sobrider 19:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It really seems just because we found it right as it was getting ready for deletion we are being prejudiced upon because someone may miss out on a great delete. Yes I am a newbie but I can read and I have met the requirement's to keep this as a valid entry. I know I am not some super editor who has written tons of entry's but I can read and we have many of the staff and customers stepping up to the plate now to make it worth it. I laid the ground work by expanding on what was said now others can come and add. I have proved how noteable the store is many times over now but it seems even when I have more proof its not good enough. Sobrider 23:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think it's important for Game Junkie to be listed in Wikipedia...perhaps it's because the definition of non-notable is....nebulous. The status of non-notable is simply a matter of opinion. Wiki has a listing for the Delhi Sands Flower loving fly. Many would consider this fly a non-notable insect..many have never even heard of it. Does it deserve deletion for being non-notable insect simply because it lives in one small section of the United States? I could find more people in a 50 mile radius who have heard of Game Junkie and not the Delhi Sands Flower Loving Fly...which, then is more notable? More children can identify Mario than Gerald Ford...is Gerald Ford non-notable and in peril of deletion? Game Junkie tournaments attract players from the four corners of the United States..this can be proven and submitted upon request. Thank You, SanosukeGJ 00:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: SanosukeGJ (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Daveydweeb (^chat/_patch) 03:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have read over the listing criteria for Wikipedia, and believe I can shed some light on why this article should remain on the site. Articles pertaining to Game Junkie, as well as television newspieces have been published by independent sources with no affiliation to the store, and said articles and newspieces are not reprints of press releases. Beyond the article in CinWeekly, Game Junkie has been mentioned in articles by the Cincinnati Enquirer and on the podcast presented by Short Attention Gamer. The store has also been featured on NBC news (2004). The notability issue, being non-subjective, is met by the international attention also paid Game Junkie. Video game players from as far away as northern Canada, California and Florida frequently travel in excess of several thousand miles to visit the store. Major League Gaming is also interested in using Game Junkie as a host for official tournaments. Subjectively, Game Junkie is of interest to the nation, and the world, because it stands as a model independent business in a corporate world. Game Junkie employs a "customer as friend" approach that is unique in today's business climate, making it more than a "local or regional interest," such as the restaurants Skyline Chili or Primanti Bros. (in Pittsburgh). Customers order from as far away as Japan and Australia. Penny Arcade has interviewed the owner (link forthcoming), as has the owner of Gamebot, a nationally recognized video game show. I will edit the article to make it meet the criteria set forth by this site.
And regarding the sale of Bawls. Hoborama, LLC, the maker of Bawls and Snobawls, is a multi-million dollar company whose products are found in all 50 states, Puerto Rico and beyond. CompUSA will begin exclusively carrying Bawls in 2007, eliminating all other drinks form its inventory, making the beverage available in over 299 stores. That an 1,800 square foot store has sold 30,000 bottles in 42 months is notable. That's over 23 bottles a day, for a business not specializing in drink sales. More will be posted in the article with citations. lytnngseed — Possible single purpose account: lytnngseed (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
Delete - Bawls is sold all over the place, and tournaments happen in any LAN gaming center, there is nothing to say this particular store is notable. Wooty 05:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Game Junkie tournaments frequently have over 100 entrants, and the fact that Bawls are sold nationwide is not in dispute. The notability comes from the amount sold in one ___location. It seems your use of notable *is* subjective. I have found references to Game Junkie in forums around the country, discussing tournaments past and present. Also, Game Junkie has been mentioned in news articles around the country, mentioning its innovativeness and broad appeal. Both of these facts constitute notability under Wikipedia guidelines. I will be updating the Wikipedia article to include all citations. Lytnngseed 06:12, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- How many people are in a tournament, or how much of a drink is sold at a ___location ("my lemonade stand had record profits, time to add a wikipedia article"! are not relevant numbers. Nor do forums count as references under notability guidelines. First off, there are no links to any of the "news articles". Second, even if there were, the NBC news thing (which is not explained in any detail) or Enquirer article (possibly) are probably the only ones of those that matter. In addition, your bias comment is confusing. How am I biased? I have nothing against or for the company. In addition, per your turning your entry into a "pretty good" article, this does not mean the article's subject is notable, it just means there's a decent article on the table. If the article needed cleanup and not deletion, the nominator would have tagged it as such. EDIT: After looking at the "articles" you mentioned, I see a few college newspaper articles, and a mention on Kotaku about the bathroom. I suppose you could create an article on the bathroom, but the company is not notable because of their unique decorating styles. Could you please use the preview button, too? I'm getting edit conflicts every time I try to respond to your points. Wooty 07:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
this "Uncle G has been the only one who really sees that yes we are trying to prove our point and we have changed an entry that wasn't even stub worthy into something pretty good in the course of 24 hours." was from me and it was from an editing error and has since been fixed. Sobrider 07:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Wooty we have have stated it is subjective, You believe our sources are no good and yet they are legit but in your mind not good enough thats the bias Sobrider 07:26, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - By the same logic, you could be biased also - I say the sources are not good enough and you believe they're legit. What's your point? WP:CORP says you need to have multiple PUBLISHED WORKS about a company. While this technically includes things like school newspapers, your sources are either not backed up by links, or too little to prove any standard of notability. Wooty 07:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn-store. Also, I find it awfully suspicious that quite a few of the accounts that have voted for "keep" or arguing to keep the article (SanosukeGJ, Lytnngseed and Makegodscringe) are recently created accounts, whose only edits are either in this discussion or in the article itself. –NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 07:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Check our IP's we are different people standing up for somthing that we just found out existed friday evening. Sobrider 07:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There is no reason that this page should be removed. To do so would be no less than spitting in the face of a small business that has brought so much inspiration to a world dominated by big business and a world that needs a place like Game Junkie. Going to Game Junkie is like going nowhere else. The Game Junkie article is interesting, and needs to be kept up so that people can read about the store and come to realize that this small business, which not only set the bar for tournaments in our entire region, is the world leading retailer of Bawls, attracts customers both nationally and globally, employs several hardoworking, kind, helpful employees, has been featured both regionally and nationally in the press, and has overall changed the lives of many people. It is wrong to strip such a notable, interesting place from Wikipedia. It is far more important than several topics found here. HereticLeader13
WP:NOT advertising, a crystal ball, an indiscriminate collection of information. If these other topics are not notable, please do us a favor and put them up for AfD so they can be reviewed and deleted. Wooty 07:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You know what is there some way we can just speed the judgement up? At this point its gonna turn into bickering and nothing will be solved. Sobrider 07:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see any bickering going on, I'm simply addressing your points. There is no way to speed it up, we just wait for an admin to close it. Wooty 07:43, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - It hasn't started yet. We now seem to be marked as single purpose accounts. What does thats say to someone who's first exposure is this entry. Its mine and I like the concept and would like to do more, it just so happens that it is my 1st registered edit(as I have made a small spelling correction here or there now and then). Personally its kinda souring it for me just due to the facts that someone puts a new hoop out for me to jump though after I already lept though others. Sobrider 07:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm sorry about the SPA tagging, but it's a necessary process in a community like Wikipedia. Since anybody can edit, it's very easy for a single person to create a large number of single purpose accounts in order to spam pages like this AfD, so such accounts are often viewed with a little suspicion. It's not a reflection on you as an editor (particularly if you hang around to contribute, as we all hope you will), but a response to the extremely open nature of debates such as this. Daveydweeb (^chat/_patch) 07:55, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete as non-notable single ___location store. There's no article for the Logical Choice store in the centre of Canberra, and I can see no differentiating feature between that store, and Game Junkie. Sorry, this just isn't notable enough. Daveydweeb (^chat/_patch) 07:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have edited the page and added as many articles as I could find mentioning the store and its relevance. Only one college source is listed...AZ Central, CinWeekly and the Enquirer are all professional periodicals. I have also mentioned the national websites (e.g. Smashboards, SoulCalibur, Twin Galaxies) which have taken interest in the store, further proof of potential notability. The Bawls sold and tournament entrants are just "neato" stats. The notability should come through in the articles linked. Why should it matter if someone in college wrote an article? Once pictures are posted of the store, I'm sure you'll see why Canberra and Game Junkie are *not* comparable. Why does it matter that it's a single ___location? Also, forgive my ignorance, as I'm not sure how to tag a television segment. To those supporting the article, please try and see what the other editors are trying to say. Stop "defending" the store. Help show why it is notable, as in its significance in the world. Wooty, I have added articles from Arizona as well as Kentucky mentioning the store. The Pac Man bathroom is notable, as it is one of a kind and would pass muster for a published encyclopedia as a monument to a pop culture icon. As I find more, I will add them. Sobrider had good intentions when creating the page, but did not have all the information. As Wikipedia is an ever-evolving process, I hope yourself and other editors can see that deletion is not necessary unless a consensus feels Game Junkie has not achieved notability when all the facts are presented, and thus has no place in the annals of Wikipedia. However, if the articles I've presented do meet the standard, I hope you will change your mind. Lytnngseed 07:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for one unstated reason. When a store affects fighting game popularity in an area, I believe that a store is notable. Players from California, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, New Jersey, Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, Kentucky, and Florida unite to come to Game Junkie for Naruto: Gekitou Ninja Taisen! 4 tournaments. Obviously, Ohio players also attend. Naruto 4 is the second most popular fighting in Ohio next to Super Smash Bros. Melee. And the game has grown exponentially in this area since last year. The Naruto 3 Tournament April 2005 had 6 attendees. The Naruto 4 Tournament in June 2006 had 37 attendees. Here are videos of tournaments in Ohio. [12] I am also the writer of the review on Gamespot for the game. Game Junkie is the main reason why Naruto 4 is a the second most popular fighting game in Ohio in front of Soul Calibur II, Guilty Gear XX Slash, Tekken 5, Capcom vs. SNK 2, and Marvel vs. Capcom 2. This is because Game Junkie offers a one-in-a-kind gaming experience. Friday Night Live holds small tournaments every Friday, breeding competition. Players come to buy a Bawls and play with their friends. Despite being $70 per copy plus a $20 add-on, Naruto 4 is more popular. Why? Game Junkie. Dboocock 18:32, 3 September 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Dboocock (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply]
I find it amusing how I was immediately labeled a single purpose account. I disagree. I completely revised the Naruto: Gekitou Ninja Taisen 4 page with updated information, correct information, and character defense ratings. I also gave an external link to a Guitar Hero clone that Wikipedia did not have. I was labeled a single purpose account because I supported Game Junkie. How ironic, a Wiki contributor supporting this store. Dboocock 23:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One edit changed the name of a feature, another added an external link, and the other was a copy-paste from [13]. Wooty 23:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect. I also changed multiple errors, and added other details on the game. I have been searching Wikipedia constantly looking for things to add. I am not a single purpose account. I should not be labeled as such. I am a Wikipedia contributor. Dboocock 23:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In either case, I'm fairly sure this isn't the place to argue someone's purpose on the wiki, attempting to undermine someone's validity is somewhat ignorant. Anyhow, I'll tell you what I know about the store, and how I came by it. GameJunkieJim 04:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- I've been using the online handle GameJunkieJim for almost 13 years. About a year ago, someone pointed out the store to me, someone from Liverpool, England on an online forum. I live in New Jersey myself, so the store's ___location is not a major factor in it's appeal. They have public forums, which I joined (and was mistaken for an employee, to my amusement) they have public tournaments, and they make it easy for many to obtain imported titles and other goodies through mail order. My personal opinion is that they are just as entitled to have an article entry here (provided it is NPOV and about the store's features and community rather than a Wiki Advert) as Valve or Bungie.net or any other gaming oriented site (especially those with Forums). By many of the deletion arguments here, one would assume that the Microsoft page should be removed because they sell software, and they don't have stores everywhere. I think it's laughable that this is even an issue. Is the Meg of space that precious? Are we turning into little facists that decide what information is available and what isn't? I vote Keep GameJunkieJim 04:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Microsoft meets WP:CORP and WP:WEB requirements, sells software globally, is a multimillion dollar company, and is notable for more than their bathroom. Wooty 05:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thus Game Junkie meets the requirements because it was notable for more than its bathroom as evidances by the sources posted. Sobrider 06:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Not one of the sources satisfy requirements (other than saying the bathroom is notable). Wooty 06:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - If the bathroom is noteable the ___location of the Bathroom can be too.Sobrider 07:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, inflated TOC and other style issues aside, article sources are non-notable and store itself is also such. I find the ridiculous level of either sockpuppet or friend voting equally concerning, as almost every keep thus far is a newly-registered account who's first act was to vote here. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 07:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sources are notable and professional if you read everything. Dboocock 13:20, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh yes were all the same person's yes thats it. What a line of crap. So whats better you got a whole bunch of new users introduced to this site or the fact that every source we list isn't credible. Those have been proven invalid as we have posted soruce after source about the store where available. you can have an admin check our IP's. Friend voting not so much. Is a newbie's opinion less valid then someone who is super duper editor of the month? Everyones arugument's are how about we are "socks" or are sources aren't good enough, even though they are used for other entry's. Sobrider 22:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thus the clarifier "almost". Also, that account you mention made one edit months ago, then suddenly surfaces to vote on this? I call vote stacking on that, as I do with almost every keep vote on this page thus far.most of these accounts were made with the clear purpose of swinging towards a favorable vote. To the other note, half of those are duplicated articles in local papers. In fact, let me detail your sources for you.

Your "sources" hardly qualify as such under current guidelines. This store isn't notable. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 04:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Coming from a website like Wikipedia, an insult like Game Junkie is "unremarkable" or not featured in unbiased sources is, like everything else on the website, written without any research and the thinnest of credibility. Game Junkie was featured in at least one local print form of media the first year it opened; I know for a fact that it has since been featured in other instances of media, all aformentioned articles being focused on the stores unique atmosphere, customer service, selection, staff, and active community involvement. - The Arab — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.33.125.139 (talk • contribs)

Did anyone else notice that sav2880, the first person to post on this discussion page and was labeled a single-purpose account, has been on wikipedia since April, when he made (only one, but still) an edit to another page? I found that amusing, personally. - Kuroshi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.29.6.227 (talk • contribs)
- I wonder why I haven't been labeled single user even though I'm now credited as the "creator"....oh wait thats right I've started to go on and do other things now. Sobrider 22:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the sources required. Please review the articles listed. Thank you. Also, unique, small businesses are notable. I thought the point of the site was to make known information that is interesting. Just because a reporter hasn't picked up on a story, doesn't mean the story isn't notable. It just isn't known.Lytnngseed 01:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Wooty 03:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But Wikipedia is a collection of notable information, and since notability isn't even abstractly defined for Wikipedia entries, it's kind of hard to understand what people mean when they say "non-notable". Viewtyjoe 21:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations), it fails. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 22:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A company or corporation is notable if it meets any of the following criteria:

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

- Seems to me they have a bunch of published works. So I say keep 161.38.223.233 00:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Most of which are either trivial, unrelated, or not even about the company in question. You missed that part. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 01:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations except for the following:
      - Media reprints of press releases, other publications where the company or corporation talks about itself, and advertising for the company.
      - Works carrying merely trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply report extended shopping hours or the publications of telephone numbers and addresses in business directories.

They don't fall into these categories, do they? Viewtyjoe 17:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the second one, yes. The articles do not cover Game Junkie itself, but rather the cultural phenomon of games being for more than just kids. Futhermore, it's a local paper, and bound to interview the nearest local source. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 20:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed reference in Friday Night Live section to remove furries. Lytnngseed 15:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Some SPAs are quite passionate about this store. But it fails verifiability of reliable sources. This is the only article about it that can be found. Cin Weekly article might at first thought be a second one, but its just a subset of the azcentral one. The Bawls claim is unsourced, and the news.enquirer.com link has this store as a passing mention. But its close. With better verifiablity I could be more confident in the article, but it mostly fan-fluff, and very localized. --Kevin_b_er 19:18, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations) refers to itself as a "rough guideline." This means that, while typically anything and everything stated in it should be followed, sometimes what it contains must be interpreted or bent. It states that one way for a company to be considered notable it must have "been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself." This store was featured as the cover article for an edition of CiN Weekly, which definitely means that it has been the subject of at least one "non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself." The only problem is that many of the other references to the store can be contested based on the wording of this rule because most of the other sources either are considered "trivial" by some, being college newspapers etc., or contain stories where Game Junkie is not the primary subject of the article. I contend, however, that if a store is the primary subject in one article, and a secondary subject in numerous other articles, that it should qualify as notable. In addition, to say that the claim regarding Bawls is 'unsourced' is insulting. Earlier on this very page was linked a reference to data collected directly from the stores sales database detailing the number of Bawls sales. The number of sales is undisputable, as it comes from sales data published by the company. In addition, claims regarding how the store is the number one retailer are based on data acquired from the Bawls company, with whom the store was in frequent contact when the store celebrated it's 20,000 Bawls celebration. And in regards to whether this figure makes the store notable, I think it does. Earlier, someone mentioned that if his lemonade stand sold a lot of lemonade, it wouldn't be notable. But I claim that if your lemonade stand sold more lemonade than any other lemonade stand in the entire country, it WOULD be notable. But I digress. In regards to the topic of articles featuring the store, I think the context should be considered. While this store is notable, it is admittedly only notable to a certain population. As it happens, the population to which it is notable prefers to receive its news and information not in printed format, but in a digital format. The fact that there isn't a preponderance of printed articles about the store in no way reflects the stores notability. The facts that people across the country discuss the store online, that people across the country watch videos from the store's tournaments, and that the store has strongly affected the gamer culture in at leat a 100 mile diameter area around it reflect its notability. Refering back to Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations), it is stated that "The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, or vendor) have actually considered the company, corporation, product or service notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it." People independent of the company discuss it in forums, and talk about how it has affected them as gamers, and how it fits into their gamer life. People independent of the company have found it notable enough to make recordings of events at the company, format them, and then release them to the internet. The community to whom this store is notable does not purchase newspapers, and so of course there aren't stacks of newspaper articles about the company. However, the community to whom this store is notable has self-published numerous non-trivial discussions, articles, and videos about this store. The fact that they can be acquired for free does not make them trivial, and the fact that they are not published by a professional news company does not make them trivial. Numerous people, most of whom are completely independent of the company, find this store very notable. And the essence of the notability guidelines is that they attempt to find ways to prove that people find the subject notable. And if one were to claim that customers are not independent opens other companies for the non-notability chopping block, such as the Mavalli Tiffin Rooms mentioned in Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations), which is mentioned as notable because many people who have dined there later wrote about their dining experience. Whether or not this store meets the magic number of "multiple" published works, it is notable. People who are not related to the store devote their time to writing about it, and devote their time to sharing their experiences there. Almost anyone who has ever been there would agree that it is notable. Those who have the most knowledge regarding the store agree that it is notable. So I guess the problem isn't that the store isn't notable, just that those who've been there haven't been able to accurately portray to those who haven't been there how notable it is. And what a better venue for them to try to show how truly notable it is than Wikipedia. --Appellation 21:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You missed the part about how the people for Mavalli Tiffin Rooms has their accounts published independently of Wikipedia. If you want to establish how notable Game junkie is through your own experiences, then have those experiences and opnions published in a notable third-party source (a magazine, a newspaper, major online publisher, et al.). Wikipedia is not a place to establish notability - it only lists things that already have established notability, of which this store has very little of. –NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 02:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - To clarify some things, just because the store has sold a lot of a certain type of drink doesn't make it notable, especially when said drink is a limited sale product (one need only read its article to see that). Furthermore, even if the drink was notable, the store itself wouldn't be. It'd just be a footnote in the drink article. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 05:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - "People independent of the company discuss it in forums, and talk about how it has affected them as gamers, and how it fits into their gamer life. People independent of the company have found it notable enough to make recordings of events at the company, format them, and then release them to the internet. However, the community to whom this store is notable has self-published numerous non-trivial discussions, articles, and videos about this store." Some people posting threads about something on a forum and then making some videos of "n00bs getting pwned" and releasing them on the internet (anyone and their mother can post a video on YouTube, convert a video to .avi, etc.) does not a notable subject make. Wooty 01:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if it matters now, but Dave Halverson from Play Magazine has contacted the store for the purpose of writing an article on it. Obviously, the article won't be printed for a few months. Lytnngseed 03:51, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I have removed the number of Bawls sold until I can provide verifiable evidence, per Wikipedia policy. Lytnngseed 05:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There are many sources cited here (albeit without links) that include some rather major publications. This article definately seems to fit notability requirements. But it certainly isn't a very notable company in the sense of how famous it is. I had never heard of it in my 18 years or so of being a gamer and 10 or more years of surfing the internet.
Note: I would also like to nominate this discussion for "USELESS TRAINWRECK FROM WHICH NO CONSENSUS CAN EMERGE" status. Altair 15:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, once single-purpose accounts have been discounted, that leaves a whole bunch of well-established and new-but-not-single-purpose editors. Counting those, the consensus seems to be leaning heavily toward delete. — Saxifrage ✎ 16:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. In fact, only one keep vote (at time of voting) thus far has been an account with more than 50 edits. Few had more than 10 when voting here. Most didn't even have one. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 17:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There appears to be one non-reprint, non-trivial, independent source which isn't enough to pass the notability guidelines. If more gets published later (as has been claimed above), then the article will easily pass a deletion review and get undeleted. Since The World Will Not End Tomorrow, Wikipedia can be patient and wait until the store works up some more recognition before having an article on it. — Saxifrage ✎ 16:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why such a big deal is made when accounts with fewer than 10 edits vote. The logic is flawed. It assumes that Wikipedia is automatically a part of everyone's daily life, like breathing or eating. What if this article introduced said voters to Wikipedia? You were all new to this site *once*, right? How does that discount someone's opinion? If anything, Wikipedia just grew stronger by adding all the new people who have viewed and commented on this article. Several "single-use accounts" have gone on to edit other accounts or contribute in some other way on this site. The point of a bandwagon is not who got on first, but how many got on at all. Lytnngseed 17:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong, sort of. When a bunch of people register just to vote stack on something they like, their votes count for less. Furthermore, this isn't a vote at all, so it makes little difference, regardless. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs)
Delete Not notable. RobJ1981 17:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a shop, featured only in "local media". - Hahnch e n 03:21, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KEEPJust because something isn't worldly known like McDonald's doesn't mean it shouldn't be recognized and have the opportunity to be appreciated by all. Have you ever heard of Candidate for Goddess? Probably not, but wikipedia has kept it just the same. There are more useless things on this site than Gamejunkie, which keeps kids off the streets, welcomes anyone into their arms, holds tournaments that people come from everywhere in the country to participate in, and has NEVER discriminated anyone because of their past history. Never once have I felt anything than appreciated when i walk through the Gamejunkie front door. One is never treated as a customer, but extended a friendly hand, and nowhere else in the nation has ever given me that experience. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.27.189.68 (talk • contribs) .
Comment It's now been over a week since this AfD started. Are we ever going to get to decision on this? —NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 03:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Runcorn 09:01, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CG-Core El

Almost-copyvio ad for a corporation whose rather awkward name gets only 700 Google hits, top of which is Wikipedia. Not such a great advertising strategy. Opabinia regalis 05:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But would we be adding to the systemic bias if we were to delete this article about a company in India? See Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. Would it not be better to wikify it, and rewrite it (and correct its name)? DFH 17:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- We would be adding to the systemic bias by doing what you imply, saying that companies in India get an automatic excemption from the standards that companies in all other countries are held to. If you wish to make an argument for keeping this article that holds water, please cite sources to demonstrate that the WP:CORP criteria are satisfied. Uncle G 13:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing in the article suggests that this is an encyclopedicly notable company. (This is nothing to with where they're from, just that there doesn't appear to be anything very special or unique about the company.) Zaxem 02:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Following comments from Uncle G. DFH 20:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lee's pharmacy

This is a non-notable company per WP:CORP. There are around 54 Google results, none of which appear to augment notability. Erechtheus 05:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. The first Google result in a search for "Lee's pharmacy" doesn't even turn up this particular Miami company / store. -- tariqabjotu 11:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - WP:CORP. Nigel ^(Talk) 12:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CORP --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 12:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and advertising. — ERcheck (talk) 13:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

""Do not Delete"". Officially it was named "Lee's Prescription Shops Inc." Information on the sale of the company is noted at the following URL: http://sec.edgar-online.com/1997/10/10/17/0000898432-97-000435/Section12.asp After the sale, all elements of this South Florida landmark were eventually changed, closed or otherwise eliminated including the name. The signs for the stores had a large "L" in the shape of a mortar and pestal. The stores (especially the one on Miracle Mile) can be seen in archival photos in the Miami Herald.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.80.80.164 (talk • contribs)
- Comment. I suggest you find verifiable sources that establish this entity's notability, online or offline, and cite to them in the article if you are committed to saving this article. Let us know if you do so. Erechtheus 16:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. —Khoikhoi 22:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please Advise - Supposing documentation exists to verify that a 5 store chain of old style pharmacies operated for 50+ years in the Miami area and that those stores are prominently displayed in vintage photographs of different parts of the city, would this be sufficiently notable?"— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamschock (talk • contribs)
- Comment. I'd say no. I know of a small grocery store chain that has been around for 100+ years and isn't notable. Existing isn't notable. If this chain of stores had significant media coverage because they had notably fancy soda fountains or pretty much anything else that might set them apart from some other pharmacy, that would merit an article. Erechtheus 03:12, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article needs to be verified by including citation to reliable sources in order to have hope of surviving. Even then, many contributors will expect to chain to satisfy WP:CORP if it is to have an article. Seeing nothing in the article to satisfy the above requirements, I say delete.-- danntm ^T _C 03:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge/redirect - Fire Island and Lightning Island merged into Pokemon: The Movie 2000, Ruzunga redir into Telefang. BaseballBaby 06:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fire Island (Pokémon)

A multi-article nomination of 3 Pokemon stubs that do not assert the notability of the subject. The nomination includes the Fire Island article, Lightning Island, and Ruzunga. The first two could also be done like Ice Island (a redirect page) has been done, redirecting to the general movie article. Ruzunga just needs straightforward deletion. Tracker/TTV (myTalk|myWork|myInbox) 05:55, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Merge - These pages play a big role in the movie, but that is the only role that they play and do not deserve their own articles. Merge with the movie article. Hybrid 06:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per Hybrid - Plough | talk to me 07:02, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Ruzunga is an unrelated page to the other two articles. This was the result of a review of Category:Pokémon stubs. Tracker/TTV (myTalk|myWork|myInbox) 15:56, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Fire Island (Pokémon) and Lightning Island into Pokémon: The Movie 2000. Either Delete Ruzunga or merge it into Telefang. TJ Spyke 07:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- As the nominator, I think this is the best proposal. Tracker/TTV (myTalk|myWork|myInbox) 15:56, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - this information is covered in the movie's article, all that needs to be done is a full delete (no redirect because of the abscurity of this title) and add the movie's article to the disambiguation page for Fire Island. I work on the Wiki Pokémon Project and these kind of articles are why we get so much flak. -Zappernapper 09:18, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Fire Island can go, but what about Lightning Island? If these go straight delete, I'll go to RFD for Ice Island. Tracker/TTV (myTalk|myWork|myInbox) 15:56, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Lightning Island and Ice Island are fine for redirects (because there are no other similarly named wiki articles), i just want "Fire Island (Pokémon)" to be deleted becuase it's a waste of space (it's much more efficient to just add a sentence for it on the "Fire Island" disambig. page that links to the merger). -Zappernapper 06:02, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Merge in Pokemon: The Movie 2000 per TJ Spyke --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 12:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all into Orange Islands or List of Orange Islands per WP:FICT. --TheFarix (Talk) 14:06, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Ruzunga would not fall under that, actually, the best merge we could do is to Telefang. The article has {{poke-stub}} on it, when the only Pokémon connection is its inclusion in the Jade bootleg of Telefang: that should get straight deletion or a merge to the aforementioned article per TJ Spyke. Tracker/TTV (myTalk|myWork|myInbox) 15:56, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please refraim from altering my comments again. It is a gross violation of civility. --TheFarix (Talk) 21:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Svde 16:56, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Orange Islands. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 04:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete by Doc glasgow under A7 critera. --Hetar 18:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The many deaths of jordan

Contested prod about a non-notable film. MER-C 06:25, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. "a short home movie series created by three kids on the Gold Coast" There should be a speedy category for this. Fan-1967 07:02, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong/speedy delete. Film produced by a bunch of friends- fails under verifiability, reliable sources, and original research, all of which contribute to it not meeting notability criteria. Also, this line is a bit of a gimme:

"The Many Deaths Of Jordan" is a short home movie series created by three kids on the Gold Coast; Richard, Jordan and Sam. The series has no plot at all and the main character (Jordan) dies in many different and humourous ways. It is published on the web and also sent around the school in which they go to. --Wafulz 07:03, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Or, how about Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day? Brianyoumans 07:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - neither is Wikipedia for things made up in school and filmed one day. BigHaz 07:53, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable, WP:NFT, vanity, you name it. -- Merope 15:36, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not-notable WP:NOT WP:NFT, etc. etc. Hello32020 16:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to Orange Islands. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grapefruit Islands

This page is unneeded. It plays no signifigant role in the anime besides being the place Ash caught his Snorlax. This page is unnecessary and should be deleted. Hybrid 07:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all into Orange Islands or List of Orange Islands per WP:FICT. --TheFarix (Talk) 14:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm actually thinking of rolling this into my 3-article nomination with Fire Island, but I vote delete in any case. Tracker/TTV (myTalk|myWork|myInbox) 16:00, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Please refraim from altering my comments again. It is a gross violation of civility. --TheFarix (Talk) 21:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge them all as per TheFarix. "the place Ash caught his Snorlax"? Ouch! I hope he's feeling better now. Grutness...wha? 00:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Nogwej 12:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Orange Islands. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 04:14, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete CSD A7. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 11:35, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stutter (band)

Hard-to-google band from Canada, but from the info on their website they seem to fall short of WP:MUSIC. One album, local shows in Ontario and Quebec plus two (free) shows in New York. No reviews in the press section. Not on Amazon.com, #13,414 on Amazon.ca. Listed but not reviewed on allmusic.com The article itself is almost speediable for lack of assertion of notability. ~ trialsanderrors 07:05, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete falls short of WP:MUSIC as noted. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 08:52, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: No assertion of notability at all. (|-- UlTiMuS 10:21, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was deleted in the face. --- Deville (Talk) 01:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actor-preneur

Neologism; the word is used by its creator, but not I think by anyone else. An article on this guy's site might be notable, but not this neologism. Brianyoumans 07:27, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete kill all neologisms in the face ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 08:52, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 'MERGE into Orange Islands.Herostratus 17:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kumquat Island

This page is a STUB which cannot be improved. The gym leader is major but the island is not. It amounts to nothing but fancruft and should be deleted.Hybrid 07:33, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all into Orange Islands or List of Orange Islands per WP:FICT. --TheFarix (Talk) 14:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Farix. Tracker/TTV (myTalk|myWork|myInbox) 16:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Nogwej 12:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Orange Islands. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 04:14, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Catchpole 20:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Waynehead

Notable? This was a Saturday morning cartoon, with 730 hits on google, which is amazingly low for pretty much any television program. Its age is the most interesting thing--1996, about 10 years old, existed for one year. I think this is the "imdb yes, tv tome yes, wikipedia no" category, where if it is so unheard of a mere 10 years after its one year run, it's not notable to the masses, and it probably wasn't notable when it ran. Also, Damon Wayans produced it--this doesn't help its notability particularly. Who knows him as a producer? Bottom line: only 10 years out, a TV show ought to show more evidence of notability than this. I judge it NN for wikipedia. Kmaguir1 07:40, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep if not speedy keep. Produced by Damon Wayans based on his childhood and verifiable by sources listed by nominator. Broadcast widely and clearly notable. Article needed tidy up and sources which I have added.Capitalistroadster 00:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not take the position that everything on TV is notable just because it has a potential of being seen by a lot of people. There's lasting effect, and this one clearly had nothing. Relegated to a Saturday morning position, it generated, obviously, no clear fan-base, no distinctiveness--it was cancelled after a season. I think that we go too far with TV, with too much inclusivism. Prime time? There's a reason to be inclusive, a wider actual audience. But when you've got 730 google hits, it's hard to say that, as TV shows go, that that is anywhere near notable.-Kmaguir1 00:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep per Capitalistroadster. If individual episodes of some series can get their own articles, then any show that lasted for an entire season on a well-known network should get an article. Keep in mind that this aired in 1996-97, a time when many children did not yet have regular access to the Internet. The Google test doesn't really apply here. The only cartoons generating a lot of discussion back then were those that catered to adults, like the Simpsons.

(Now, however, a single episode of a more recent Wayans-produced cartoon, Thugaboo ("Sneaker Madness"), gets 36,200 Google hits. If Waynehead had been released this year, instead of 1996, it probably would have receieved a similar number of hits.)

Furthermore, Waynehead does get 44 Lexis-Nexis hits from major newspapers and magazines, which is arguably more substantial than a hundred times as many Google hits. These results are all from non-trivial sources, which is something you can't say about Google hits.

Lastly, I do remember this show, and even it's theme song. I also recall that it aired on Sunday mornings on my local WCIU, rather than Saturday mornings. These facts have no real bearing on the discussion; the point is that Waynehead wasn't as obscure as you think it was. At least some people were watching. Zagalejo 07:47, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep It's not particularly notable and it could do with more content but on the other hand Wikipedia isn't paper. BTLizard 07:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's definitely expandable; interestingly, Damon Wayans orginally planned to make this a claymation series about people with oversized heads. :) The article is a pretty clean stub right now, so it doesn't need immediate work, but I might come back to it some time in the future to add some info. Zagalejo 03:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's a pretty well established precedent that any TV show that aired on a major network is notable enough for Wikipedia, however short-lived. Quark (TV series) only lasted for seven episodes, eight if you count the Pilot. wikipediatrix 15:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Catchpole 20:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Katatonia/Primordial Split 10"

Totally not notable. 14 hits on google, one message board, some ebay stuff, and that's about it. Looks like total fluff. Kmaguir1 07:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Both of the bands that contributed to the EP have articles on them and appear vaguely notable - multiple albums out, active for long periods of time, some claims to originality/notability. There seems to be a general policy that if a band is notable, their records are too. I suppose they are easy to maintain as articles, anyways - once you have a track listing and an album cover, you're done, forever, unless someone wants to add reissues. --Brianyoumans 05:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Brian. Perfectly fine stub. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wow, more annoyingly anal users trying to get articles deleted that they don't like. The article in question right now is called a stub and I created it. I suppose it'd be more logical to put a "stub" notice at the bottom rather than whine about deleting it all together. I've contributed numerous other "abbreviated" album pages to Wikipedia for Beyond Dawn and other groups and have never faced such a rediculous proposition before. I guess that's what I get for trying to contribute obscure material to Wikipedia - people like Kmaguirl who want it gone simply because it's "totally not notable". Feel free to respond to this post with whatever self-serving means necessary, because I won't be back to respond. I've said my piece and you can delete that album if it bothers you that much. --Filter1987
Strong keep. Two notable bands and a good stub. The fact that it's a split album doesn't make it less notable. Prolog 19:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Grand master ka 05:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Black billionaires (4th nomination)

User:MasterEagle tried to revive the discussion on the previous AfD, giving the reason "Remove, racist". Keep from me by the way. See also previous nomination Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 07:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other previous deletions are listed on the article's talk page. Gazpacho 22:33, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as trivial. The ethnicity of a billionaire is an arbitrary distinction, like billionares over 6 feet tall. There are also problems over who should be called black, as seen on the talk page. Finally, it could spawn other articles, like Asian American billionaires, German billionaires or articles based upon religion, like Catholic billionaires or Mormon billionaires. -- Kjkolb 08:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I'm pretty sure it'd be impossible for it to spawn German Billionaires, much as I cannot assassinate JFK. WilyD 18:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I forgot to mention original research, as the information is culled from a wide variety of sources that are not on the subject of black billionaires, but just mention the person's wealth or are about the state of blacks in general (none of the sources I checked (about half of them) were specifically about the subject of black billionaires, but there might be a couple).
Comment I agree with Kjkolb, however I also have to look at the fact that people may use this article for research purposes for specifically looking for black billionaires. Ideally, I would make a new article called List of billionaires by ethnicity (see:List of billionaires by nationality) to avoid singling out just black people and have it list actual names instead of just numbers. Perhaps the page could be moved to the new name, and have what is currently there under a section for black people, and allow others to add people of other ethnicities. VegaDark 11:20, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- With the revealing that this is actually the 4th nomination, and the 3rd nomination being closed so recently, I have to vote Speedy Keep based on that alone. However my comments still stand that I think this should be renamed/moved. VegaDark 23:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, no basis for deletion given. Nobody said Wikipedia was color-blind. Didn't this article just come through AfD in the past month with two relistings? If not, which one am I thinking of? Gazpacho 11:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep encyclopaedic, sourced. For what it's worth, this is (at least) the 4th nomination, not second as indicated, and two have been within the last month or so. WilyD 14:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but thanks for nominating it. Everytime this article gets nominated for deletion, it comes out better-sourced, better-writen, and better-balanced. One more nom. and we'll have a GA. One last thing -- it's not original research to take established, verified facts and established, published opinions from other sources and combine them into one place. That's what encyclopedias do. --M @r ē ino 18:55, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject is often covered in the popular press and it is referred to by many scholars, (for example bell hooks and Gena Dagel Caponi, to pick two in a rush). It is also a recurrent focus of attention in urban music and hip hop culture. Pia 23:41, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pure editorialising. Irredeemably POV by its mere existence. Piccadilly 01:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article is factual and useful. Obsession for the politically correct is counterproductive and unreasonable.--Hús ö nd 02:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Racist, skin colour doesn't matter. 219.88.174.62 03:46, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- User's only edit - user is also apparently unfamiliar with the article. WilyD 15:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is an essay, not an encyclopedia article. It rambles on about this and that. And if you pruned it back, it would be pointless. It isn't terrible writing, but it isn't very encyclopedaic. Brianyoumans 05:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Poorly written isn't a criterion for deletion, but rather for improvement. What differentiates this from an essay is that it is a sourced, encyclopaedic article that contains no original research, even if the organisation of the article could stand to be spruced up (it has recently undergone a lot of content additions, which are still settling). WilyD 15:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is not trivial. It's not at all racist (in fact, the lower section addresses the issue of racism quite well). The entry is factual, educational, and encouraging towards people of all races, particularly those with a history of oppression. Mugaliens 14:43, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. How the heck is this notable? And are "black" billionaires inherently different from other billionaires? Information of racial disparity belongs at the article on racial disparity.--Frenchman113 on wheels! 15:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The article alludes to the fact that being a black billionaire is especially notable because black people were uniformly denied economic opportunity until the 1960s (that's not my POV, that's history, see apartheid, Jim Crow laws, etc.). If you think that the article doesn't cover it enough, let me know and I can beef it up with some history texts. --M@rēino 15:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I say that you should do that, otherwise this article is going to get nominated again and again - Blood red sandman 15:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Doesn't matter too, much, nth nominations are increasingly unsuccessful as n becomes large. WilyD 13:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It's notable because it's received multiple instances of press coverage and research from a variety of independant sources. If you'll look at the essays, guidelines or proposed guidelines that deal with notability, you'll find that Lots of press coverage or Books on the subject mean that a subject is notable. Wikipedia:Notability is not subjective is a good guideline if you don't understand why this subject is unarguably notable. WilyD 15:55, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What about white billionaire? I mean if this stays it must be ok to make that article right? Its a horrible article, its just racist seperating 'black' billionaires from everyone else. But again havning a article about all the white billionaires must to be acceptable if this article stays, right?--Coasttocoast 20:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (in reply to Coasttocoast): People should not be denied the right to write about an issue just because there is nothing worthwhile to say about a corresponding white phenomenon. If such a policy is reinforced, wiki contributors better get busy composing articles about white civil rights movements, white minority struggles, white racial profiling (uhm, and how about an article on DWW, "driving while white"?), or the corresponding article about such issues in the black community would risk being deleted or not given a place. There is nothing remarkable whatsoever about being included in the rank of the billionaires while being a white male, the reason being that the odds are stacked in your favor. Beating the odds makes for notability. I also want to add: if a child is told to stop dreaming and set realistic goals because there is no such thing as a black billionaire, in my opinion that child should be able to type the phrase "black billionaires" into a search engine and a wiki article should pop up that addresses this issue in a NPOV, encyclopedic, as well as non-Eurocentric, way. And that child should not have to search through a long list of billionaires to try to figure things out. Pia 23:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find multiple, reliable sources about white billionaires specifically, feel free to write the article. I suspect you'd have a dilly of a time getting such an article past WP:V unlike this article, which passes it with flying colours. WilyD 16:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To Coasttocoast: please read my above comments. I am aware that some younger people actually don't learn about the civil rights movement in history class, so I don't get offended, but if you poke around some history books at your local library you'll find out that being both Black and wealthy is indeed extremely remarkable because most of the nations on earth had laws explicitly to prevent Black accumulation of wealth. --M @r ē ino 02:35, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG SPEEDY KEEP Stop wasting the valuable time of wikipedia volunteers by nominating the same article over & over. This artilce is excellent by all standards and contains lots of excellent data...— Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.61.241.100 (talk • contribs) --M @r ē ino 03:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Unnecessary article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Vyse (talk • contribs)
- I'm not sure unnecessary is a criterion for deleting a sourced, encyclopaedic article. WilyD 15:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong Keep This article is extremely necessary and an excellent addition to numerous wikipedia categories including pan-africanism, development, lists of people by wealth, Africa related lists, and just about anything relating to race, economics, black issues or any combination of the above. If we can have articles called German Billionaires and List of British military and naval figures by wealth at death we can most certainly have an article on Black billionaires, especially since, as Mareino pointed out, being Black and a billionaire is especially noteworthy because until very recently Blacks were institutionally excluded in many countries like virtually no other race, and with the possible exception of certain dictators (which Forbes could not confirm) Black billionaires did not even exist until the 21st century; so for members of the most historically oppressed race to reach to reach the pinnacle of success in a trait as universally worshipped as wealth is noteworthy in the extreme. This topic is even more noteworthy when one considers that currently the world’s only Black billionaire is a woman and self-made, and historically it’s virtually unheard for a woman to rise independently to the highest economic level in any race, ethnicity, or culture. In addition, this article fills a necessary void, since virtually all the articles about racial economic inequality are confined to specific places (i.e. America, Africa) and limited to discussions of poverty. This is probably the first article to discuss Black economic inequality at the highest level, and the fact that it does so from an international perspective makes it all the more relevant. Considering how noteworthy the topic is, and considering how extensive, useful, and well sourced the information is (relying on authoritative business magazines like Forbes), and considering how many categories this article fits into to, only a fool would advocate deleting it. Editingoprah 17:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep and please stop nominating the subject is factual and very important Yuckfoo 22:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep no valid reason for this afd given. ALKIVAR™ 13:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, no valid basis for deletion has been provided in this malformed nomination. RFerreira 20:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per Alkivar. --Myles Long 21:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this article is far from noteworthy. It's relatively poorly written, and(from a non-white), VERY bias and POV. The article tells one side of many different examples.(Like the oprah arriving past CLOSING time of a store and getting denied access, but it only depects OPRAH'S side, not the side of the store or the employees, very POV) Black Billionares is a bad idea for an article. Where are the White Billionares or the Asian Billionares, or Jewish billionares? Just because there are very few doesn't mean that the article is noteworthy. And no matter how "oppressed" a race was(which by the way, oppression is relative, and I personally believe that, by FAR, the Jewish race was the most oppressed), just for the fact that it was oppressed does not mean it should have an article, unless that article specifically deals with oppression. Liquidtenmillion 23:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment POV is not a deletion criteria. Also the person who wrote the article not being white is defently not a criteria. By that logic a person that playes video games should not be allowed to write an aricle about one. --My old username 23:14, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's an article on German billionaires. If you think Jewish billionaires are just as worthy of an articles as Black ones are then do something useful and create one, don't do something destructive by voting to delete this one. I think an article on Jewish billionaires would be excellent and quite note-worthy and provide helpful information to those interested in Jewish wealth, just as this article is useful to people interested in Black wealth. But I can't stand people who just go around trying to get other articles that other people have worked hard on deleted, just because the information doesn't seem important to them.
Comment Good point. It would have been relevent if a Jewish billionaire article was deleted for similar reasons but that was not the case. --My old username 19:28, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete With only one definitively Black billionaire, this article is hardly merited. Oprah's article provides sufficient information in that regard, and the rest of the article is full of near-Blacks, near-billionaires, not-quite-billionaires, would-be-billionaires, and wide-ranging speculation about race, economics, apartheid, athletes, and celebrities. The article is written in a decidedly POV fashion, and I'm not sure that any number of attempts at neutrality could redeem it. Save the topics this article touches on for in-depth discussion elsewhere on Wikipedia. --S0uj1r0 02:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's only one Black Billionaire right now, but there's been more than one in the past and this article documents that and is historically informative. Why is okay to have an article on German Billionaires that covers only one country during one year, but not an article on entire human race that is a tenth of humanity, spans every continent, and is described over history? And not everyone who wants information on black billionaires will know to go to Oprah's article nor will they only be interested in the current Black billionaire. This article is full of facts and figures and is more encyclopedic than most Editingoprah 03:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Who ever said it was 'okay' to have an article on German Billionaires? Is everyone assuming that German Billionaires has received Wikipedia's infallible approval just because it's article isn't on the AfD page yet? I think it's ridiculous as well. However, this is an AfD for Black billionaires, and the existence or nonexistence of German Billionaires neither explicitly nor implicitly condones the necessity or lack thereof for Black billionaires. I see that many made the claim repeatedly that if one exists another ought to as well; that is a weak claim, and people voting on this AfD ought to make more cogent and less specious arguments. A given article does not exist to give complicit license for another article's existence. Also, this isn't a popularity contest, and it's not about cutting down Blacks and lifting up Germans; don't misconstrue it as such. My own stance is that both articles are unmerited and I'll vote "Delete" on German Billionaires as well if someone cares to put it up for deletion. --S0uj1r0 07:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The fact that there are so few makes the article more interesting. The fewer the number the more attention it brings. I must agree that on a relevant scale, the german billionaire article deserves the boot first. Lets not start the Wiki-prejudice game guys.

Comment These two claims are equally unsound. Wikipedia does not need an article on One-armed cello players simply because there are very few, and the only interest to be derived from such can be saved for circuses and talent shows. As far as relevancy goes, I don't think either are relevant, and this isn't about which one "gets deleted first". As I stated above, this is not a popularity contest. It's also not tit for tat; this isn't some sort of "trade" for deletions. Consider this article and vote for or against deletion on its own merits. I think they both deserve the axe, and if you care to nominate German Billionaires, I'll vote to delete it regardless of how Black billionaires results. I think it's Wikipedia:Listcruft, uninteresting, and unencyclopedic. --S0uj1r0 07:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think either article desrves the axe and certainly not this one. Billionaires are arguabley the most important people in society, and Blacks are a race with a noteworthgy social history. This article is more notebale and encyclopedic that 99% of wikipedia. Editingoprah 17:16, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If the article were called Half-Chinese gay mechanics in California in 2006 then I could understand its lack of relevance. But an article about how members of arguabley the most oppressed people of all time, a tenth of humanity, joined the most elite, admired, successful and powerful demographic on Earth, and currently the only Black member comes from the most oppressed gender, is an article of far reachinmg global sociological and historical significance. When was the last time a woman has been the richest member of her race? To compare it to an article on One-armed cello players demonstrates a lack of perspective and an ignorance of history. Editingoprah 19:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Are you claiming that one-armed cello players don't face social adversity? But you're right, I did trivialize a bit, and my analogy isn't spot on. Oprah is the only Black billionaire, so this article is more like Governors of the State of Minnesota Nicknamed 'The Body'. It's a nonspecific article that applies specifically to only one person. Save the issues oppression and economic hardship for African_American#Economic_Status where it doesn't stand on its own. --S0uj1r0 20:25, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: George W. Bush is the world's only American president and has been for several years now, so I guess you better go delete the American presidents article. This article is arguabley more note-worthy than that one since more people aspire to wealth than to political office, billionaires are the people who pretty much decide who gets to be president so if presidents are noteworthy, billionaires are too, and Black related articles are just as relevant as American related articles, since many Blacks are American and the global Black population outnumbers the American population 2 to 1. Editingoprah 22:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:We are not here to argue about whether or not the American president article, which has N O T H I N G to do with the Black Billionaires article(except for the fact that it is a list). 1. There have been MANY american presidents, and they are static, sourced, and encyclopedic, in that it doesn't go off on 20 tangents. 2. Just because people aspire to something doesn't mean that it is noteworthy. I'd say VERY few people aspire to sexually abuse children, but yet we WAIT, we have an article for it. We'd better delete it then, since nobody want's to aspire to it, it MUST be non-noteworthy. 3. Billionaires make up significantly less than 1% of the population, so it'd be hard to get that few people to influence the stupid and poor majority, except through advertisement, which probably wouldn't sway anybody too far from what they initially believed anyawy. 4. I am the person who pretty much decides what food I will eat today. So if food is noteworthy, then I am too. 5. This article is not up for deletion because it is "black related". That's, well, fucking stupid. There are many, many "black related" articles that are not up for deletion at this very second. Maybe this is just a specific aritlce that is being specifically targeted for deletion for specific reasons, unrelated to ethnicity? 6. Asians are Americans, and the global asian population outnumbers the American population 6 to 1. Where is my Asian billionaire article? Your argument offers more arguments about why the American Presidents article should be DELETED than why the black billionaires article should be kept. I think it should be deleted simply because its POV, and there has been no effort to make it NPOV, and because it is more of a list of non black billionaires than it is of black billionaires themselves. Liquidtenmillion 00:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please try and calm down. First you asked where your Asian billionaire aricle is? In fact the richest Asians are not limited to one article, they get five, without any controversy: List of Singaporeans by net worth, China Rich List, South East Asia Rich List, List of Korean billionaires and multi-millionaires,List of Hongkongers by net worth. And yet a single article on Black billionaires generate four nominations for deletion. Never mind the fact that Black economic developement was stunted by slavery, colonization, and apparteid, segration, Jim Crowe laws, and world-wide racism that is as old as recorded history and so Black billionaires are a special case. Never mind the fact that the Asian articles deal with highly specific sub-groups, while this article is broad enough in scope to focus on the entire Negroid race-one of the three broadest racial groups in anthropology and ten times more relevant because of its international population. And this article is extremely well sourced in that it relies primarily on Forbes magazine wealth valuations, the most authoritative business magazine. And how is this article any less static than the presidents one. The current president changes once every several years and so does the number, and identity of Black billionaires. And as for your earlier charge that this article is biased towards a non-white POV, this article depends on Forbes which is run by rich White Republicans. The articles cites several examples of corrupt Black billionaires and half-billionaires including dictators who allegedly exploited their own people. Yes the section about racism may be a little one-sided, but in the case of Oprah, the store's CEO agreed she was right and apologized on her show, so all an encyclopedia can do is report the official statements. The part about racism preventing Michael Jackson from reaching billionaire status does come off as paronoid POV, but at the same time many in the Black community are paranoid about racism holding successful Blacks back, and so this is a noteworthy perspective that needs to be reported on in a neutral way. If you feel the presentation was too biased, then the constructive thing to do is find alternative sources that present alternative opinions. It's not helpful to try to delete an article that deals with an important Black demographic that no other article can discuss in detail. Editingoprah 02:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The differences between Black Billionares and List of Singaporeans by net worth, China Rich List, South East Asia Rich List, List of Korean billionaires and multi-millionaires, and List of Hongkongers by net worth collectively is that the latter happen to actually contain more than one person and are lists of such. Black billionaires, on the other hand, might more acurately be named "Black billionaire" since there's only Oprah, and is not a list, but rather a launchpad for POV about the various reasons there are not more Black billionaires, why Michael Jackson and Oprah are rich but still discriminated against, etc. That article lacks focus. If you want to change the article to List of Blacks by net worth, that would be an improvement. Then there would be more than just Oprah, allegations of racism, and various, unfocused conjecture. --S0uj1r0 03:20, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There's only one Black billionaire right now but the article goes into great detail about past Black billionaires and the prospects of future Black billionaires. There's only one American president right now but that doesn't stop there from being a list of American presidents. And what's wrong with discussing allegations of racism since they are sourced and the focus of much socal tention and it's very note worthy that even the richest Blacks feel discriminated against. Editingoprah 04:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Articles that present extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are original research and therefore inappropriate. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and "prospects of future Black billionaires" do not belong on it. Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. As such, a list of American Presidents is entirely acceptable. I already stated that a List of Blacks by net worth would likely be acceptable, verifiable, and encylopedic. Allegations of racism have nothing to do with Black billionaries in particular that they don't have to do with Blacks in general, and they belong at African_American#Economic_Status. You've repeated these two claims of yours again and again, and I've disputed their merit multiple times and using multiple criteria. Please try to address my counter-arguments rather than simply restating yourself. --S0uj1r0 04:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As you said Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. I believe the events described in the article meet this criteria. Take Tiger Woods for example. The prospects of him, a part-Black man becoming a billionaire athlete in a White dominated sport is considered virtually inevitable by the numerous sources discussed and is so noteable that a popular magazine created the chart cited in the article about Tiger's march to $1 billion. And you also have the whole race to become hip-hop's first billionaire. The is not "future history" or extrapolation. It is simply reporting on a much hyped note-worthy competetition that provides much insight about the cultural value the idea of a black billionaire has in hip-hop culture and society at large. I really think you need to step out and look at this from a different perspective. There's more than enough encyclopedic content to produce an article on Black billionaires. It's not just the number of Black billionaires themselves but it's their changing net-worth as a fucntion of year, it's the yearly change in the percentage of Black billionaires among the total number of billionaires, and there's the constantly changing comparison between the net-worth of the richest or only Black billionaire compared to the richest person period. There's also data on Billionaire with partial Black ancestry. The data is far too detailed and far too international (see the membership chart) to be limited to the discussion of African-American economics. And the discrimination against Black billionaires is on a totally different level than the discrimination against Blacks at large, and what better place to discuss it than artice about Black billionaires. Everyday Blacks are discriminated against because they are assumed to be poor or because they may appear physically threatening. But alleged discrimination against Black billionaires appears to be resentment that "these people" having surpassed society's expectations for what a Black can accomplish and attempts to knock them down a peg. If you feel this is too POV then balance with quotes of people claiming Blacks are just paranoid. But I find it the most fascinating discussion I've ever seen in wikipedia and do not wish to see it marginalized to just a sub-section of another article. There are all kinds of Black scholars who have all kinds of theories of why ther aren't more Back billionaires. You may call that a POV launch pad but I call it sociological theories, and reporting on theories is what encyclopedia's do. If you feel the theories are too slanted to the political left, then feel free to add right-wing theories. But please stop advocating the deletion of this article because it's my favorite article on wikipedia. Editingoprah 05:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Trivial and non-notable. Ckessler 05:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted. Clear A7 case, no claim of anything that meets WP:MUSIC. Shell ^babelfish 18:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Phathom

non notable,copyright issues=copies elsewhere on the web Kpjas 08:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wellchild interactive

Spam-er-ific, also seems very probably not notable, only about 150 or so hits on google Kmaguir1 07:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Dennis The TIger 02:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Maybe more exists to say, but seems like it isn't yet. --GumbyProf: "I'm about ideas, but I'm not always about good ideas." 21:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elise (file sharing)

Non-notable vanity article. We'd have twice as many articles if we had one for each P2P client that's in verson 0.004 with its own author-created "proprietary open source" license (major oxymoron). --midkay 08:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this a "vanity article"? I don't see why it is that way. Because I wrote it? Does that matter if the article is well-written (yes, I agree that 'stub' is probably best suited for the article at this point)? Would it be better if someone else wrote it? There are plenty of different P2P clients that are on Wikipedia that doesn't have a "stable" version or where the article is a stub/written by author. And why does "0.004" matter? If I choose to call the next version 5.2, does it magically become more useful for Wikipedia? As far as the license goes, if the "proprietary" phrasing bothers you, just change it. Ullner 08:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, it would be better if you didn't write about yourself, instead letting others do it when you or your product becomes notable. This helps guard against potential conflicts of interests; please see WP:VAIN. Does the software pass WP:SOFTWARE notability criteria or have some other particular claim to fame? Any external sources for the information in the article as self-published information is rarely considered a reliable source? Weregerbil 08:21, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it would probably be considered more reliable if someone else had written it. However, I tried to write the article as neutral as possible, and I think I did a 'okay' job. TheParanoidOne added that the article should be a stud, and I agree that it is just that. As far as the criterias, I think Elise pass #1. There have been several non-trivial works published. Sure, there is no direct notable 'fame' associated with Elise, however, there is no other software, that I know of, that is an platform independent ADC client. That alone make Elise 'one of a kind'. I guess adding a direct link to the license and/or history would be great. Ullner 08:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where are these "several non-trivial works"? Please provide links or citations. Right now, this looks like a new and obscure program that has received little to no attention of any kind. —Cel ithemis 08:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Different versions is available for anyone to view. According to SF's stat page, Elise was ranked, in August, 5,705 with 61 downloads and 1,240 web hits. (No, I did not sit and downloaded those myself or pressed 'Refresh' in my browser.) As I interpret the numbers for the different months, there's an steady increase in users. (I know, WP:SOFTWARE argue that user number isn't a criteria, though it seems to be an argument for this deletion proposal.) Ullner 09:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How is number of users an argument against this? I mentioned that it's an early version of a quite unknown piece of software.. --midkay 09:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in my first comment, would calling the next version "5.2" (or whatever seem "mature") be better? The stats show that more and more people know about Elise. I didn't know there was a "x amount of users must know about the application for it to be allowed on Wikipedia" clause. Ullner 09:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you call the next version 5.2, I can assure you that you would be considered a fool. My advice: develop the software, and if they like it, they'll use it. --Dennis The TIger 02:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 08:53, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, since there is nothing to indicate that this has been the subject of nontrivial third-party published works or otherwise meets WP:SOFTWARE. —Cel ithemis 10:02, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh... Oh, well. In any case, if you do delete it, please change Direct Connect (file sharing) to point "Elise A platform independent ADC client. " to http://elise.sf.net. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ullner (talk • contribs) 10:18, 2 Sep 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Nigel ^(Talk) 12:40, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Seems to fail WP:SOFTWARE - certainly 2, 3 and 4, and I see no evidence that it passes 1. Also it fails the guideline recommendation (not writing about a prog you've written). --Mnem e son 21:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Dennis The TIger 02:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. A software is notable when people use it, when it's verifiable and when it's referenced by third parties. Sorry, don't mean to make any personal attacks, but a software in v0.04 is completely non-notable, besides, if it's no different from any other crap p2p software, how's it more notable?--Frenchman113 on wheels! 15:26, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --- Glen 07:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Zafiriou

Contested prod (i.e. the editor removed the prod I'd tagged it with). Basically, I smell a WP:HOAX here for a couple of reasons. Firstly, the player was born in 1989, making him 17 which seems a tad on the young side for playing professional first-team football in Europe at a top-notch club. Secondly, the article on his team was anonymously edited to replace a different goalkeeper with this gentleman. Thirdly, and most importantly, Google's never heard of a "Jimmy Zafiriou", as a footballer for any club or in most other contexts. BigHaz 08:39, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a side note, the "close friend" mentioned in the article - in a nicely self-referential way - bears a striking resemblance to the account name involved in creating and editing the article. BigHaz 08:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:V - no sources to document any of the article. At the point where the article claims that someone "tells" Wikipedia, WP is being used as a newspaper, which it is not. Appears to be original research, at best. Tychocat 11:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Tychocat Hello32020 17:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoax per [14], creator also added this nonsense to AC Sparta Praha. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:05, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Angus. Also image [15], if possible. Sam Vimes | Address me 16:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the link. Sam Vimes | Address me 15:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. I'm pretty confident this is a joke which Jimmy's pals are playing on us. SIngle use account. No sign of this player on the club's website. Ohconfucius 06:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm not sure it's just his pals, either. Recent edits are equally divided between attacking Jimmy and reverting to the neutral-but-hoaxy version. BigHaz Schreit mich an 11:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per BigHaz and Tycohat. MyNam e IsNotBob 11:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. RFerreira 19:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I believe a redirect of this page, likely the creation of a well-meaning if inexperienced Wikipedian, to the related Orange Islands will be the most satisfactory outcome. There is in fact nothing to merge, technically, as the target article already has all the information contained in this one. Thank you for your comments. Regards —Encephalon 10:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pinkan Island

This island only appeared in one Pokémon episode. It played no major role in the plot and has never been referenced since. It is not in any of the video games. It is also a stub that cannot be expanded. This article amounts to nothing but fancruft and does not belong on Wikipedia. Hybrid 08:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Good lord. Tychocat 10:52, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom.--RMHED 14:03, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all into Orange Islands or List of Orange Islands per WP:FICT. --TheFarix (Talk) 14:08, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Farix. Tracker/TTV (myTalk|myWork|myInbox) 16:03, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Please refraim from altering my comments again. It is a gross violation of civility. --TheFarix (Talk) 21:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Svde 16:55, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete defintely as per nom Hello32020 17:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Orange Islands. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 04:14, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete -- Samir धर्म 05:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pokémopolis

This only played a role in one episode of Pokémon. It did not affect the plot in any way and it is also a stub that cannot be expanded. This page ammounts to nothing but fancruft and does not belong on Wikipedia. Hybrid 09:18, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or move to an article on the specific episode. NN on its own, but worthy of inclusion as a note in such an article. (|-- UlTiMuS 10:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No notability stated or implied. Tychocat 10:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable fictional place, unless there is a specific article for the episode in which this place appeared. If that were the case, then I'd say merge. -- tariqabjotu 11:39, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge it and other Kanto region locations into into List of Kanto region locations per WP:FICT. --TheFarix (Talk) 14:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)...[reply]
- ...which would require a new article. Merits a mention in the Kanto region article, nothing else. Tracker/TTV (myTalk|myWork|myInbox) 16:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment It's not a problem if you merge the other locations in the Kanto region locations in as well. Most of them probably doesn't need to be individual articles either. --TheFarix (Talk) 21:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Svde 16:55, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TrackerTV Hello32020 17:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the article on the episode it was mentioned in if it exists. If it doesn't exist, delete. VegaDark 21:27, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is no artcile on the episode. DON'T CREATE ONE. The episode meets the criteria of my nomination. Hybrid
- Comment This isn't about your criteria for deletion but what is in the best interests for both Wikipedia and this article. That is why I say that merging this along with the other Kanto region locations into a "List of" article is far better alternative then deleting them. --TheFarix (Talk) 21:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Response I just noticed this comment. Wikipedia is not a game guide. Wikipedia is not an indescriminent collection of information. Wikipedia does not revolve around the whims of the PCP. Wikipedia is not a dumpster! I was just requesting that an article about an unimportant episode of Pokémon not be created, and I believe that is in the best interest of Wikipedia. Hybrid 21:06, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-existent entities mentioned in a singular episode of a television show are generally (read: almost always) do not desrve there own articles. If there is an existing article for the episode, the article should be turned into a redirect, an example of which was Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Trillion_Dollar_Bill. Because there is no article on the episode, delete. -- danntm ^T _C 02:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note I found the Bulbapedia article on this ep: [16]. Tracker/TTV (myTalk|myWork|myInbox) 03:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Response Is it possible for me to merge the article with that one seeing as I am not a member of Bulbapedia? Is it even possible to merge articles from different Wikis? If it is I would be more than happy to once this discussion ends if that is the concensus. Hybrid 04:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Read WP:PCP. Bulbapedia uses an incompatible Creative Commons licence. Ask them first. Tracker/TTV (myTalk|myWork|myInbox) 21:28, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. RFerreira 19:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the episode article. Many other minor things of this nature are handled this way, though, on consideration that nothing links to it, a delete could be warrented as well. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 16:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- An article on the episode does not exist on Wikipedia or any subsite that is merge compatible. Hybrid 21:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC) -- Also, the article on Bulbapedia is very incomplete and anyone who would discover the link wouldn't be able to figure out why based on the information in the article aside from the title. Hybrid[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge and redirect into Lil Boosie. BaseballBaby 07:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lil' Boosie

There are two articles for this rap artist, the other being Lil Boosie. This one is the poorer of the two. Juggaleaux 10:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge if there's anything to merge, otherwise delete --Aim Here 11:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect. I have to say that the one up for delete seems to me to be the better written article. It just also happens to be the shorter one. Erechtheus 21:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - true that it's shorter, but this one doesn't go into as much detail as the other one, and only goes into basic summary here. People will want more than that when they read articles. --Dennis The TIger 02:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response. That's certainly true. The writing on the other one is terrible, but it does have more detail. Erechtheus 03:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect per nom. Notable from Aim Here, merge any usable content before killing it. --Dennis The TIger 02:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was flagged as c/vio. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 11:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LEICA FREEDOM TRAIN

Was nominated for speedy delete as nonsense. Doesn't meet definition for nonsense. Encyclopedic value in question. — ERcheck (talk) 11:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a copyvio from here, and/or advertisement. --Aim Here 11:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, it's not nonsense (though the first paragraph is throroughly lacking in context). Anyway, copyvio list; not a CSD CV candidate, but a CV nonetheless. (|-- UlTiMuS 11:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as copyvio or advertisment from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. It would be good though if some wikipedian with the requsite knowledge could replace it with a properly wiki-compliant article - the subject itself is worthy of inclusion, BTLizard 11:26, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was NO CONSENSUS TO DELETE. Herostratus 17:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cornwall (territorial duchy)

POV fork of Dutchy of Cornwall josh (talk) 11:27, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Duchy of Cornwall (~~Comment~~) - Seems like you're right about the fork, but why not just boldly redirect, merge whatever is there to merge, and be done with it? You don't need an AfD for that, and there seems to have been no talkpage opposition when the forking issue was brought up weeks ago. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Simply redirecting would lead an edit war. There tends to be strong feelings on the subject (as demonstrated below) and wanted to go through due process to prevent this. josh (talk) 13:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note on process: While I can understand what you mean, I don't think it's a good use of Wiki process to employ an AfD just in order to get a "binding" mandate for a redirect. An article RfC might have been the more correct choice. But I'll vote "redirect" for now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The Cornish refer to the Duchy as the whole of Cornwall as confirmed by the original text of the Grand Charters and other references. Whilst the modern Duchy estate claims to be merely a collection of farms and properties across the UK there is a forthcoming court case in Europe which involves the Duchy and the principle of equality before the law and I feel it inappropriate to merge these articles at this stage. Crabbtree 10:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The teritorial concept of the Duchy is already covered by the Duchy of Cornwall article. josh (talk) 13:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: All that does is to mention the existence of another POV in status quo speak! -- TGG 11:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as above. Fear of an edit war shouldn't make two articles out of one topic. Flying Jazz 01:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There is clearly a discrepancy - a contrived chasm! - between the official (propaganda) view of the Duchy and that which may be seen from the legal statutes and documents which created/restored it. It would seem appropriate, therefore, to retain the two so that each may bring its own logical argument to the public ___domain. Because of the complexity of argument over the Cornish Duchy, a single page (merged, or reliance on inadequate qualification within other related pages) cannot begin to promote real knowledge and truth on this topic. The territorial aspects of this brings into play the rights of the Cornish as a people whereas the official (propaganda) view seeks to deny that right. A single page would only serve to confuse and marginalise the truth in favour of those who control the debate! -- TGG 10:20, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: what clearer proof of the POV-forkish intentions behind this article do we need? Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Since there is a de jure-v-de-facto legal distinction between the two entities, how else can it be presented without being totally marginalised by comments that reinforce a de facto status quo (e.g. but this is not accepted by the Duchy/Government etc.)? Would/could a merged page accept qualifying legal documents without being edited out? I can appreciate the concern over a fork but how far will 'the people's encyclopedia' go in promoting true knowledge? A single page with continuing contradictory text would be, at best, confusing and would not be dealt with in an even-handed NPOV way! -- TGG 11:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The answers to your questions are "in one article," "yes if they do not represent extreme minority opinions in Cornwall," and "very far." You are underestimating the ability of a talk page to clarify tricky differences in opinion about editing articles dealing with currently disputed subjects. You are underestimating the ability of a large community of editors to be even-handed in the long run after an immense amount of arguing. And I think you are patronizing the reader by denying them the ablity to see all the information about a topic in one page because we might confuse the poor dears. Contradictions are a part of the world (particularly when it comes to British topics I've noticed!) and the reader is well-served by juxtaposed, qualified, contradictory text in one article. See British Isles and its talk page with 6 archives, British Isles (terminology) and its talk page with 3 archives. Flying Jazz 12:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have tested the water on the Duchy of Cornwall page (para beginning 'For Cornish Nationalists..) to see where it leads -- TGG 12:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - due of the complexity of the subject I feel a lot of detail will be lost with a merged article and important legal details will over time be edited out to push a particular POV (as has occured numerous times in the past). There is a lot more detail that could be added to both pages and to merge will confuse the reader.Gulval 17:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Duchy of Cornwall- another POV Cornish nationalist fork. Astrotrain 14:22, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment what other POV Cornish nationalist forks have there been? I can't think of any offhand - maybe if you directed us to them and their subsequent discussion it would help us decide on the current dilema Mammal4 15:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge The Duchy of Cornwall page doesn't really do the subject of Cornwall as a territorial unit justice, and makes the duchy sound very much like a property company only. Although Prince Charles runs the revinue collecting aspects of it like a business, this is not the only face of the duchy and it is quite clear that it was never historically meant to be thought of as just a company. The Crown Estate is today run very much in the same vain to the duchy of Cornwall, but one wouldn't take this to mean that England is a company. By merging the two pages and giving adequate coverage to both these aspects it should hopefully give more balance to the topic. Mammal4 15:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Whilst I agree with your initial sentiment which truly highlights the distinction between the Duchy, as officially presented (an estate), and its hidden true historical construction (a territory with people), I have little confidence that one page can do the subject justice. At least, maintaining the two pages will facilitate cross-linking references. On one page only, every Establishment POV will be faced with 20 others pointing out the historical, and legal, proof to the contrary. Wonderful, if it were free from edit vandalism, but we are well aware of what, in fact, is going on! -- TGG 23:20, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - --MacRusgail 16:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. --james^(talk) 13:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Flanagan

As article and discussion suggest themselves, there's a lot of unverified information here. Disregarding the unverified information, notability would be highly suspect. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 11:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unless someone can allay my suspicions that this is an attack page. Even then. I have this feeling that something's very, very weird about this. BigHaz 12:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This wasn't created to be an attack page. The last "non-attack" version was [17] before the "degre mill" part was added [18]. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 12:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep based on later discussion. Apparently the thing that was very, very weird was the subject of the article himself. BigHaz 08:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A little background history is in order here. The article was created as a mostly unreferenced stub by User:JimmyT. I spotted it while doing RC patrol and tidied it up, adding references and further material. In the process, I found that Flanagan (who I'd not heard of before) appears to be a figure of some note in the alternative medicine / New Age fields, but has also aroused controversy for his claims. Lexis-Nexis returns several dozen results for him, mostly critiques / takedowns of his claims. Google Books also shows that he is discussed in several New Ages / altie books (Phenomenal World, Joan D'Arc; Iporanga, Kevin Apostobranco; Interactive Technology and the New Paradigm for Healthcare, M. Richard et al; Before I Go, Jim Walker; Surfing The Tao: A Revolution of Free Will, Angela V. Michaels; Holy Order of Water (P): Healing Earth's Waters and Ourselves, William E. Marks; How We Heal: Nutritional, Emotional, and Psychospiritual Fundamentals, Douglas W. Morrison; and others). While the article undoubtedly needs more work, the subject does nonetheless clearly meet the criterion set out in WP:BIO of having "made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field." -- ChrisO 12:26, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What about the claims on Talk:Patrick Flanagan that None of the external links mention the doctorates and neither does the Guardian article about him from 2005, and The Daily Mirror article refers to him as "the late Dr. Flanagan"? Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 12:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure why the external links don't mention the doctorates, unless Flanagan's personal website ([19]) has been removed from the list. I'll restore this. The Daily Mirror is definitely wrong; he's still alive ([20]). AxelBoldt seems to have misread what the Guardian reference in para 2 relates to: not his claimed doctorates, but his claim to have been "plagued by a recurring dream". -- ChrisO 13:34, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've modified these references now, hopefully the article should be clearer. -- ChrisO 10:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems like a notable enough shyster to me. Let's try placing the article inside a pyramid overnight, maybe it will improve! --Brianyoumans 08:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with ChrisO. This man deserves a place in wikipedia. Sure there will be those who believe he is a charlatan. However mere belief is not proof. There have been many others who were once considered fraudsters who are now considered worthy of an honored place in history. One more thing, I would like to see some more history of his early childhood family and schooling. Any one knows anything ? 125.237.230.111 (talk) 06:31, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP ~ all information is useful to some degree ... its up to the reader to ferret out what is worthy and and what is not.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 07:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Urban Guitar

Contested prod about a website that does not assert notability. MER-C 12:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom ST47 12:26, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Zaxem 02:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EFDgames

Prod removed by creator without explanation. My original prod read "article about phantom "amateur company" on the web that does not have a working web page yet". Fails WP:WEB, WP:ORG and WP:CORP whichever one might find most suited. Pascal.Tesson 12:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.Mystache 13:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Zaxem 02:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, looks like a pretty blatant vanity page. Mark Grant 12:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Harrison austin

Contested speedy deletion (page recreated after initial speedy and speedy tags removed from the second article 3 times despite warnings that this was not the appropriate way to contest). I think Mr. Austin is a non-notable young footballer. Google search for him and BOYS Caivanese came up empty Slp1 13:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Update - the creator of this page User:Rayjaustin has been indefinitely blocked for vandalism. The Harrison austin page is attracting extra sentences, including one with a link to a page that has been speedy deleted: Grant C--Slp1 02:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment given that the creator of the page was one Rayjaustin, I suspect this is a hoax..... - ChrisTheDude 14:45, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - CSD A7. Tagged as such, hope it sticks. MER-C 13:31, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Some assertion of notability. Speedy tag removed. Appropriate to remain on AFD for community consensus. — ERcheck (talk) 13:37, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So what if Mr.Austin isn't "notable" there are plently of players on wikipedia who aint heard of it's part of being a massive encyclopedia having the unknowns so i think he should stay here and just because it aint on google it don't mean a thing and BOYS Caivanese are a team in Italy who are the equivalent of Accrington Stanley in England —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.99.185.209 (talk • contribs) .
- Comment see what Wikipedia is not, specifically it's not an indiscriminate collection of information. So we can't just add any random thing into the encyclopedia. Also, having no sources means the article is unverifiable, which is one of the central tenets of Wikipedia. ColourBurst 15:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment a team notable enough to be a redlink on the it Wikipedia. Perhaps the author might consider writing an article about the team there, assuming they reach the appropriate notability guidelines. Tonywalton | Talk 21:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, speedily if possible as A7. Assertions of notability are unverifiable and probably hoaxy; it beggars belief that one of the highest rated prospects in world football gets exactly no Google hits either with or without the word "caivanese", and that no football site appears to have discussed his U18 or U21 prospects whether with England or Italy.
"So what if he isn't 'notable'"? See This for what this Wikipedia classes as "notable" enough for inclusion, and see this for what isn't. Note also that [21] makes no mention of this world-class prospect (though admittedly that site is ~~undated~~ dated "2003-2004" and may therefore refer to the 2004 season before he allegedly signed for them). Tonywalton | Talk 14:56, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was NO CONSENSUS TO DELETE. The raw comment totals are 3-2 Delete. But one could take the post by User:Hanksta2 attempting to provide a reference as a Keep comment. But FWIW User:Hanksta2 has mostly only edited the article under consideration, and one of the Keep comments was a Weak Keep. So let's move on the arguments. The argument that the article is not verified is true. It should, however, be relatively easy to verify the article, unlike some unverified article. The claim in the article that Freddy vs. Ghostbusters is popular on the internet is not verified, but neither has it been refuted, granting its harder to prove a negative. In my mind this one juuuust falls off the bubble and survives. Herostratus 18:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Herostratus 18:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BraxtanFILM

Non-notable independent film company. Lack of third party references. Google hits for ("BraxtanFILM -wikipedia") = 663. Fails: Wikipedia:Verifiability. -- Netsnipe ► 13:41, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep because of the popularity of Freddy vs. Ghostbusters - article needs to be seriously re-written, however, as it seriously comes off as a puff piece/ad at the moment, especially that "timeline". MikeWazowski 16:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yeah, it needs to be re-written; and that's an on-going process. Would this article stand up better if there was a Wikipedia article for Freddy vs. Ghostbusters? Hanksta2 16:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Yes, but if and only if it had "credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" per Wikipedia:Verifiability. But either way, this article also needs the same. --Satori Son 14:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no independent sourcing or reviews to stand up notability. TerriersFan 03:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.suffolkjournal.net/news/2006/06/07/Arts/Indie.Filmmakers.Talk.About.Finances.And.Health-2057598.shtml — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hanksta2 (talk • contribs) 13:12, 9 September 2006
Delete per WP:V since no sufficient sources yet provided. (The above source mentions BraxtanFilm once, and only to give context for an interview with one of its principals. It does not verify any of the contents of the article.) --Satori Son 22:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was NO CONSENSUS TO DELETE. Herostratus 18:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Currier House

As per WP:BAI point 4 dormitories are non notable _Doctor Bruno_^_Talk_/_{E Mail} 14:20, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are twelve undergraduate residential Houses at Harvard, the nine traditional Harvard Houses (south of Harvard Yard) and the three traditional Radcliffe Houses, at the Quad. Any reason why you've nominated only the three Radcliffe Houses? Fan-1967 15:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to a list of Harvard houses or an article on the House system in particular. To describe it simply as a dormitory is missing some of the point; it is also a basic operating unit of the school. Christopher Parham (talk) 15:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note The equivalent at Yale are called Colleges, and each of those twelve have articles. Fan-1967 15:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The role at both schools is somewhat in between the Oxford/Cambridge constituent colleges (which clearly deserve articles) and ordinary dormitories (which almost exclusively don't). Christopher Parham (talk) 15:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per points made above. Harvard houses are not merely dormitories, the nomination is not accurate in that regard. As such, it does not fail WP:BAI. Dina 16:03, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or merge to Quadrangle (Harvard). Claim to notability is the number of famous alumni who have lived there. (Whatever happens, Cabot House and Pforzheimer House should probably share the same fate.) -AED 16:55, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While Harvard houses are not 'merely dormitories', they are pretty close. Unlike Cambridge colleges, their academic independence is nonexistent and their individual notability stems mainly from well-known alumni. As a look at the articles will make clear, they are not encyclopaedic. Hornplease 06:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - See Template:Pennsylvania_State_University_campus and List of Penn State residence halls. Someone with knowledge of the campus should show some discretion about which houses are truly notable. Flying Jazz 23:53, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - famous Alumni does not make this house notable. Nothing inherently notable in the article. TerriersFan 03:22, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep See reasoning on delete discussion for Pforzheimer House. Ivymike21 17:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. `'mikka (t) 03:17, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pforzheimer House

As per WP:BAI point 4 dormitories are non notable _Doctor Bruno_^_Talk_/_{E Mail} 14:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (as on the other two) There are twelve undergraduate residential Houses at Harvard, the nine traditional Harvard Houses (south of Harvard Yard) and the three traditional Radcliffe Houses, at the Quad. Any reason why you've nominated only the three Radcliffe Houses? Seems to me we should nominate all twelve as a group or none. Fan-1967 15:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to a list of Harvard houses or an article on the House system in particular. To describe it simply as a dormitory is missing some of the point; it is also a basic operating unit of the school. Christopher Parham (talk) 15:40, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated above, this is inaccurate for the purposes of this discussion. They are a basic administrative unit of the school ,not a basic academic unit. Harvard college is notable academically, not administratively. So they are not much more than dorms elsewhere, though some of them are a little prettier.Delete. Hornplease 06:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep or merge to Quadrangle (Harvard). Notable building at notable university. (Whatever happens, Cabot House and Currier House should probably share the same fate.) -AED 16:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Look at Template:Pennsylvania_State_University_campus and observe the judgement that went into selecting which buildings are sufficiently notable for an article and which are not. Now look at List of Penn State residence halls for a comprehensive list. Something similar should be done here. Flying Jazz 04:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Christopher Parham. Failing that, merge. RFerreira 19:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep wikipedia is not paper. A splendid article. The object is of note for quite a few people. `'mikka (t) 00:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: no merge. Merging a big article into a bigger one is exactly the opposite how wikipedia works/grows. `'mikka (t) 00:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I recognize that "dorms" are not appropriate wikipedia subjects, but Harvard Houses are not dorms. They have independent endowments, athletic and artistic facilities, and grant scholarships. Some are hundreds of years old. Uucp 02:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

1) Endowments, facilities, academic units, administrative units, and scholarships at other universities are not intrinsically notable. The fact that Harvard combines these functions with their living arrangements does not increase the notability of their houses.

2) If age were a reason for intrinsic notability then every class, every room, every stone at Harvard should have its own article. Perhaps the oldest buildings at Harvard are notable for their age. All of the houses are not notable because Harvard is old.

3) Countless college newspaper articles have been published for nearly every university that describe a huge volume of details including historical minutiae that are only valuable to someone affiliated with the university. Details about the names of house masters or how one house stole the other house's gong do not make this a "splendid" example of an article just because there are verifiable citations to the information in the Harvard Crimson. They make this a splendid example of the kind of insular "my-school-my-home-is-really-really-important" attitude that Wikipedia has tried, often unsuccesfully, to avoid. Show me a national or even a city-wide news story about "The Hastings Doctrine" or the rechristening of a house to a new name and I'll be more impressed with the notability of the subject matter. This article is of note for quite a few people affiliated with Harvard but not for a general purpose encyclopedia. Flying Jazz 04:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments/Response Actually, this is precisely where Harvard houses differ from dorms. For decades (in some cases over a century), they were allowed to select their own members and, despite official policy to the contrary, this apparently still happens to some extent. Newspaper or magazine articles about famous Harvard graduates do sometimes mention whether they lived in Elliott House or Kirkland House, for example, and this information tells you about the social class and hobbies of these people when they were young. (Hint: Elliott = rich, old money, Kirkland = more into sports than studying) Uucp 10:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If Harvard houses differ from dorms elsewhere, that makes the entire house system notable but it does not make each individual house notable. Also, many universities (perhaps most) have living systems where one ___location has a lot of rich kids and another ___location has a lot of jocks. Flying Jazz 04:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum A quick check of newslibrary.com shows hundreds of hits for "eliot house" and "harvard", over a period of decades, in newspapers around the United States (subtracting out the hits from the Harvard Crimson, of course). Nexis has hits in The New Yorker, New Republic, as well as regional papers like the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. I'm glad to send you copies of any articles if you'd like to verify.

"North House" and "Pforzheimer" have fewer hits, but are discussed in Boston, New York, Texas, and Illinois papers, among others.

Most significantly, when Harvard changed its policies about how students were assigned to houses in 1996, it was national news. See for example, "Harvard tries to break with tradition Students now to be assigned housing, diluting cultures of residence dorms," The Dallas Morning News, June 16, 1996. Harvard houses are not dorms, and they are notable. Uucp 17:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would never argue that Eliot House isn't notable. I would argue that Eliot is notable and I also think the Eliot House article could use some work. I also think the house system as a whole may be notable. I'm arguing that Pforzheimer and many if not most other houses at Harvard are not sufficiently notable for their own Wikipedia article. I'm hoping for discretion instead of including every house at Harvard "for the sake of completeness" as an editor said here. I don't think Wikipedia should be about having an article for every member of a category for the sake of completeness. Eliot passes my notability test. Most other houses at Harvard do not. Flying Jazz 04:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am amenable to this view and feel that a single article on the house system might be ideal. In addition to being more consolidated it might help stem the amount of triviality, which any article along these lines attracts. If these articles are deleted, I'll probably seek an undeletion to carry out a merge. Assuming you don't oppose such an action I'll use your comment to demonstrate the usefulness of such an action. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A partial list of publications which have mentioned North/Pforzheimer in recent years include the Boston Herald, Boston Globe, Chicago Daily Herald, Dallas Morning News, Atlanta Journal and The Atlanta Constitution, New Haven Register, Portland Press Herald, Seattle Times, Fort Worth Star-Telegram, and the Joliet Herald-News. Some of these are mere mentions; others are more extended discussions. I'm glad to forward copies of any for those who want to check. Uucp 17:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than offering to forward this list of several publications to us, I wish you had made the effort to take the notable content about this house from just one or two of these publications and add it to the Wikipedia article with citations. This would have simultaneously supported your viewpoint and improved the article. My strong suspicion is that even the "extended discussions" in these publications say nothing notable for an encyclopedia. Flying Jazz 01:17, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - famous Alumni does not make this house notable. Nothing inherently notable in the article. TerriersFan 03:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep please it is a notable building at notable university Yuckfoo 22:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Harvard Houses are analogous to the individual colleges at Yale, Princeton, Oxford, and Cambridge, although Harvard is the only one of the five that uses the term "house" instead of "college". Each house has its own internal system of tutors and departmetn coordinated tutorials. They represent an intermediary locus between what people typically think of a dorm, and an independant liberal arts college. It is also important to know that just because dormitories are a "bad article idea", it does not mean they are forbidden, nor does it mean that this one in particular ought to be deleted. Why are wikipedia editors wasting their time going around nominating pefectly well developed articles for deletion just because the article doesn't matter to THEM. Just leave it be.Ivymike21 17:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was NO CONSENSUS TO DELETE, but also reduce article to a stub as the current text appears to be copyvio. Herostratus 20:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Derrick Lonsdale

The article is about a somewhat notable doctor, but it has no pages linking to it, and it doesn't cite its references Its been this way for a month now, so it finally should be deleted 11kowrom 14:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This guy is obviously notable. This is a case for cleanup, not AfD if you ask me. Erechtheus 21:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. 940 google hits mean hes notable. Lorty 22:31, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the text appears to be an adaptation of parts of the reference. I have marked it as copyvio in case it is kept but would prefer it to be deleted and a new article can be written from scratch if an editor wishes. TerriersFan 03:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Th ε Halo ^Θ 13:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hunter Irrigation

ad for NN corp. -Steve Sanbeg 00:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:CORP. Leuko 03:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added some external references and removed the copyvio. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 22:22, 25 August 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, —Xyra e l / 14:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - insufficiently notable. Zaxem 02:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With 250 product patents and 40 trademarks, looks like a notable business. Google hits are massive. I would give this article the benefit of the doubt and keep. JungleCat talk/contrib 06:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename under its correct name "Hunter Industries". Ohconfucius 06:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep please this one is easy really with over 1,400,000 results on google Yuckfoo 08:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a patent search shows lots of reason this company belongs on wiki. ALKIVAR™ 20:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete by Doc glasgow under A7 criteria.. --Hetar 18:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah lorondeau

Fails WP:BIO. This article had been previously speedied. This AfD takes the place of the Prod tag another editor added to the re-created article. Rklawton 15:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete G4, deleted twice and recreated. Recommend protection from recreation. (Note that being a "local celebrity" is not an assertion of notability.) ColourBurst 15:35, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as recreation of deleted content. Also, this is possibly an attack page or an attempt to expose personal information of a non-notable person. --Metropolitan90 15:40, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Question I thought speedied articles that were recreated counted as "contested" and needed to go through the AfD process - as opposed to AfD'd articles that were recreated which are subject to a speedy as "recreated". Not that I'm opposed to both a speedy and protection from recreation in this case. Rklawton 15:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Claim of being a "local celebrity" without citing any reason for it does not count as a legitimate assertion of notability. Fan-1967 17:35, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ghadeer Jaber Mkheemar

Does not assert notability. While obviously tragic, Ghadeer's death is no more significant than the hundreds of children killed in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict since the last intifada began in 2000, or indeed the untold numbers of children killed in violent conflicts since the beginning of time. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rania_Siam. Pan Dan 15:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the same reason, I am also nominating the page on Ibrahim Muhammad Ismail. Pan Dan 15:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both per above. They fail WP:BIO. --Huon 15:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per above, cause they don't show WP:BIO. (kind of a repeat Huon) Hello32020 15:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The manner of her death makes her notable. Not many fifth graders are shot in the stomach by Israeli soldiers. The news coverage cited in the article, including a story in the New York Times, demonstrates notability. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 18:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No it doesn't. Getting 1 or 2-day coverage in the media doesn't make a person notable. Pan Dan 19:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Maybe we could create a new article which includes a list of notable children killed by the Israeli Army and delete this one. --Ageo020 19:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Such an article wd be POV. At Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rania_Siam I suggested: "Perhaps a list of child victims of the Israel-Palestinian conflict, or something like that, could be created instead of one article per child." Pan Dan 19:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per precedent: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rania Siam. -AED 21:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, AED and NN in context. NeoFreak 00:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Zaxem 02:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.Bakaman _Bakatalk 16:02, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Other suggestions mentioned above could be incorporated into Children and minors in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Very sad. Flying Jazz 18:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Tragic civilan casualty of ongoing armed dispute. Only counts as one coverage per WP:BIO. Being shot in the stomach is no different to being shot in any other part of the anatomy. There were no other direct consequences to the subject's death which could make the event notable. Ohconfucius 06:20, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was KEEP, but... destroy most of the material in the article, prune it down to a stub, slap an ((Expand)) tag on it, keep an eye on it, and hope somebody eventually makes a proper article of it. Herostratus 18:27, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Off plan

Written as an advertisement for a property firm. I tried to clean it up a little by removing the linkspam, but it comes back. Wikipedia shouldn't be a free advertising service for real estate brokers. Baseball,Baby! ^balls^•^strikes 21:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and rewrite. Seems like a real process, but there is very little left to be salvaged in this article. --Daniel Olsen 00:31, 20 August 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, (aeropagitica) (talk) 05:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Google Web isn't the best research tool in this instance. All that it turned up were advertisements by real estate agents. Google Scholar is a far better tool, turning up a complete explanation of "buying off-plan" in Harry King (2003-11-01). Buy to Let in Spain: How to Invest in Spanish Property for Pleasure and Profit. How To Books Ltd. p. 105. ISBN 1857038908., warnings about the pitfalls in Colin Barrow (2005-02-01). The Complete Guide To Buying Property In Portugal: Buying, Renting, Letting and Selling. Kogan Page. p. 56. ISBN 0749443030., some discussion in Sarah Blandy & David Parsons (2004-10-05). "Affordable Housing and the Private Residential Market" (PDF). 3rd FIG Regional Conference for Asia and the Pacific, Jakarta, Indonesia October 3–7, 2004. p. 11., and some additional discussion in Seow Eng Ong; Fook Jam Cheng; Boaz Boon & Tien Foo Sing (April 2003). "Oligopolistic bidding and pricing in real estate development: Experimental evidence". Journal of Property Investment & Finance (ISSN 1463-578X). 21 (2). MCB UP Ltd: 154–189. doi:10.1108/14635780310469120.. So the concept is definitely real, and not simply a marketing invention.
However, this article is nowhere near being how an encyclopaedia article should look, and closely resembles the blurbs on the web sites of the aforementioned real estate agents. As Daniel Olsen says, a rewrite from scratch is in order. Uncle G 11:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Having now seen the first sentence of this edit, I now know why that is: It was written by the managing director of one of those real estate agents. Uncle G 00:58, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, it's a how-to in its present state. How long should we give it to be rewritten? JCScaliger 22:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Well you can always make a start yourself, right now. ☺ Uncle G 00:58, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have tagged it for a complete rewrite per this discussion. Daniel Case 15:34, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment See also Property investment clubs and Buying off plan, similarly bad and created by the same "user," Ann@new-homes-direct.com. Can/should we tack those on here? - Zepheus (ツィフィアス) 23:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Give them their own AFD's and post cross-links; if they are the same cruft, we don't want any confusion about them. Unless I am convinced otherwise, Delete unless rewritten by close of this AfD JCScaliger 23:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Convert to serious article - the topic is real - the article needs improvement. Turn it over to Wikipedia:Cleanup Taskforce. Williamborg (Bill) 04:47, 25 August 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, —Xyra e l / 15:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Convert and block editors adding link spam. Rklawton 15:26, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Very spammy. --Dennis The TIger 02:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abode Steamer

Fails WP:CORP with ^{[Check Google hits]} no coverage whatsoever, not under this name at least. Daniel Case 15:25, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Use db|vanity (non noteable company); advert for such articles. User:Yy-bo 19:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable according to WP:COPR. Single company advertisement. Mugaliens 14:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neo-Spacians

Short article about Yu-gi-oh "monsters". Doesn't seem to contain any useful content. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. digital_m e^{(Talk•Contribs)} 15:27, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just some more fancruft taking up space. Tarret 15:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Tarret Hello32020 15:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 22:33, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a notable part of YGO mythology. Danny Lilithborne 23:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Tsdng96 06:26, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as recreation of deleted article. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Amazoness_series--Frenchman113 on wheels! 15:30, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BPositive

Another editor commented on the talk page:

This page appears to be hype for a product. A review of the product's webpage does not substantiate the claims made, especially the claim of superiority over continuous SSL sessions. I therefore suggest deletion.

I of course also support deletion on the grounds that the company or service has little or no notability. Google finds no trace of third-party coverage [22] [23]. The article is a blatant advertisement. Pascal.Tesson 15:37, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SPAM - Blood red sandman 15:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I smell pork. Delete per WP:SPAM. The site for 2factor.com and Bpositive.net have no Alexa rank. Ohconfucius 06:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above comments. Michael Kinyon 08:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mzima

Company vanity article. Fails WP:CORP. Prod tags were removed by original author without comment. Could also be copyvio since text is same as company web page. Rick Burns 15:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:VANITY and WP:CORP Hello32020 16:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I tried to improve the article. I think it's a big company, but as a private company it doesn't have to disclose the size of its operations. Perhaps somebody who works in the field could be asked about the company. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 18:52, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the above action would not satisfy WP:V Ohconfucius 06:35, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not verifiably notable, nor is there an assertion of notability. -AED 21:21, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per AED. Alexa rank off the bottom of the scale (at 586 thousandsths). No evidence it passes WP:CORP. Ohconfucius 06:34, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was VERY SLIGHT AND WEAK KEEP per commentors. Which is the same as Keep. Herostratus 19:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CampusTours

Contested prod. Questionable notability (see WP:WEB), Alexa rank over 190,000. Reads like an advertisement. The "in the news" references refer to the site only in passing or (in at least one case) not at all. VoiceOfReason 20:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Needs a rewrite, but is probably just notable enough. --RMHED 21:15, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - concur with VoiceOfReason on rewrite. -- Whpq 21:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very Weak Keep and Very Strong Rewrite to be less WP:VSCA. Leuko 04:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - my inclination is delete, else I wouldn't have nominated it, but I agree with the above that this company might just barely reach the threshhold of notability. (Although it might not; again, the links that the author provided to establish notability are highly questionable.) The problem is that the article does not deserve to survive in its present form, and I think it's likely that the author (whose only contribs are to this article) is affiliated with the subject and may be unable to provide an appropriately neutral point of view. And I don't know if there's anybody else who's informed enough to write a good, neutral article. Again, the company, if notable, is just barely so. If this whole virtual-tour thing catches on, the company will probably grow in importance and in notability, and at that time unbiased people will be familiar enough with it to write an appropriate article. Until then, however, I continue to believe that the appropriate action here is to delete. VoiceOfReason 05:18, 25 August 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, —Xyrael / 15:52, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very Slight Keep rewrite per VoiceOfReason Hello32020 16:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment does your Very Slight Keep mean you're withdrawing your nomination VoiceOfReason ? if so we can bring this to a close.--RMHED 19:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa. The Very Slight Keep was from Hello32020, not me. I continue to believe that the article should be deleted for reasons above. VoiceOfReason 06:46, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge into Poodle Hat. BaseballBaby 07:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hardware Store (song)

This article was previously the subject of an AfD which closed as "no consensus." A DRV consensus overturned this result, with commenters supporting outright deletion, redirecting, and/or merging as more suitable options. This matter is resubmitted to AfD for new consideration. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 15:53, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Poodle Hat. Not a notable song by itself, standard procedure is to link to the album. ~ trialsanderrors 18:26, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per trialsanderrors --RMHED 19:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Great song by one of my favourite singers, but not encyclopedic by itself. BigHaz 23:27, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom and in concurrance with BigHaz. --Dennis The TIger 02:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This song has received radio play, having made 4 appearances on Dr. Demento's Funny Five and one appearance on his end-of-year Funny 25 [24]. Does that confer notability? Zagalejo 03:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think those would be something notable to list with its entry into a main article, but not enough to warrant its own article. --Dennis The TIger 05:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

""Merge"" per my DRV suggestion. --DCrazy talk/contrib 22:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge seems reasonable to me. Guy 19:11, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was NO CONSENSUS TO DELETE. Herostratus 19:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wil Tower

This article was tagged for speedy delete but does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion. I assume that the problem was that it was not noteworthy enough. I do not have a personal opinion on whether it is or not. Blood red sandman 22:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is a remarkable observation tower in Switzerland.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Zonk43 (talk • contribs) 2006-08-24 23:00:01
- Please cite sources to allow editors to check that assertion. Uncle G 00:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Searching through google.ch seems to point to multiple, independent news stories on the tower. 1 2 3 4 Leuko 04:08, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Completely run-of-the mill wooden observation tower of strictly local interest. I remember (and can find) no mentions in the mainstream Swiss press. The above sources are not from news media but from local interest websites. Sandstein 17:43, 27 August 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, —Xyrael / 15:56, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As is, not verifiably notable. -AED 17:37, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable wooden tower. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 18:02, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Verifiable, but non-notable. Article does not assert its importance. Do we need an article on every structure in existence? eaolson 22:37, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete all. Yank sox 19:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bane (Weaponlord)

I am submitting this article along with all articles of the category category:Weaponlord (except the Weaponlord article of course). All articles are beyond all cruftiness and at the risk of offending the fans of the game of absolutely no encyclopedic value. Wikipedia is not a game guide. It is also supposed to be written in encyclopedic tone and so articles that include brilliant sentences such as "It is rumored he killed a fearsome sabretooth wolf once with his bare hands, and now his face is shrouded by a wolf's mask. " don't exactly have their place. Finally, let me also add that it sure looks as though the "Story" sections of the articles are copyright violations as they are likely copied out of the game booklet. Pascal.Tesson 15:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. Character articles are OK for high-profile fighting games, but not third-tier, half-forgotten ones like Weaponlord. --Nydas 18:06, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. --RMHED 19:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I was involved in the making of these articles, and I would like to say that this game is not third teir, at all. This was the first of its genre of Sword on Sword Beat 'Em Ups, and no doubt went on to influence the massive Soul Calibre series, and similar games.Comment: I admit the story sections need a cleanup, I promise to do that myself if these articles are not deleted. I will clean up the tone of the articles in general as well, if you believe that to be a problem. I was not the original writer, I just dealt with the images, infoboxes and section headings when these articles were made. Would it at least be acceptable to merge all information into a 'Weaponlord Characters' article? J Milburn 23:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Isn't Samurai Shodown 'sword on sword'?--Nydas 08:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:It is. I have never come across that game, and it seems you can't believe everything you read... I apologise. J Milburn 11:02, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I could live with a merge if the articles are extensively cleaned up. But I still think none of this cruft belongs in an encyclopedia which, let's remind ourselves, is what this project is supposedly doing. Pascal.Tesson 02:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:I have already started on this article in my sandbox. I change my vote to Delete.— Preceding unsigned comment added by J Milburn (talk • contribs)

Delete per nom. No encyclopedic tone and not worth rewrite due to NN. NeoFreak 00:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. We can have articles about characters in mortal kombat and soul calibur because there are multiple sources to form a large base of information to synthesize and check against. These articles are little more than the booklet's own descriptions copied or paraphrased. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:24, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NautiChem

Article does not establish notability per WP:CORP. Prod removed by author. Likely vanity/advertising. --Alan Au 22:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable for WP:CORP in google.de either. Leuko 04:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article was (inappropriately) turned into a (double) redirect to Paul Pietzschke. That article is a bit more promising, but I have to say delete both unless third party verification is provided per WP:CORP. JPD (talk) 14:20, 30 August 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, —Xyrael / 16:02, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails to meet WP:CORP Hello32020 16:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "NautiChem" should redirect to Paul Pietzschke - it is just a brand name for that company. We certainly don't need both articles (and the content is almost the same as it is.) The question is whether we need Paul Pietzschke; the company is apparently over 100 years old, so maybe. --Brianyoumans 04:46, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
NautiChem should be redirected to Pietzschke. As for Pietzschke company, it is an old German company that has plaid a major part in inventing new technologies in the Ship Building industry used on vessels oll over the world today. Pietzschke belongs to a good educational background in Germany and Europe and has its place in any good German dictionary. To delete Pietschke would decrease the quality of Wikipedia. User:United-IQ 14:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pietzschke is important as Robert Bosch, Zeiss and other companies launched in this time, invented new technologies and made its way successfully. The size of a company is not be decisive, Pietschke has worked in the Industry field while other companies commonly more known because they produce for the end user consumer market. Pietschke belongs to the good educational knowledge and has to be in Wikipedia. NautiChem need to be redirected to Pietzschke. User: Iconium 13:35, 5. September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer D iablo 13:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PVLC

Whatever the notability requirements exist for a school club, I don't think the Pine View Latin Club meets them. Starwiz 16:31, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom--Jusjih 16:35, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In defense of PVLC I don't see the harm in leaving the PVLC page up. Anything added to it is pure fact, and students from the school may find it useful, as many Pine View kids are very fond of Wikipedia and enjoy learning anything, especially if it relates to the school. Rabbitspawn 16:39, 2 September 2006 (UTC)Rabbitspawn[reply]
Delete Non-notable, OR, unverifiable. If this stays, we'll have an article for every chess club, A/V crew, debate squad, etc. at every school in the English-speaking world. Fan-1967 16:50, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete So what if there are pages on school clubs? Wikipedia needs to take the step forward and become an encylopedia on EVERYTHING. Pine View Latin Club makes this bold first step, and even so, as pointed out by Rabbitspawn - students from Pine View may find it useful. In response to it being unverifiable, I believe that to be ridiculous - this is most definitely verifiable. Contact the teacher of the class through the school's homepage, and he can verify. Additionally... I'd like to quote Wikipedia's guide to notability. This article is verifiable and does not contain original research. As there are no specific guidelines presented regarding school clubs, I refer to this paragraph - and by it, PVLC should not be deleted.

It has been argued that lack of "notability" is not a criterion for deletion, because (among other things) this isn't specifically stated in the deletion policy; and since Wikipedia is not paper and (in theory) has no size limits, there's no reason why Wikipedia shouldn't include "everything" that fits in with our other criteria, such as verifiability and no original research.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.56.245.245 (talk • contribs)

Comment Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. That means Wikipedia will not be "an encylopedia on EVERYTHING." Also, Wikipedia requires Verification from Reliable Sources. If you read that definition on Reliable Sources you will find your teacher is not there. Fan-1967 21:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Fan-1967. Erechtheus 21:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable and per Fan-1967. Molerat 23:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am sorry for the creator of the article, who had good intentions and took considerable effort with it, but I also don't think that Wikipedia is the right place for it.--Hús ö nd 02:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 20:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yossarian Is Drowning

Screamo band that has released one album on a minor indie label, some demos, and had one song on a compilation album by another minor label. They went on a small (non-national) tour in Britain. I believe the band does not meet criteria in WP:MUSIC and by extension doesn't meet verifiability and is original research. Probably vanity too since the creator is Raccoonisdrowning. --Wafulz 16:41, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:MUSIC --RMHED 19:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As above. Aristoi 17:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge into KYW-TV Anchors and Reporters. BaseballBaby 08:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don Bell (reporter)

This article does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (people). RMP 2584 16:49, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep user likely a sock of Spotteddogsdotorg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) --CFIF ☎ 16:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per CFIF. Original speedy attempt was covered by a meaningless minor edit - looks pretty suspicious. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In defense of myself, I found the [[Don Bell (reporter) article when I hit "Random article" and felt that Don Bell (reporter) didn't meet the inclusion criteria. When it wasn't I tried the next thing, which was the nomination. After I added it, I noticed that it had been nominated before, so I followed the instructions to nominate it again. It appears that the first nomination was not a true discussion, as CFIF accused the nominator of being a sockpuppet. From what I read on CFIF's talk page, he has a history of doing this to other people in order to keep his articles, despite the fact that Wikipedia articles are not owned by anyone! Isn't the whole point of the exersise that if a user finds an article that doesn't meet the established standards, they can try to obtain a consensus by having it deleted? Is CFIF's goal on Wikipedia to make it an elite clique where his articles are never deleted or to just attack the newbies?

As for my addition of Plantation (Maine) to all the Maine plantations, I not only created the Plantation (Maine) article, something that was needed, I went and added a relevant link to all of the articles, including at least one that was impoperly linked to Plantation. If this is the level of aggravation that is going to be typical of Wikipedia, then I don't think I want to be a part of it. I am definitely not this EDP named Scott Brown. Just because someone nominates some delete worthy TV reporter doesn't mean that they are part of some greater conspiracy. If anything I would say that you are all the EDPs for acting in this way. You people took something that was fun and turned it into some sort of sick and disturbed schoolyard scenario. On the schoolyard people like you had a name - bullies, who had their own sick and twisted pathology behind their behavior. And guess what? You people are acting the same way. You all would never make it as cops, since you would most likely arrest anyone without cause and do not seem to understand the concept of innocent until proven guilty - something that Wikipeida incoporates in its assume good fatih doctrine. God, do you people have lives or are you all sitting at home all day dreaming up conspiracy theorys? I am not going to waste my time with this, since judging by what you have written you are all seemingly suffering from some degree of schizophrenia with unseen people out to get you or things you think you own. I have dealt with enough EDPs in my life to realize it is a loosing and fustrating battle to reason with them. This isn't what I signed up for, so you win - I QUIT! RMP 2584 20:41, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I see a lot of ad hominem attack here, but I don't see any notability within the article or any obvious augmentation of the notability of thie figure when I do a search of his name and the positions he is said to hold. Erechtheus 21:49, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't assert notability. -/- Warren 22:37, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with WWSB. NeoFreak 00:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note, he's actually employed by KYW-TV, would be merged with KYW-TV Anchors. --CFIF ☎ 00:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Considering the article is only one line, simply adding his name to the list of anchors would merge most of the content. If you look at the history of the article, it looks like it was created by accident by someone who meant to create an article on a different anchorperson. --Brianyoumans 01:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per CFIF. More information would be nice before seperating him from the Anchor page, but if someone can correct that by editing, then maybe a keep. -Umdunno 01:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reporters, even anchormen, for a single small community is not notable. Mugaliens 14:47, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO as clearly non-notable. wiki article names him as "fill-in". Gsearch for "Don Bell" + journalist turns up 341 unique out of 1290 hits. Most of which are for namesakes (eg Vancouver politician, Kentucky journalist & candidate for senate, Ontario policeman). No sign of notable achievemnts of this newsman. I'd say that's probably enough reasons for deletion. Ohconfucius 07:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Aristoi 17:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the KYW-TV Anchors and Reporters article, where this obviously belongs. RFerreira 20:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I don't think there is enough to suffice an entire article to himself. TGreenburg

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 08:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shimlar

Non-notable web game with an Alexa ranking of about 900,000. No major third party awards or reviews to be found, and does not meet criteria in WP:WEB or WP:SOFTWARE. The article does not have reliable sources, it is not not verifiable, and is likely original research. --Wafulz 16:56, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, the community might not be huge compared to other similar games, but it's a very tight community who know eachother very well and one of the reason why the article is added to wikipedia is so more people get to know about this game. so be nice and let the little ones get a break.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Smeten (talk • contribs)

That's not what Wikipedia is for though. This isn't the place for other people to learn about the game- we are not an advertising service. In order to merit an article, the game has to achieve notability, which can be determined through multiple non-trivial independent sources. Otherwise, we wouldn't be able to verify and claims made in the article, and we wouldn't be able to stay neutral.

Also, sign your posts by adding four tildes to the end of your statements(~~~~)--Wafulz 17:05, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per very thorough nomination. Gwernol 00:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this article appears to be much, if not ALL original research. Also, this article is no where close to NPOV. The history section appears to have no other purpose than paying homage to the creators and some "famous" players. The gameplay section is merely a free advertisement. The grammar and spelling are also subpar. This article clearly has no place on Wikipedia.24.36.114.24 20:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted. WP:SNOW - hoax and close to patent nonsense.. Shell ^babelfish 20:08, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

African Inordinate

(completing someone else's nomination) Possible hoax. Does not Google at all, and I wonder if a six-inch insect can really burrow into a coconut. Unverified, possibly unverifiable. Melchoir 16:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Perilously close to patent nonsense. Insect and the alleged naturalist who discovered it don't google at all, so at minimum fails WP:V. Likely hoax. Fan-1967 16:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete/Delete A nanometer away from nonsense. Fails WP:V. Hello32020 17:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, I am using the relevant guideline Wikipedia:Notability (people) to assist. I do not think there has been adequate evidence cited below to indicate that he meets the guideline -- Samir धर्म 08:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sumer Kumar Sethi

Issues are almost identical to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mariano Anto Bruno Mascarenhas. Does not appear to meet the guidelines in Wikipedia:Notability (doctors), Wikipedia:Notability (people) for authors, or Wikipedia:Notability (books). Possible violation of WP:VAIN and WP:WWIN: Article largely copied from: http://sumerdoc.googlepages.com/sumersethi'scurriculumvitae. -AED 17:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Bakaman _Bakatalk 22:36, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Needs to be wikified ~~but he's published in AIIMS 5 times. That's fairly notable.~~. He won an award for best medical blog.Bakaman _Bakatalk 22:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete: Wikipedia is not a resume or publication list. There are perhaps thousands of other medical researchers with similar publications, nothing shows why this person is any more notable than them. --Ragib 23:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An article can be written about them also. Just because one researcher does not have an article, it is not an excuse for deleting article about every researcher. Also he is not some one who has published one paper (read by 10 people). He has written half a dozen books read by thousands of Doctors Doctor Bruno 07:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Notability not established. PubMed does not reveal any major publications in major journals. Does not establish quality or quantity nor can it be verified at PubMed. No Cell, Nature, Science, New England Journal, or even 2nd-tier publications. No established review of this individual in newspapers. ONLY ONE ORIGINAL PAPER. --Antorjal 05:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He is not some one who has published one paper (read by 10 people). He has written half a dozen books read by thousands of Doctors.Press Coverage and Awards are added in the article Doctor Bruno 07:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. --nids (♂) 02:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - only one paper. Analogous to the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mariano Anto Bruno Mascarenhas case. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 08:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Wikipedia:Notability (doctors) 3. The person has published a large quantity of academic work (of at least reasonable quality). 4. The person has published a significant or well-known academic work. (review of Radiology) 9. The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them. (award for medical blog)

I think the quality of the work is under question. I don't believe that writing a review is evidence of "significant or well-known academic work"..--Antorjal 05:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability (books) 2. The book is by a bestselling or otherwise notable author. 6. The book has been the subject[3] of multiple, independent, non-trivial[4] reviews. 7. The book has been the subject[3] of multiple, non-trivial[4] published works whose sources are independent of the book itself.

The links for the original papers are given. Doctor Bruno 00:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Press Coverage and Awards are added in the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doctorbruno (talk • contribs)

Wait, do you want to imply a 2 sentence quote is "press coverage"? Or do you imply the letters to editors? I personally have had both, does that mean I deserve an article too? The "coverage" wasn't on him. Newspapers have such 2 liners from thousands of people everyday. That doesn't make all of them notable. --Ragib 07:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Miki Sawaguchi

Not notable. Would not pass the proposed WP:PORN BIO or a Japanese equivalent of the test, having no notable awards in Japan, and no notable mainstream work, no notable magazine appearances, etc etc. Would definitely fail the official WP:BIO if that were applied instead. Delete. --- Hong Qi Gong 17:25, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. 290,000 hits in Google test by her Japanese name. (29,200+697 by English name.) — Instantnood 18:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Counting Google hits is not research, especially when it comes to porn actresses, whose names are Googlebombed by an entire sub-industry. Wikipedia:Google test explains this. To make an argument for keeping that holds water, please cite sources. Please cite a biography of this person, that allows readers to verify the things written in this article. How can readers check that this person was, indeed, "employed at both a coffee shop and a clothing store"? Uncle G 19:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject is an older model who has certainly passed the proposed American 100 film test. Japanese Amazon currently still lists 27 DVD, 24 Videos, and 4 photo-books. I don't have time at the moment to search for a 100-film list, but will later if necessary. As for the WP:BIO test: Google hits are specifically mentioned as a proposed test, so she would pass that with flying colors. Dekkappai 18:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Wrong. WP:BIO mentions the Google Test as an "alternative test", not as a proposed test. It does so because this is a test that some people use. WP:BIO is merely being descriptive. However, WP:BIO also links to Wikipedia:Google test, which explains why this test is fundamentally flawed, in particular in the case of pornography.
  As I said above, rather than counting search results, please cite sources, to demonstrate that the WP:BIO criteria are satisfied. Please cite a biography of this person. This article cites no sources at all. Uncle G 19:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Would you like to cast a vote on this, Uncle G? --- Hong Qi Gong 19:40, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- What I read at WP:BIO is, "Alternative tests... Other tests for inclusion that have been proposed (but haven't necessarily received consensus support) include... Google Test." If I'm wrong, if it is an alternative test for notability, then notability is proven, case closed. However, I notice the word proposed in the sentence, and say otherwise. I happen to know, because I have some degree of interest and knowledge in this area, that Miki Sawaguchi is a well-known model with extremely high visibility in both the adult and the mainstream media in Japan. Now, I know this sort of personal interest and knowledge in the field does not constitute verifiability, and I am making no claims it does. I haven't checked the article, but will work on it later, and am fairly certain I can prove notability and verifiability. (By the way, if I did not have any interest and knowledge in the area, I would not be pasting a uniform untested and unsupported assertion of non-notability on every article in the category.) Dekkappai 19:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wikipedia:Google Test specifically mentions that it is not an accurate way to determine notability of porn stars. And the actress remains non-notable for having no awards, mainstream work, notable magazine appearances, etc, even in Japan. Bottom line is, we have to either apply WP:BIO or WP:PORN BIO, even allowing for a Japanese equivalent in terms of Japanese media outlets. There are no other tests to determine notability. --- Hong Qi Gong 20:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Once again: Counting Google hits is not research. The Google test is fundamentally flawed, and both WP:BIO and what you are replying to immediately above link to a page that explains this. Please read it. Once again: Please cite sources. Google is a tool for finding sources to cite, not a metric in its own right. If what you claim is true, then biographies of this person that you can cite will exist. Uncle G 20:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - This is beginning to resemble a Monty Python skit. I am not claiming Google is a proof of notability. I not only read the passage, I pasted it. I will try to find proof of notability later. Since we agree that Google is not in and of itself a proof of notability, let us agree to... uh... agree... No sense in continuing this argument. Dekkappai 20:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - The page that you read and copied is WP:BIO. However, the page that you've been asked to read, twice, is Wikipedia:Google Test. Uncle G 13:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, this is another WP:POINT nomination. We should not vote to delete an article based on a proposed guideline. And if speedy keep is not a valid option, then keep, notable. --Golbez 21:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - In that case, we should apply WP:BIO. But she would fail that official test also. --- Hong Qi Gong 21:31, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment HongQiGong continuously asserts the false claim that Japanese adult stars must either meet a proposed American test, or they must meet a standard world biography test. Again, the WP:BIO specifically mentions Google under Alternative tests as a proposed way to establish notability, a test this model would pass easily. Wikipedia:Search engine test also "describes a method used by some on Articles for Deletion to approximate notability." And, again, I am not saying a Google search establishes notability (and I'm not going to bite on another nonsensical Google-test argument), however the WP:BIO does mention it. As for HongQiGong's claim that there are only two possible guidelines for ascertaining notability (the American porn one and the standard world biography one), there exists an entire Category devoted to differing means of establishing notablity issues for different subjects. Applying a strict American test to Japanese topics is at best a way to ensure cultural bias at Wikipedia, at worst an underhanded way to censor Wikipedia. Dekkappai 22:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Which is why I mentioned that she would not pass under a Japanese equivalent of WP:PORN BIO. In Japan - no notable awards, no notable mainstream work, no notable magazine appearances, etc etc. --- Hong Qi Gong 22:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - So... if you aren't saying the Google test confers notability, why do you keep bringing it up? Either it confers notability, or it's not worth going on and on about. — Haeleth Talk 10:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Yes, this is another WP:POINT nomination Golbez. This is becoming increasingly more ridiculous. If this editor were seriously interested in notability and verifiability issues, he would tag the articles for sources, check and find sources, or even do some work and clean up or expand the article himself. He does not. Instead, with no attempt at checking notability or verifiability himself, he often first tags these articles for speedy-deletion, and then reverts when that tag is removed. Just short of a 3-Revert violation, he then further tags the articles for deletion with a pasted, pre-prepared, un-checked, un-supported assertion of non-notability. During the discussion, he then apparently willfully withholds pertinent information (researching using Japanese names instead of Roman letters), and engages in non-ending, nonsensical circular-logic arguments. I've been trying to assume good faith from this editor, but in all honesty, by nominating this subject-- a multi-media, international star (I will update the article with sources soon)-- for deletion on "non-notability" grounds, he has really crossed the line. It is quite apparent that his intent is to disrupt Wikipedia through frivolous deletion nominations, circular arguments, and censorship. Lots of time is being wasted by this editor. Recently another editor was blocked for mass-delete tagging of similar articles. This editor is even more insidious, however, since he is doing it slowly and wasting everyone's time with these repetitive discussions. Is there anything we do, other than follow him around contesting his obviously baseless nominations for deletion? Dekkappai 19:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question This is not related to the AFD, but can someone explain to me why every article on a Japanese celebrity of any sort lists the blood type? Just been wondering that for quite a while. Fan-1967 21:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting question, Fan-1967. Here you go: Japanese blood type theory of personality. Dekkappai 22:35, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Interesting. I figured there had to be something like that, the way some westerners might list a zodiac sign as significant. Learn something new every day. Fan-1967 22:39, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Tsdng96 06:24, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable according to the standards of WP:PORN BIO (i.e. no notablity conferred by recognition from any Japanese equivalents of the American organisations and publications listed in that proposal). Note once more that WP:PORN BIO specifically suggests that the Google test be discounted because it is even less accurate for adult performers than for regular people; this is no less true of Japanese performers than of Americans.
More to the point, however, the article still provides no sources whatsoever for its biographical information, and thus fails WP:V dismally. Whatever your opinion of the biographical guidelines, WP:V can in no way be made out to be an Americocentric policy designed to censor Wikipedia: it is a fundamental principle on which an encyclopedia must be founded. Note therefore that articles which fail it this dismally are not, in fact, keepable without the failure being addressed. Perhaps the people who want this article kept could stop railing against cultural bias long enough to ensure that their article doesn't actually violate fundamental policies like that? — Haeleth Talk 10:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I've added to the article, and added sources. The test mentioned was put into place from an entirely American perspective, addressing the American industry and American society. It completely ignores the vast differences between the US and some other cultures. Even the most non-notable of these Japanese models have a presence on mainstream outlets like Amazon. Miki Sawaguchi is a retired model, yet still has 27 DVDs, 24 Videos, and 4 books listed at Amazon. She was a regular on two television shows and appeared as a guest on many more. How many retired American porn stars with articles can show this much notability? Instead, we're forced to prove that Japanese models meet the proposed American 100-film test. How much verifiability do we need? An academic treatise on the subject? These are porn stars we're talking about. Miki Sawaguchi has had articles in U.S. magazines concerned with Asian cinema, such as Oriental Cinema and Asian Cult Cinema. I have listed as sources those I could find. The Nikkatsu Roman Porn genre existed for 30 years before a book was written on it in Japan. It took till the year 2000 before a book covering the subject to any degree was printed in English. Again, insisting that Japanese adult actors pass a test set up by and for American adult actors ensures cultural bias. If any Japanese adult star is notable enough for an article, Miki Sawaguchi is. Wikipedia makes claims of being uncensored, and to fight a cultural bias. If an article on a multi-media, internationally known star like Miki Sawaguchi can seriously be considered for deletion on grounds of non-notability, something is seriously wrong somewhere. Could it be people with no interest, no knowledge, and hostility to the subject are nominating and voting to delete these articles? Dekkappai 02:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I see a lot of talk about a Japanese equivalent of the proposed WP:PORN BIO, but there is no such thing yet. Maybe if there were a Japanese equivalent with consensus, then we would not have to argue the same points with all these articles one by one. User:HongQiGong seems to be have a pretty idea about what he thinks it should entail, since he espouses the Japanese equivalent in each of his deletion nominations, so, maybe it would be a good time to hammer out this fabled guideline so we can all get something more important done. Neier 12:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, what there is is a lot of micharacterisation of WP:PORN BIO as being "American", for some reason. That mischaracterisation isn't supported by reading the page. It says "news outlets", not "American news outlets", for example. Uncle G 13:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, WP:PORN BIO specifically makes mention of mainstream work, being the monthly feature in magazines like Playboy or Penthouse, awards, etc etc. If a Japanese porn actress do not have similar credits to her name, then she would not be notable. Mainstream work in Japan? Notable magazine appearances in Japan? Notable awards in Japan? etc etc. The only arguments I've heard so far for keeping the plethora of articles on seemingly non-notable Japanese porn actresses is that they have xxx number of Google hits or they have some random number of DVDs, like "24 DVDs, she's notable". What? Who decided that 24 DVDs, with no awards, no mainstream work, no notable magazine appearances, etc, is notable for a Japanese porn actress? And why are American porn actresses subjected to a much harsher test? But regardless, like I've also said before, if you do not like WP:PORN BIO or a suggested Japanese equivalent, we can always fall back to WP:BIO, which this particular actress would not pass either. Something you may not be aware of - it is already very lenient to nominate an article on a Japanese porn actress based on an imaginary equivalent of a proposed notability test. WP:BIO is much stricter. --- Hong Qi Gong 17:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Good idea, Neier. When it comes down to one of the most well-known adult actress/models in Japan seriously being considered for deletion... something is seriously wrong somewhere. Dekkappai 02:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've started the expansion of the article, added references, filmography, etc., etc. This is just a beginning, of course. I'm sure there is much more verifiable information that can be found. Others are invited to contribute. Dekkappai 20:41, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ref Dekkappai. John Smith's 16:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment And that would be possibly a bad faith vote[25]. --- Hong Qi Gong 16:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment And the accusation that it might be bad faith just because of that is of itself bad faith. John Smith's 18:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The nominator continuously asserts that these models would not pass Japanese equivalents of the WP:PORN BIO. It needs to be pointed out that there are no Japanese equivalents to the 8 awards, the comprehensive database, etc. listed at WP:PORN BIO, and any speculation on the editor's part on whether the subject would pass these imaginary tests is irrelevant. The American and the Japanese adult entertainment industries are vastly different, and WP:PORN BIO is a test based on the American industry. The Japanese Amazon currently still lists 27 DVD, 24 Videos, and 4 photo-books on this model. Beyond that, she still passes even the American test since she has been a regular on two TV shows, has appeared on eight others, has made two musical CDs, and has an extensive list of magazine appearances. This is clearly an indication that the model has reached a wide audience, and has appeared successfully in multiple media. Articles on American subjects with vastly less notability have been retained (see:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Air Force Amy). Japanese models who have shown far less levels of notability (see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shoko Goto and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hikaru Koto 2) have recently failed AfD nominations. There is absolutely no valid reason to delete this article. Dekkappai 17:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Dekkappai--Nobunaga24 00:39, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think the article speaks for itself with regards to the amount and variety of work she's done in Japan. WP:PORN BIO (still only a proposed guideline) is massively biased towards the US porn industry and clearly cannot be applied here. --Rankler 10:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Races of New Star Trek Series

Delete Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This article has no context and its creator has not provided one after being asked on his talk page. Its impossible to tell which Star Trek series this refers to and its certainly isn't the "new" one since there currently isn't one. Fundamentally original research. Prod was removed without comment Gwernol 18:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"series" is plural as well as singular, and "new" may simply be the converse of "original". Uncle G 19:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, redundant to List of Star Trek races. --Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Fyre2387, its lack of sources, and, frankly, it's CSD G1 (patent nonsense). As a fan and active member of Wikiproject:Star Trek, I have no idea what the purpose of this list is even meant to be, with Vorta (bad guys), and Vulcan (good guys) both listed under the never mentioned in Trek 'Earth Republic'... --Mnem e son 22:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as listcruft without sufficient context. The author has a history of creating articles about his own fanfic, so even the verifiability might be questionable. JIP | Talk 06:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adam daniel mezei

Self-promotion of non-notable author. First edits were by user:Adamdanielmezei. Later edits are by user:Hangom who is likely to be a sock puppet. -- RHaworth 18:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 19:41, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Move to User: adamdanielmezei which is nicely vacant --00:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 00:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. The keep commenters provide little substantial rebuttal to the allegation of WP:OR. Existence of these terms within the anime itself doesn't qualify as a reliable, third-party source usage, so that point is trivial. Xoloz 01:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Dragon Ball name puns

Nonencyclopedic fancruft. —tregoweth (talk) 18:33, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unsourced and original research. It might be worth a mention in List of Dragon Ball characters or in Dragon Ball should the authors find proper sources confirming the puns were intended. SliceNYC 21:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete cruft, uncyclopedic, also violates WP:V and WP:OR Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 22:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Puns and humor have a significant part in Toriyama's works, because every name is a pun. The article isn't "unsourced", since every names and puns are in the original manga/anime. And of course, the puns were intended. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Folken de Fanel (talk • contribs)
- Comment Though the puns may seem obvious, with the language difference you can never be too sure. When in doubt, cite. SliceNYC 03:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Good point, SliceNYC. The puns seem quite obvious, but hardly can be verified while they are only in the author's brain. I don't know how to verify, for example, from what he created the name "nappa". If someone has this japanese book (ISBN 4088737024), it can be a good reference, however, using it for this kind of article would not be a fair use. I understand the feeling of Folken de Fanel, but it seems almost impossible for this article to satisfy both verifiability and fair use. --LittleTree 21:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Folken de Fanel's comment. -AlexJohnc3 My Talk Page 01:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Tsdng96 06:24, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per SliceNYC's comment. Despite Folken's mistaken belief, the article most certainly is uncited, and it's easy to prove this by observing the simple fact that there are no citations. To say "this name came from this word", where the name is not actually identical to the word, is research, and if uncited must be assumed to be original research, and we cannot include original research in Wikipedia. Additionally, the list is unnecessary. Characters' names should be explained in the article or section on the individual character, and the characters themselves are presumably already listed in other DB character lists; there is no need for this.
If kept, note that this needs serious cleanup, both to remove inaccuracies and to remove the often indiscriminate wikilinking of common words to irrelevant articles. — Haeleth Talk 09:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Haeleth's wonderful explanation --Kunzite 22:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Folken
Keep per Folken, or, preferably, merge to the characters' articles themselves. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 22:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per SliceNYC and Jaranda. Aristoi 17:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' per Folken or merge into the various articles. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 03:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TV5 (Portugal)

Hoax. No such channel in Portugal. Website whose link is provided does not exist. Hús ö nd 18:35, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The French channel TV5 is available in Portugal through cable, but is unrelated with this hoax.--Hús ö nd 18:49, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless sources can provide its existance. VegaDark 21:20, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Dennis The TIger 02:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Previous note was for a speedy delete; this is before I took a good look at the criteria for speedy deletion. It would not meet the criteria. "Speedy" retracted. --Dennis The TIger 05:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is absolutely no channel with this name or similar in Portugal. And a quick google search shows no results, even if were're dealing with an upcoming channel. Joao pais 18:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vichy France and the Shite Led Goverment of Iraq

This is a non-notable, non-neutral point of view article with a very narrow target audience. Its title may or may not be intentionally offensive - 'shite' rather than 'shi'ite' government. I also suspect that it classes as original research. -- Ck l o stsw o rd|^queta! 19:03, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per non-notable and non-neutral point of view. Hello32020 19:06, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete definitely original research. --RMHED 19:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete pure WP:OR and WP:NPOV violation. Not encyclopedic at all. NeoFreak 00:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as OR and inherently POV. Also, any article that uses "irregardless" should be deleted on general principle. Resolute 00:28, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. --Dennis The TIger 02:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete trolling. Gazpacho 04:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Note apparent adherence to obvious corollaries of Geogre's Law. SvenC 22:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trodenhiem Gaming

Small online gaming company with only two members. Fails WP:CORP so I am recommending delete. --Hetar 19:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per 0 Ghits. Punkmorten 21:21, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ad cruft. Nickieee 23:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete as a poorly-sourced article about unreleased an non-notable software. Posts to bulletin boards, Usenet, and wikis, or messages left on blogs, should not be used as primary or secondary sources. (aeropagitica) 17:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rbau

vanity Yy-bo 19:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article has a redirect at Robat Battle Arena Unlimited [sic] --Wafulz 19:31, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Google search brings up five unique hits, all from forums. Proposed article doesn't meet WP:SOFTWARE or WP:V. --Wafulz 19:31, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outer Kelvinside

No such place Broxi 19:21, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Couldn't find any information about the place whatsoever, other than Wikipedia mirrors. --Wafulz 19:34, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I have heard the term used but it is not a defined area, more a term used by estate agents to try and get a Kelvinside price for a Maryhill property..... Ac@osr 20:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but I do appreciate the phrase "neatly sandwiched" when describing a place, even a non-existent one. Flying Jazz 00:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bottie Wrestling

vanity Yy-bo 19:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It reads as either a hoax or something made up in school one day. The prod'er on the article indicated there were no google hits. Finally, the creator's edit summary states, "Re-created article - wrongly deleted" so depending on how this was deleted before, it may be a speedy candidate.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 01:12, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, with prejudice - sounds like it was drawn up by a 14 year old who was extremely bored, and is badly formed besides. --Dennis The TIger 02:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
speedy delete, rubbish. --Cloth Ears 14:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - As a hoax, it's not even vaguely amusing. Broxi 18:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. BaseballBaby 08:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Siobhan Dillon

None of the other Maria contestants have articles, and it's just a short TV show on the BBC. r3m0t ^talk 19:34, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Whilst the more of this girl there is, the better, she doesn't yet pass WP:BIO. If she wins, she'll be starting on her way to passing as a notable actor by name recognition, but even that'll only be in the UK. As it is, she's currently like every other reality TV contestant. --Mnemeson 22:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Presumably as opposed to in the U.S. which is so much more important than the rest of the world put together? Piccadilly 01:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Of course not. My point is merely that even if she wins the competition, she probably won't be at a point where she's notable enough for her own article. Since Wikipedia is international, if people don't pass the WP:BIO requirements in their own country (and in case you think I'm US biased, I'm from and in Somerset), they certainly don't pass them internationally. --Mnem e son 01:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Siobhan is very well known in the UK currently - obviously due to the current contest she's in, but well known and a point of interest all the same. There are many people on Wikipedia who are far less well known. Seems a valid article.Neilajh 23:32, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Siobhan seems a strong contender, and she may be in the top three. People are more likely to look up Siobhan than, say, Laura. --Thelb⁴ 06:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Since Laura wrote the above entry, Siobhan succesfully entered the final three contestants in the extremely popular English television series. Oliver Keenan 22:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep very notable, in the final three, very popular both nationally and locally. Oliver Keenan 20:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found this because I looked up her entry! —Theo (Talk) 20:11, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Top three on a talent show does not make someone individually notable. Very little of this page's content is encyclopedic. --88.110.189.21 19:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This item dose fulfil many of the Bio guidelines

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 08:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Politics of Oil Nationalization

Seems to be some original research going on here. It doesn't cover anything substantial that isn't at Oil imperialism or nationalization. --Wafulz 19:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. OR; hugo chavez bio; unencyclopedic. User:Yy-bo 20:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, although oil nationalization might merit an article, this article seems to be only incidentally about the subject. Gazpacho 01:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with Gazpacho. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. --Richard 08:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete - as pointed out, the info can be preserved in the whole season article.Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 02:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fußball-Bundesliga - September 2006

WP:NOT (repository of information) Yy-bo 19:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Computerjoe 's talk 20:05, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have no clue on what you're talking about. Kingjeff 20:35, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I can garantee everyone that this will be filled by the end of next weekend. So it's not really worth anyones time to delete it. The same will happen for any other month. Kingjeff 20:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - Consider webhosting for this sort of work. User:Yy-bo 17:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think it should be kept but KingJeff, you've got to stop creating pages and not filling them with information, make a rough version in your sandbox first then move it to the space, otherwise the page is just worthless to anyone and deserves deleting, use the template from the August page and fill it up with fixtures. --shanda 21:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, empty. In any case I'm against having individual articles for months in sports leagues - it is heavy fancruft. Punkmorten 21:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. It seems unnecessary to create archives for months in one particular sports league, especially given that the article is completely empty. --Wafulz 22:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I'm not sure if you realize this. But We're not even 48 hours into the month. Kingjeff 23:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - annual season pages are great. Monthly season pages are excessive. This level of detail is unencylopedic. Resolute 00:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Alias Flood 02:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. – Elisson • Talk 12:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - month-by-month listings of every league result ever played is too detailed to be considered encyclopaedic. Qwghlm 12:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I see everyones point about it being not encyclopaedic so maybe it should just be merged with the main season article, of course not this actual one, but one which is formatted better looking like the Fußball-Bundesliga - August 2006 version instead? --shanda 13:53, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - You realize that this month's article will end up looking like last month's article? Kingjeff 17:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Is it that time to reopen Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Sports results? Zzyzx11 (Talk) 15:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Resolute. Article Fußball-Bundesliga_2006/07 already has all the content except for the dates of the games which would be easy enough to add to the cross-grid if it was felt really necessary. - fchd 17:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Qwghlm. - Pal 18:47, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Militaristic Regime Change and Militaristic Democratization

An original research essay (well, paragraph) mainly used to argue against the Iraq War, with a little historical fluff thrown in to make it sound like the term "Militaristic Democratization" is actually legit. --Wafulz 19:50, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Computerjoe 's talk 20:05, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nlsanand 21:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete trolling. Gazpacho 04:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - wholeheartedly agree with nomination.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 01:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Rename and rewrite~~Delete I agree that the article is skimpy, poorly written and unsourced. However, if there isn't an article on this topic, there should be. This article describes a major foreign policy shift of the United States and, as such, the new foreign policy approach should be documented in an NPOV way. Whether you agree with it or not, this theory of foreign policy is of major significance to the U.S. and to the world. If someone can provide a reference to an existing article that covers this topic, I will change my vote to Delete.

We have Foreign policy of the George W. Bush administration and Iraq War and National Security Strategy of the United States and Regime change. Going beyond these is extrapolation. Gazpacho 18:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I still think that there is a need for an article that covers this topic specifically rather than just mentioning it in the larger context of the articles mentioned by Gazpacho. However, I think it is more appropriate to delete this article and write a new one with the right name and with the quality that is expected of a Wikipedia article. --Richard 08:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Native Americans and the Palestinians: A shared struggle for nationhood

Another original research essay by the creator. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. I'll be writing the creator a message to remind him about what Wikipedia is and is not for. --Wafulz 19:56, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Computerjoe 's talk 20:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, essay. --Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. --RMHED 20:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. VegaDark 21:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per nom as with the rest of the articles created by Favar. NeoFreak 00:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete trolling. Gazpacho 04:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a total failing of WP:OR.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 01:31, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete OR, essay. TXP Cain Mosni 14:31, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OR, essay --Richard 08:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Soapbox essay - Broxi 19:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 03:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hydraulic loss/damage aboard an aeroplane

Hydraulic loss/damage aboard an aeroplane (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Duplication of material, much of which is already covered by flying a fixed-wing aircraft without control surfaces. Article is an orphan, itself being an unfeasible redirect even if merged. - Mailer Diablo 13:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete n Computerjoe 's talk 16:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Flying a fixed-wing aircraft without control surfaces explains it much better. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 01:58, 12 September 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 TransWiki to Wikibooks.Herostratus 18:39, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Labeling family photos

instruction manual/how-to; not encyclopedic Yy-bo 20:02, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Transwiki to Wikibooks Computerjoe 's talk 20:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Transwiki to Wikibooks, as said by User:Computerjoe Hello32020 20:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Transwiki but do not delete - Blood red sandman 00:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Transwiki but do not delete Gioto 01:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Transwiki to Wikibooks (good article) 203.17.215.99 10:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki and keep as a definition of a process or phenomenon. After all it's not that obvious that people label their pictures. //Halibu tt 14:39, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cheadle Hulme High School

Not really notable, the information isn't relevant or important. As an alumnus and contributor to this article I can tell you its not really important. Having it on Wikipedia is quite ridiculous. T. Moitie ^[talk] 20:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - as an alumnus and contributor to this article I can tell you it's a good article. How is the information not relevant or important? Having it on Wikipedia is not ridiculous. --Alex ^{(talk here)} 20:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Being a good article doesn't make it any more notable. What makes this school important? If Wikipedia had an article for every school in the UK, it would be ridiculous! T. Moitie ^[talk] 20:21, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ridiculous is a word you use a bit too freely. What would be wrong with it? If someone wants to take the time to write an article, and it follows the WP guidelines then why shouldn't there be one for every school? --Alex ^{(talk here)} 20:25, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Wikipedia is an encylopedia, Not a directory of all the schools. There is a proposed policy going through the stages of proposal at the moment, WP:SCHOOL. It says "Wikipedia articles about schools should show that there is, or that there is likely to be, sufficient coverage of that school to allow for the creation of a complete article." Where is there any verifiable information on any of those points? T. Moitie ^[talk] 20:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Please don't go over these "stuck record" schools arguments yet again. The proper study of encyclopaedists is looking for, citing, reading, and evaluating sources. It is not the making of personal, subjective, judgements of importance. Please concentrate upon citing sources to show that this school satisfies the WP:SCHOOL criteria. The Ofsted report is one such non-trivial published work. What were the other non-trivial published works used to build the article? How can readers know that the school was, in fact, built in 1934, for example? Uncle G 20:34, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well there is the fact it is the only language college in Stockport "The school has a substantial and unique program, structure, or technique that differentiates it from similar schools." I'll try and find the site where it said the school was built in 1934. --Alex ^{(talk here)} 20:37, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Whether being "the only language college in Stockport" differentiates it from other schools is your personal, subjective, judgement. I'm "the only Wikipedia editor named Uncle G". Please stop making subjective judgements of importance and concentrate upon citing sources. I ask once again: What were the other non-trivial published works used to build the article? How can readers know that the school was, in fact, built in 1934, for example? Uncle G 20:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Being the only language college in the LEA makes it unique. I've added a couple of sources. --Alex ^{(talk here)} 20:49, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Ok, but does this high school have any important non-trivial history? Do you ever see this school in the news or reported as notably important. There are lots of different statuses each school has, and being a language college or a training school doesn't strike me as a terribly notable thing. T. Moitie ^[talk] 21:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Well let's see what others think. --Alex ^{(talk here)} 21:18, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Only in your personal, subjective, judgement. For the third time: Please stop making subjective judgements of importance and concentrate upon citing sources. What were the other non-trivial published works used to build the article? Uncle G 11:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The singular of "alumni" is "alumnus". Uncle G 20:34, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very well writen and the information is relevant and imprortant, imo. Hello32020 20:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep comprehensive/secondary schools are all notable imo, primary schools possibly not so. --RMHED 20:48, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Also an alumnus. As T.Moitie, Article is irrelevant, unimportant. Ood 20:50, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- T. Moitie simply said it was "ridiculous" and "not really important". --Alex ^{(talk here)} 20:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hmm, nitpicking... Ood 21:00, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well that's what he said. And it's a little suspicious how you, Ood suddenly come online when needed. Hmm indeed. --Alex ^{(talk here)} 21:02, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Not at all suspicious. Me and him were having a discussion about this article before I listed it and we agreed that it shouldn't be on Wikipedia. It is why I listed it. I didn't ask him to come on here specifically to vote. T. Moitie ^[talk] 21:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        We were infact discussing Wikipedia and this article on MSN Ood 23:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment' - See WP:SCHOOL for the guidelines. T. Moitie ^[talk] 20:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes I've read them. --Alex ^{(talk here)} 20:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Alex9891, I didn't point that directly to you, it was a comment directed at everyone. Please don't take this AfD as a personal attack since you are the contributor, I certainly don't mean it to be. :) T. Moitie ^[talk] 21:27, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, Its not a guideline, I apologise for asserting that it was. T. Moitie ^[talk] 21:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, high schools are generally notable. --Rory096 21:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, high schools are always considered notable otherwise we'd have to delete a lot of articles. I'm not sure but isn't Wikipedia trying to do a project to have more articles about schools right now? Nlsanand 21:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Not completely true, see WP:SCHOOL. Thanks, T. Moitie ^[talk] 21:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd like to point out that Wikipedia:Schools is a proposal, not a guideline or policy. _{J Di}^talk 21:26, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm aware of that, but the consensus there (see it's talk page) that the notability requirements should be even stricter than proposed. T. Moitie ^[talk] 21:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - That may be the case, I haven't seen the talk page, but that doesn't change the fact that it is a proposed guideline, and as such should not be referred to as a guideline or policy as you have done previously. _{J Di}^talk 21:33, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I see, sorry about that. I've added a note after that other comment T. Moitie ^[talk] 21:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as is customary for all real high schools. Gazpacho 22:37, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The school does currently meet WP:SCHOOL
"2. The school has been or was in existance for over 50 years, due to the great likelihood of—but greater difficulty of uncovering—non-trivial historical coverage of that school"

"The school was built in 1934, and was named Woods Lane Secondary Modern School."
Aren't all highschools defaulted to a keep provided that they have a sufficient amount of information? --Wafulz 22:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No. There is no consensus over schools articles. Part of the problem is that a lot of editors employ "stuck record" arguments. You can see several "stuck record" arguments above. WP:SCHOOL is an attempt to break this pattern and to get editors back on track with concentrating upon sources, as encyclopaedists should.
  The primary notability criterion in WP:SCHOOL is that the school be the subject of multiple non-trivial published works that are independent of the school, which in fact gets one to roughly the same place, since these published works are neutral sources that can be used to build and to verify an article. (Works published by the school itself are not neutral.) The Ofsted report is one such published work. I've asked for another one three times, now. All that needs to be done is to cite one, and you will have the strongest of proper encyclopaedic arguments, multiple independent non-trivial sources discussing the subject, for keeping the article. Uncle G 11:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per any high school. Piccadilly 01:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. No reason for this deletion to be here. --Dennis The TIger 02:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The fact that all US high schools are kept does not mean that the discussion of UK schools, where schools have far less importance to the local community (i.e. the highlight of Friday night isn't going to watch the school soccer team), should be subjected to the same standards. Catchpole 08:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The standards to focus upon are WP:SCHOOL, in particular the first criterion therein, and the searching for, citing, reading, and evaluating of sources, instead of "stuck record" arguments where editors make personal, subjective, judgements of distinction and importance. Ofsted reports are non-trivial published works that are independent of the subjects. Uncle G 11:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - My personal and subjective opinion of Ofsted reports are that they are generic and trivial. Catchpole 14:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Schools are generally kept, no matter how poorly or well written. In this case, sourced and written to a generally proper standard. Why is it not worthy of an article? Keep, definitely. – Ch acor 16:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Please do not confuse the British high school with American ones. This is but an elementary school of no particluar notability, and does not appear to pass WP:SCHOOL. Ohconfucius 07:20, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, this article is about a secondary school, and secondary school redirects to high school. _{J Di}^talk 09:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- There are no "elementary" schools in the UK with the name of "High School"; they are known as primary schools. If you'd read the article you'd know the age range of this school is 11-16, not elementary age and it specifically states it is a secondary school in the first sentence - which J Di points out redirects to high school. --Alex ^{(talk here)} 11:35, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - In American terms, high school is generally grades 9, 10, 11, and 12 - that's 14 - 18. Not the same as the UK. T. Moitie ^[talk] 11:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Still, I don't know where he got the idea it is an elementary school. --Al e x ^{(talk here)} 17:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, most schools are notable, as is this. bbx 08:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I, too, believe that most high schools are notable. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 11:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — The article is a tad on the fluffy side, including material that only somebody attending the school would care about. It could use some judicious culling. — RJH (talk) 17:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I would have to agree with that, it can easily be cut down. Certainly doesn't mean the article needs to be deleted. --Al e x ^{(talk here)} 17:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have removed some of the "fluffy" sections. --Al e x ^{(talk here)} 20:34, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above comments, as well as these comments. Silensor 03:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and allow for organic growth. Bahn Mi 15:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to morons not learning from the previous 5000 examples... I now no longer care whether or not its a valid school to keep... from now on if its a school i will vote to keep it. That means preschools for furries get a keep from me now. I tried to be reasonable you people havent been. ALKIVAR™ 00:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Films about snakes

listcruft that doesn't even include a reason for existing. This could just as easily be a category, or just not exist at all. Mysekurity 20:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Delete article is very short, could easily be made into category. Hello32020 20:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. The title is even misleading, not so much about snakes as heavily featuring snakes in the plot. --RMHED 20:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A category would be more appropriate as there is no prose, commentary or anything else to suggest a list would be better than a category. I wonder what movie inspired this article... SliceNYC 21:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, can move to a category. VegaDark 21:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I like the reasoning of the nominator. I think list of animal films should go as well, but that would be another discussion. Punkmorten 21:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I want this list of snakes off of my Wikipedia! Seriously, my reasoning is per nom. Erechtheus 22:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Shouldn't that be "I want these mother f------ snakes off the mother f------ Wikipedia!"? Fan-1967 22:35, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as awkward as it is being the first to say so. Snakes on a Plane demonstrates how excited people can get at the simple notion of having snakes in a movie; so I've added context and a cat, and an item. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 22:20, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nickieee 23:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A lot of hype about Snakes on a Plane that amounted to nothing at the box office isnt enough to justify this pointless list. A category works much better. Resolute
Comment This is from Attack of the Show. During the Snakes on a Plane hype they did a skit showing films about snakes, the exact list in this article--Coasttocoast 03:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Are you suggesting the content be merged to that article? Erechtheus 16:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Categorize - Not ideal for a list, but certainly useful to be able to get to these articles from each other. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 01:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Categorize. Per reason above. Coolguy1368 7:01 6 September 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 keep, no valid reason for deletion given. The deletion of the categories are not at all a precedent, because lists are utterly different from categories; they are more easily maintained, annotated, etc. This is precisely the reason why lists and categories are seperate. The article needs strident criteria for inclusion, etc. but that is outside the scope of this deletion discussion, and is being hashed out on the talk page, just as it should be.--SB | T 22:36, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of dead comic book characters

We've already gone through several rounds of killing categories about dead comic book characters. We need to delete the List of dead comic book characters. The list is not maintainable. I found too many errors. Some will point out that the article says they could all come back. Fine. However, there are at least a quarter million dead characters in the history of comics! A few of those who were listed have been shown to be alive now (Dead Moira was an imposter) and other information was inaccurate (Captain Boomerang survived Identity Crisis to die in a different comic). So the article is wrong and, in fact, can never be right. Too many debatable deaths will be listed, thereby invoking POV. Wryspy 21:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC) P.S. Please pardon me if I missed a step, even with someone else helping me post this. I've never nominated an article for deletion before. Wryspy 21:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I voted for deletion of the categories, but I believe this is maintainable and useful as a list. To the best of my knowledge, for instance, Mysterio (Quentin Beck) is still dead -- he was replaced by his protege. -HKMarks 21:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Very useful list, accurate, and meets criteria for WP:NOTABLE. Hello32020 21:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand - seems like a reasonable list. Artw 21:27, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per HelenKmarks. Erechtheus 22:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As I argued during the recent Chuck Cunningham and Fonzie debates, material like this can be WP-worthy if someone is willing to watchlist it and stay on its back. I would support renaming to "List of notable dead comic book characters," but this is a list we should have. Daniel Case 23:50, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't think renaming is necessary, and it's a long title already. There is currently discussion in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics on merging a lot of non-notable character pages. We could change the criteria for inclusion to characters with pages. As the page stands now, there are none on it who don't have their own article (unless they're sharing it with other characters by the same name). -HKMarks 00:48, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I may be in the minority, but this list could be endless. And what's next - a list of short characters? Non-human characters? Characters with blue hair? Brianyoumans 00:53, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Non-humans are adequately served by Category:Fictional characters by nature. -HKMarks 01:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: the comment. A lot of fictional characters by nature lists have been purged for being subjective, biased, or just plain messes. (I can't believe it still has an effeminate characters listing.) Doczilla 12:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based on precedent and policy. As http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_June_9#Category:Deceased_fictional_characters and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_June_25#Category:Deceased_X-Men show, there is clear precedent for avoiding lists/categories on dead comic book characters, for many reasons. Is everyone posting in this discussion really a serious comic buyer? I've been reading comics since the Sixties, and my brain hurts to imagine how ridiculously long, muddled, and inaccurate that list will get. Also, tory details are supposed to be written in the present tense in Wikipedia, also for numerous reasons. Doczilla 12:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm not convinced there are that many notable dead characters yet. There are currently 53 characters on the list, and only 2 have stayed dead since the 1950s-1960s. The only problem with this list seems to be that it's not comprehensive, and might theoretically become long. It isn't yet. The lists on Comic book death (of characters who returned) are 115-strong, just counting Marvel and DC examples. I specifically voted for deletion of those categories because I felt list page did the job more elegantly and was more manageable. -HKMarks 13:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Comic book deaths is good enough. --DrBat 12:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Merge Comic book deaths into this list, as it's a list, and lists should start with "List." Lists can have commentary, too. Mugaliens 14:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. - I've changed my mind based on a renewed effort to improve the article. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 16:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC) Delete - I'm the one who split this off from the comic book deaths article. If it's not being maintained properly, it needs to go. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 00:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've also done some light work on this article (mostly looking to provide notability after it was split from Comic book death). I'm not attached to the article or anything but I'll note that when it was split there was discussion about changing the list chart to focus on the significance and/or impact of each character's death, improving notability and making it a genuine sub-article of Comic book death. That said, this has not yet been done, although it might still happen -Markeer 14:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- - Comment - Is that what you think should happen? Will you be voting? --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 16:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Weak Keep heh, fair question and I hadn't voted yet. I'm still mostly undecided. While I think notability is certainly attainable, my main concern is about ongoing maintenance. This kind of list has the potential to expand exponentially over time. That said, I suppose I wouldn't vote to delete based on a 'maybe' problem. -Markeer 12:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article needs work, but it could work very well with added notability and more defined rules. That said, I think the list should be limited to characters who have, at one point or another, starred in their own ongoing or limited series. This would keep entries like [[Superboy (Kon-El) and Jean Grey while eliminating others. That said, however, we'd have to find some sort of compromise for villains. King Zeal 18:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, we need some criteria for inclusion/exclusion. Own series seems a little too strict (what about team members? villains? Major supporting characters with years of history?). I think own article will do it. If truly obscure characters pop up, we can use that as a cue to clear out/merge those pages. Alternate universes are excluded de facto already, but that could be made clearer. Probability of return is a useless criterion. Who ever expected Aunt May to come back? -HKMarks 18:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with own article is that it's easily rectified. If someone wants to have an alternate future version of the Hulk on the list for whatever reason, he would have free reign too as long as he made his own article for that character and added whatever content he deemed as "significant".

But you have a point. Therefore, I suggest we split the criteria amongst character types:

Major characters - Must have held own ongoing/limited series. (ex: Superboy (Kon-El))

Villains - Must be recurring ("recurring" being defined as having faced opposing hero(es) at LEAST three times). (ex: Captain Cold

Supporting character - Must be one of the following at time of death.

The hero/villain's love interest. (ex: Gwen Stacey)
The hero/villain's "sidekick/aide/protege". (ex: Stephanie Brown)
The hero/villain's "mentor". (ex: Max Mercury) (Note: Parents/guardians should NOT count. No one cares if Batman's parents, Peter Parker's uncle, or Superman's home planet are still dead.)

Would this suffice? King Zeal 05:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also suggest explicitly excluding alternate universes (Ultimate, What If, Elseworlds, and so on), and characters in worlds where people just Don't Come Back. I've added some tentative criteria to the talk page -HKMarks 06:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per aboveJoe 02:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete It should be zero hour for days of future listcruff. More seriously based upon the precendent listed above. --Charlesknight 06:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above comments. RFerreira 19:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's fine as it is. Wiki-newbie 16:55, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -ryan-d 14:51, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Having nominated this for deletion, I now feel much better because I see that my having brought this to people's attention means the article, which will surely continue to exist, will be better maintained and monitored. Wryspy 03:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nominated by a single purposed account with precisely 3 edits. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mosaic notation program

A google search for "Mosaic notation program" returned 19 hits. The recently deleted kitler article was deleted, yet there are 422,000 google hits for the search term "kitler". Therefore, this page is clearly not notable and should be deleted. Yeah! Delete this piece of garbage! Unnotable JimmyJones005 21:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC) — JimmyJones005 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Speedy Keep As WP:POINT Nomination. Kitler was not deleted for lack of notability. It was speedily deleted because the article itself was judged as Patent Nonsense. Fan-1967 22:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per Fan-1967. The software is obsolete, but provides enough of a history. --Dennis The TIger 02:32, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I remember using Mosaic, it was a decent program, and though obsolete, so is Fortran. Lastly, google "hits" are not the end-all/be-all of determining factors. It might not be very notable, but it is at least notable. Especially since programs like Finale use a lot of features and coding that Mosaic introduced. Wanna propose deleting Fortran while you're at it too? After all, it's been obsolete since like 1985, but it's innovation still fuels the computations done by most calculators. —ExplorerCDT 03:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, "Mosaic notation program" wasn't the name of the program, which is why google fails on it. It's just the name of the article, to distinguish it from the numerous other uses of "mosaic", like the first web browser, or sticking colored stones on church walls. Fan-1967 05:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On that note, I would propose a move and redirect. Perhaps "Mosaic (musical notation program)"? --Dennis The TIger 05:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not a bad idea. I've just added (with the current title, to the DAB page at Mosaic (disambiguation). Surprised it wasn't there. Fan-1967 05:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rahovart

Not notable demon, mentioned in one Renaissance book and not widely known. Prod removed with the comment that every demon is notable. Is that so? Can't just have a list of obscure demons somewhere? Brianyoumans 21:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to meet WP:NOTABLE Hello32020 21:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete No article content. User:Yy-bo 21:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Source seems to be de Plancy's Dictionnaire Infernal which is a well-known book containing sometimes brief descriptions of various demons. Dlyons493 Talk 00:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Catchpole 20:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clubsi.com

Arguabley non-notable online community. I am, personally, only slightly leaning towards a delete, so I believe a good consensus by editors is necessary. Every medium- or medium/small-sized online community cannot an article on Wikipedia — it would make the task of making a good online encyclopedia much more difficult. The site Clubsi.com is ranked at about 38,600 on Alexa's site traffic ratings and is ranked 95 for message boards sites on Big Boards, unique traffic wise. ~ clearthought 21:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Gameplanet is ranked 167 on big-boards, but has an article, also Volvospeed has only 15,000 members on its forum as opposed to Clubsi's 50,000+ --RMHED 21:39, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is a ranking by posts, not by views or traffic. ~ clearthought 21:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 53416 Registered User(s). User:Yy-bo 21:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw my delete vote. I do not know the process not for un-doing the AFD, but I don't just want to delete it because I think it needs to be archived. Updated vote: Weak Keep. ~ clearthought 22:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Nom Withdrawn - Blood red sandman 22:35, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:44, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Van

AFD tag placed on article by 66.134.219.52 (talk • contribs), who may also be Worm082 (talk • contribs). This is a technical nomination regarding which I have firm no opinion at this time. Paraphrasing the comments on Talk:Eric Van, the anon user had concerns that the subject did not WP:BIO's standards for inclusion. At previous AFDs the article was stubbed and speedily kept at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric Van and kept at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric Van (2nd nomination) because the subject is, like the song says, big in ~~Japan~~ Boston. Nice, but I'm not sure that a heartwarming human interest piece in the deepest, darkest corners of the Boston Globe is multiple, even if it is arguably non-trivial. Whatever the article has going for it, it scores well as hagiography. Some might not see that as plus point. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:31, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Afterthought: Nothing has been said to suggest the subject meets WP:BIO, and other issues have been raised, so my view would now be delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, does not meet WP:BIO. "Whatever the article has going for it, it scores well as hagiography. Some might not see that as plus point." - This is because the article was written by the subject of the article (see previous edits by user emvan). Whether he's notable is questionable, whether a biography written by the subject can have a NPOV is not. Ivana Humpalot— Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.160.98.31 (talk • contribs)

Delete as Red Sox Nation-cruft. I am a member of SABR and had never heard of this guy until I followed a link from Sons of Sam Horn (the Wiki article, not the site). His work intrigues me from a fan's standpoint, and he certainly seems notable in the Boston area, but is he a notable baseball authority outside of those circles? No. He's not notable in his other interests, either, and it makes the page read like a vanity. And if anyone's ready to point out this as an assertion of notability, well, many local people are profiled in newspapers every day. SliceNYC 02:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable baseball sabermetrician. -- No Guru 16:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. wikipediatrix 18:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable statistician, very notable in science fiction fandom. I'm also quite befuddled by Ivana's comments. Van didn't create the article, he's removed large chunks of non-essential information and his edits are non-controversial and constructive [26]. Nobody is disputing factual acccuracy here, so citing a POV concern (especially when Van isn't the primary author) seems like a strawman. Stilgar135 14:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Afterthought Van is absolutely the primary author. See his edits from late February 2006 when he changed the page from a spoof to his own bio: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eric_Van&diff=41438350&oldid=39762820. He later edited it to add more of the current content. It now reads like an abbreviated resume. Moreover, POV has little to do with factual accuracy; articles in The Nation or Newsmax may be factually accurate, but no one pretends they have a NPOV. Ivana Humpalot 21:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'Response' Awesome, we're both using the same edit to try and prove different points. It looked to me like Van was removing a whole bunch of chaff and leaving in the important information. And I think you're missing my point about POV. The issue here is whether Van is notable. Your musing on whether or not someone can write an article about themselves without a POV is not germane to the debate. Stilgar135 23:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The edits Van made violate the guidelines of WP:Autobiography. His claim to inventing "combined triple average" cannot be independently verified. "Van has privately confided that he wasn't blowing smoke here and is in fact working on a major innovative advance in sabermetrics," he writes. This is obviously unverifiable and is original research. Keep in mind that he doesn't meet any of the WP:BIO standards in the first place, and the case for deletion grows. SliceNYC 20:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep please he is notable in baseball analysis and science fiction fandom Yuckfoo 17:37, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable, and note that this survived an AFD on July 17th, not even two months ago. It's a shame that articles can keep being renominated when the desired outcome is not obtained. Turnstep 21:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article is being renominated because Van clearly does not meet WP:BIO, something which was never mentioned in the first two AfDs. In the AfD two months ago, the focal points of the argument were that one article had been written about Van and that he was known in the Boston area. (For what it's worth, the article was in the arts section, not even the sports section.) The difference this time through the AfD process is that we are discussing actual policies and guidelines, not just vague concepts of notability. SliceNYC 21:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Historical fiction short story

looks WP:OR and unexpandable definition; W not a dictionary WP:NOT Yy-bo 23:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I prod'ed this article as a dictionary entry; it was removed by the author.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 00:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete dictdef as it stands and there are already substantial articles covering this area. Dlyons493 Talk 00:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Volvospeed

Web community of 15,000 members. Maybe an article devoted to short descriptions of Volvo and other enthusiast/community sites is in order. Ranked around 155 for page views and 178 for unique traffic compared to other message board sites on Big Boards. ~ clearthought 21:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - Blood red sandman 22:34, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:WEB. Daniel Case 23:48, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was NO CONSENSUS TO DELETE. The raw totals are 9 Keep, 6 Delete. Two of the Keep votes were by editors whose only edit so far are their Keep votes, another by an editor who has had one other edit, and another by an editor whose only edits have been to this AfD or to the article under consideration. If for the sake of argument we don't count those, we have 5 Keep, 6 Delete. No huge advantage in strength of argument, thus, no consensus. Herostratus 18:18, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lindsay MacFarland

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

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

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

Contested CSD, Non-notable actress only had a few bit parts RMHED 21:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, after having ironically speedied this once. I have no problem with bit-part actors as long as the movies were notable; Wikipedia is not paper. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 00:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The majority of her roles listed in this article are not listed on the Internet Movie Database, particularly Go (1999 film) for which the film is listed but she is not. Only one film in which she acted and for which her role is listed in IMDb has been released, that being A Lot Like Love in which she played "Gallery Patron." I don't think she meets the criteria at WP:BIO in part due to lack of verification of most of her roles. --Metropolitan90 02:41, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A model who would like to have a movie career. I don't think our readers really need to know the name of her pomeranian. (Answer: Copper) --Brianyoumans 05:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't have a problem with bit-part actors being on here, as long as they have done work that can be seen (not just indie or student films). When I googled her, it seems as though she has done a lot of notable work (i.e. Lucky You, A Lot Like Love, Broken Promise). --71.137.249.228 20:38, 3 September 2006

comment There is no user Pr.girl. The above comment is from 71.137.249.228. IrishGuy ^talk 20:48, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wikipedia is a source of information for just about anything you choose, ranging from aerodynamics to Zion National Park and everything inbetween. Whether you choose to accept it or not, up-and-coming stars are another part of life in 2006, just as much as musicians, MySpace celebrities, or even criminals for that matter. As long as the information is accurate, then let's resort to the basic rule of thumb: no harm, no foul! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.104.72.97 (talk • contribs)
Keep 18:53, 3 September 2006 (UTC) How does it hurt anything on Wikipedia by keeping a bit actress on here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.224.133.39 (talk • contribs)
Delete. Wikipedia articles should not be used to help lead to a "big break". As this individual has not had even medium roles in any notable films. For some films, as noted above, she is not listed at all. If she becomes more famous, then she can and should have an article, but I don't think she's notable just yet. Srose (talk) 18:53, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not evidence of notability has been presented. IrishGuy ^talk 20:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Vain article created by single use account. Google search returns 250unique hits out of 1020, of which vast majority are film databases or imdb mirrors. Many of the details are unverified and unverifiable. She has played in 3 films per imdb, 2 of which unreleased. Ohconfucius 07:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KeepThe attacks this actress is undergoing here on this page negates the very essence of Wikipedia. They seem personal in nature and lack merit. The quality of the writing is acceptable. The article is written with a neutral point of view. The information can be verified by both on-line sources (IMDB) as well as hard copy sources (The Hollywood Reporter). This actress is acknowledged by the Screen Actors Guild as being a professional. Her face has been seen by millions of people, being that she has been in huge Hollywood films. She also has two new soon to be released notable films with character names credited, both on IMDB. The very fact that there are so many statements here shows that this person is someone of note, otherwise no one would bother. I for one would like to know more about an actress that could stir so much controversy. --InfoGuru ^talk 13:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment The above is another false signature [27] IrishGuy ^talk 22:45, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment How is it that I am a false signature and don't exist. Lets keep this constructive unlike - [28]InfoGuru ^talk 16:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep please per canadian caesar wikipedia is not paper and people should be able to find this here Yuckfoo 22:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above comments. Notability here is minor, but still evident, verifiable, and sufficient enough to meet our WP:BIO criteria. RFerreira 20:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are lesser known people that are on Wikipedia. There are reality TV stars who were on just one episode, so should they be removed too? This is an actress/model who has been in well known movies, so if you only want leads than you need to make that clear from the get go. I thought wikipedia was for the people, done by the people and did not realize there was a heiracy of who the right people are to be part of wikipedia. seriouslyomgwtf 20:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Unfortunately, some people are referring to IMDB as the most reliable means to establish someone's credibility. Although IMDB is convenient, it is sometimes highly inaccurate. In addition to using this [IMDB] site, it is known amongst those involved in the entertainment industry to use reliable hardcopy publishings (i.e. Hollywood Reporter, Variety, Daily Variety, etc.) as well. I subscribe to the Daily Variety, and I found that this individual's film E&A was listed in the Friday, August 4, 2006 edition (p.8). And as a side note, she is listed as the first in the cast which means that she is most likely one of the leads. I hope this helps. TGreenburg ^talk

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Zsinj^Talk 23:05, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kid Beyond

Musician's notability not quite established here. I can't determine what makes this one notable. theProject 22:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per db-bio. eaolson 22:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per nom and Eaolson. Molerat 22:40, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per nom and per tag on article - Blood red sandman 22:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete by Marudubshinki as a copyvio. MER-C 04:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Utopia Spells

not at all relating to the computer game utopia Yy-bo 22:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Copyvio of [29] eaolson 22:31, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as copyvio - Blood red sandman 22:33, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as copyvio. These are spells in the online computer game Utopia which I played many years ago. The game itself might warrant a page, but this definitely doesn't. VegaDark 03:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Potter role-play games

Delete - there is some information about forums that could be merged into the main HP article and some other material that could be saved but this seems to a collection of insider trivia. Charlesknight 22:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article also looks like original research and contains 0 sources. TJ Spyke 22:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As bias as this article is, the part about HL is true. Still, in accordance with Wikipedia rules, this should be deleted. --24.67.253.203 20:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If anything useful could be extracted merge it into Harry Potter#9 Commercial success, but only with sources!! Bjelleklang - talk 11:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep, no reason to delete. Cowman109^Talk 22:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Echilamvayal

vanity Yy-bo 22:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per its an actual place.Bakaman _Bakatalk 22:33, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Bakaman _Bakatalk 22:36, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, actual place, presumably in India. Kappa 22:48, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's in Kerala, a state in India. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 22:53, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Keep comments are all from new and/or single-purpose accounts. Xoloz 01:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zulu Online

Non-notable gamecruft. (Contested prod.) According to the website, the game is not yet even released. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Maybe warrants an article if the game is released and gets some notoriety, but not encyclopedic until then. eaolson 22:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Zulu Online has plenty of notoriety, being one of the first few zombie MMOFPS' in development. Wikipedia may not be a crystal ball, but it is not a muddy ball of mush either. Your protests are purely opinions. Qwo 22:36, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, apologies for deleting the tag. Qwo 22:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll also transpose my earlier protest on the article's discussion page here: as stated in the edit summary of my removal of the deletion tag, I believe the claim that Zulu Online is a "non-notable" game is of arguable merit. Also, the article was created mere moments ago, and has not yet had a chance to be fleshed out. Stop being a party pooper, dear sir. Qwo 22:39, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable. Flying Jazz 00:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was curious because the article doesn't say anything about who is creating this game, so I googled the name and found this post in a forum at 3dgamers.com, dated June 12, 2006, under the heading, "Zulu-Online, MMO Zombie Game, is anyone interested?"

My name is Logan Strunk. I am a senior at Shawnee State University in Southern Ohio.

I go to school for Gaming Simulation Design and Engineering.

Basically, I'm in school to make video games.

Recently, me and a few friends have decided to start making a game for our own enjoyment, and to show off at a gaming expo we having coming up in the fall. ...

...so, basically, this is an ad-hoc project run by a college senior. That doesn't by itself make the game non-notable, but, considering it isn't released yet, I think it raises the bar a bit. Brianyoumans 00:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. For one this site was not created by Logan, it was actually started by one of the fans. Also this is coming out in the near future (October). Since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, what is it for, gaining knoledge. Therefore even if it was an ad campaign (which i ensure you it's not), it's giving the public knoledge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.184.143.35 (talk • contribs) 00:59, 3 September 2006

Keep. If wikipedia is not a crystal ball then why can pages like this stay http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day_of_the_Dead_%282007_film%29 i mean lets not be hipocritical here 67.184.143.35 16:28, 3 September 2006 (UTC)Altirion[reply]

Since the two "Keeps" above use the same IP address, I suspect they are from the same person. Flying Jazz 18:48, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I am Logan. www.Zulu-Online.com is the website for the game in development. As the person above me said, if we are releasing in October, why should a film not being released for an entire year be allowed to have an article, and this not? This is less of a game and more of a simulation that is being created, something that has never been done before. That is why we feel it deserves notoriety. This isn't something being put together by two programmers in their basement. Currently there are six people on the team developing Zulu-Online and all but two of us are students going to school specifically for Gaming and Simulation Design. The sound person went to a Technical school, and now runs a camera and sound boom for ESPN Sports Center, and one of our mappers designed maps for simulations for the military. Zulu-Online will be the first Simulation of a zombie outbreak, there has yet to be any other computer game like this yet. As you stated, no the release is not until October. However, there are plenty of screenshots and information about it located on our website. More than enough to supplement a small wiki article about the basis of the game. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.35.66.19 (talk • contribs) 13:20, 3 September 2006

Please come back to Wikipeida AFTER the product has ACHIEVED notoriety instead of coming here to argue that it DESERVES notoriety. Flying Jazz 04:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I always wondered why the librarians at the college tell us not to use Wikipedia. Now I know why. -Logan

Delete Chase the Chicken this ain't. Nifboy 19:32, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More like Flying POOP Qwo 19:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please, everyone: No Personal Attacks. It's not just a good idea, it's official policy. eaolson 19:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. My apologies for earlier silliness. Flying Jazz 20:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, I also apologize if Logan took my post badly; I posted the quote of his announcement solely as part of the discussion of the article's notability. If this is something that really will be out soon, and is generating a lot of buzz in the gaming community, then it might be worth an aricle. I think it is more likely that we should hold off until the game actually comes out; if it becomes popular, then it will need an article. Until then, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Brianyoumans 23:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - NOT a Crystal ball, and fails WP:SOFTWARE --Mnem e son 21:53, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i quote from WP:SOFTWARE "Creating an article about software you have personally developed is strongly discouraged but not forbidden", "Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. The published works must be someone else writing about the company, corporation, product, or service." (this page was not made by Logan) 67.184.143.35 23:47, 3 September 2006 (UTC)Altirion (btw, i do have siblings so those "two post with the same ip address" did come from different users)[reply]

There are four criteria on WP:SOFTWARE, the meeting of any one of which makes it worth an article. In order: 1) Subject to multiple non-trivial works. 2) So well known that it's name has become generic. 3) Core product of a notable developer. 4) Distributed as standard with a major o/s. We know immediately that it fails 2, 3, and 4, and a Google indicates that it fails 1 as well. Therefore, it fails WP:SOFTWARE. --Mnem e son 00:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fine with me, I am however rather offended by Flying Jazz's post. I thought you guys were supposed to be more professional? -Logan

As well you should be. I've removed the comments and I apologize again. Flying Jazz 04:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i just did a search on google to see if that was true (i actually check the validity of other's statements) and when i search "zulu-online" it came up as the fourth link so it CAN be easily found on a google search and it's the 6th link on the search you did "zulu online" so i don't see how you can't find it 67.184.143.35 21:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)Altirion[reply]

Hi Alterion - I think you've misunderstood the guideline, sorry if I didn't make it clear. Allow me to quote, instead of paraphrase, in order to avoid ambiguity. "The software package has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself." The Ghit you cite does not meet these criteria - it is a post by Logan advertising on a BBS. Can you provide any major published works where this software is referenced? --Mnem e son 21:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok it may not have a published works where it is reference (that i know of) but i have to know, why would it be so bad for Zulu-Online to have a page on wikipedia. (and don't give me some crap like it isn't notable) 67.184.143.35 04:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)Altirion (also when you deside to say my name, at least COPY it CORRECTLY)[reply]

Because WP is not a Crystal ball - this game hasn't been released yet. Also, WP is not a Soapbox - the article is an advert. --Mnem e son 12:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the article is not an advertisement, it's simply information about the game. all this information is readily avaliable on the zulu-online website and it will be released (again sertain movies that are listed on wikipedia haven't come out yet but they are still here)216.125.163.56 13:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)Altirion[reply]

There are so many people in the world who want something they've done or something they like or something a friend of theirs has done to get all the recognition it can get. Hosting all these pages at Wikipedia takes some money, and people donate that money to a non-profit foundation with the expectation that it will be used to provide web-space for some things but not other things. In order to talk about why movies get in before they're released and most software doesn't, I have to use the "notable" word so I won't talk about it! It would cost very very little to just sneak one more article into Wikipedia, but, like the grade-school teachers say, "If we make an exception for you then we have to make an exception for everyone else too." It's a really boring reason but it's the truth. Of course, for all I know, in a couple days when an administrator comes around to actually make the deletion, they might agree with you instead of us! Flying Jazz 21:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I have to agree that it does not meet the software policy. The argument that there are other pages that don't meet policy is not a particularly strong one. For every policy, I'm willing to be there is some article somewhere on Wikipedia that violates it. We need to clean up the existing problems, not create more.

However, if it's any consolation, the game does look pretty cool. Kubigula 21:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lrfd

Wikipedia is not a dictionary per WP:NOT Blood red sandman 22:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obscure abbreviation User:Yy-bo 23:06, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. VegaDark 03:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was NO CONSENSUS TO DELETE. Herostratus 18:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Google Idol/ Pop Webcam Competition 4

listcruft; repository of information; WP:NOT Yy-bo 22:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete TJ Spyke 00:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is not random information. This is like listing who won in an olympic event. Like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swimming_at_the_1964_Summer_Olympics This information is for people who want to know what the site gidol.com is all about. They click a link to see the results of the competition if they want more information on a particular competition. Jopojelly 05:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Edit and Keep Just needs a little editing, but the page is necessary to document completed competition. See Gidol --Microbefox 05:46, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a online lip-synching contest. How is that notable? It's worse than having an article about a air guitar competition. TJ Spyke 06:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: W not a repository of information; TV-programme a-like content not encyclopedic. User:Yy-bo 13:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Think of it as similar to an article about a battle of a war, like D-day, Gettysburg, and the such. Plus, an online competition like this that has been in plenty of newspapers around the world and has loads of media attention is just like American Idol. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_idol or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Idol_%28Season_1%29. They both have depositorys of information in them.
      - Wars and battles are notable and interesting. An online lip-synching contest is neither. TJ Spyke 21:30, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Take the World Cup of Soccer for example....that's a very popular sport that thirty-two countries take part in. This is an INTERNATIONAL lip-synching competition that takes place online, and ANYBODY (and I mean ANYBODY) can participate in it. You can call this the World Cup of Lip-Synching. And since a World Cup is a soccer war, Google Idol can also be considered a lip-synching war consisting of numerous battles (matches whether they be head-to-head or 4-way).Ovechkinfan4life
Definitely Keep Gidol is only six months old, but it's becoming popular and popular by the minute....and some people don't really know gidol at all, so this is needed to actually SHOW them what gidol is about. We can always TELL people what gidol is, but we wouldn't do so with as much accuracy as well as consistency. SHOWING is more efficient than TELLING. Think of it this way....you're trying to show a picture to a friend. Would you A) Simply let him see the picture itself or B) Describe the picture in a million or so words without letting him see the picture?Ovechkinfan4life
- I don't see any non-trivial sources talking about it. I can't read the other links since they aren't in English, but the USA link is just the website of Gidol. So this doesn't appear to be notable at all. You cannot compare something as trivial as this to something that more than a few hundred(or MAYBE a few thousand) people have heard of to a competition that is covered by just about every sports channel and website covers and that is viewed by hundreds of millions of people. TJ Spyke 01:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per nom. Edgecution 01:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep See Publicity section of googleidol.com. Gidol has been in newspapers and on television several times. It is less popular in the US than in Europe so a lot of the publicity isn't in English. There is still no reason to dismiss it as trivial, espeically since it's less than six months old and has garnered millions of hits and is and still ever-expanding. It is a worldwide phenomenon. The point is, many people around the world will want to know about Gidol. This is simply a documentation of the contests that have happened within the site which will allow them to do so. NewObjective 08:20, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Google is a useful lookup source. Google is a notable corporation. A google lip-syncing competition is corporate promotion with NO HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE. TXP Cain Mosni 14:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It has nothing to due with google, and you would know that if you knew anything about it.
  - So the they're deliberately trading on confusion, then. There's apotential "passing off" suit right there. Still doesn't make it significant. And having taken the time to survey the site, rather than simply read second-hand, I can say with even greater confidence that it's trivial nonsense not meriting a second glance, and certainly not warranting WP resources. Cain Mosni 20:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - It is named google idol because only google videos can be a part of it. There are other sites that support videos, like youtube, myspace, and photobucket. Stop making assumptions like that. It's like saying Baby Ruth the candy bar was named after Babe Ruth, the Great Bambino, the Sultan of Swat, the King of Crash, etc....the candy bar was not named after Babe Ruth. It was named after Ruth Cleveland, the first baby ever born in the White House. Or saying that Caesar salad dressing was named after Roman Emperor Julius Caesar. It wasn't. It was named after a chef named Caesar who founded the dressing. This is somewhat mundane if you ask me Ovechkinfan4life
Just becuase you say it's trivial doesn't necessarily make it so. And besides, google idol is in a sense like myspace and facebook and digg.com. All three sites were founded by one person in particular (myspace by Tom Anderson, facebook by Matt Zuckerburg, and digg.com by Kevin Rose). Google Idol is similar in that one person founded this (Ben Petro). What has happened to myspace, facebook, and digg.com? They became very popular websites and one of the most popular in the world today. As for google idol, it's just in its infant stages. The reason you probably never heard of google idol is because many ppl have limited access to the media or simply they don't read. I myself had not really heard of digg.com until I read Business Week one time and heard about how Kevin Rose made $60 million in 18 months. Give it some time....Rome wasn't built in a day, so why should google idol be as popular as the World Cup in its rookie year? Not every rookie has to be an Alexander Ovechkin type of rookie (or in laymans terms a very popular rookie). Some websites are brand new and that's just fine. We all have to be new at something sooner or later. Ovechkinfan4life
- Comment When it is significant, then it merits notice in an article, and only then. There's no need to "give it a chance".
  - It is significant....many people are just too lazy to figure out what's going on around the media.Ovechkinfan4life

merge into Gidol - the details arn't that important --T-rex 03:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is merged into Gidol as a link. If it was on the same page as gidol the home page would just become all messed up like Dexter Reed's Mondo Burgers at the beginning of the Good Burger movie. And the details are needed so people can see an example of formats for Gidol. If you're interested in sports you would be interested in scores as well. And if you're interested in statistics you could analyze these statistics for various tests (for example, you can do a chi-square test of homogeneity to see if getting a certain amount of votes is independent upon the country a performer is from). Ovechkinfan4life

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 08:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maidstone Wrestling Association

Non-notable wrestling organization, PROD removed with no explanation TJ Spyke 22:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "The company was founded on September 1st 2006." So... yesterday? Can't confirm the existance of "Kent Wrestling Magazine" where this is supposedly from. Otherwise fails WP:CORP miseriably by the lack of verifiability of multiple independent reliable sources. Kevin_b_er 22:50, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I can think of no organization that would be notable the day after it was founded. Also the creator's edit summary states "...which is fast becoming a repuatable company..."; come back when you are a repuatable company.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 01:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete ...or more to the point let someone else come back when you're a reputable company OF NOTE. TXP Cain Mosni 14:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn. McPhail 21:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Catchpole 21:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ovidijus Vyšniauskas

Doesn't meet WP:BIO -Nv8200p talk 22:49, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree entirely - here is a source showing that he did what he was claimed to do. Then it's a simple matter of choosing which parts of WP:BIO he meets. I'd go for The person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field. (he competed in a contest which is viewed throughout Europe and elsewhere in the world, admittedly not with much distinction, but he competed nonetheless) and Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events Eurovision is patently a newsworthy event (Eurovision Song Contest is either a Featured Article or a perennial candidate, I've lost track), and a debut performance from any country strikes me as something of renown. I'd even argue that he passes at least one point of WP:BAND, since he won the Lithuanian pre-selection (a major competition) to get to Eurovision. Strong Speedy Keep, therefore. BigHaz 23:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Further, in Eurovision subculture, an act receiving nul points (zero) is perversely notable, sometimes moreso than the winner of the relevant year. BigHaz 23:25, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did not understand that coming in dead last was a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field. But if it is, then that's OK. However, the article also fails to meet WP:V, as there are no reliable sources referenced -Nv8200p talk 02:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not in so many words, no. I'd argue, though, that being the first Lithuanian to compete is the contribution ahead of coming dead last. Either that or the more wishy-washy conception that anyone and everyone who competes in the ESC has made a contribution to the record of that field. The fact that an act fails to record a point is also notable, since the overwhelming majority do. Naturally, this makes them last. BigHaz 02:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meant to add this: I'll add the source into his article right away, which as far as I can see should get around the verifiability issue. BigHaz 02:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ha. He is really widely known in Lithuania even disregarding the Eurovision. The problem is I cannot prove it to you. He comes from the pre-Internet generation and only stuff you can find on him on the net is Eurovision and a half sentence mention that he participated in such and such event. Renata 03:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep either first ever Lithuanian representative in Eurovision or nul points (very, very hard to achieve because of strong support voting of neighbouring countries in ESC) is enough to make him notable Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 04:41, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Deleted as a {{hoax}} article. (aeropagitica) 16:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Modern occultists

hoax article created by Flinders who was a sock of Mattisse. If it were a serious article, it would violate the no original research policy —Hanuman Das 22:50, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete vanity banned sockpuppet User:Yy-bo 13:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete all articles. (aeropagitica) 15:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Metro New York District Young Religious Unitarian Universalists

Non-Notable local organization; prod removed without comment. Brianyoumans 22:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC) Added to AFD: Massachusetts Bay District Young Religious Unitarian Universalists, Ohio-Meadeville District Young Religious Unitarian Universalists, Pacific Southwest District Young Religious Unitarian Universalists, Florida District Young Religious Unitarian Universalists --Brianyoumans 23:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To be fair, I think these are kind of district-level umbrella groups - sort of like the Greater Cleveland Boy Scout Council or something like that - only not that notable, because there are probably not as many or as large local groups under them. --Brianyoumans 23:35, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as local nn. College political groups were deleted and fit as precedent. Nickieee 23:26, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. They all fail WP:ORG#Criteria For Organizations point 1 as they contain no assertion of individual notability. GRBerry 02:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Either delete or redirect to Young Religious Unitarian Universalists (no merge needed), per other comments above. --Metropolitan90 02:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as non notable. Nuttah68 08:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete vanity. W not a directory/repository of information. Don't forget the numerous district articles; have already put a few into speedy deletion because of vanity, misleading article name. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Districts_of_the_Unitarian_Universalist_Association User:Yy-bo 15:30, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect, there is nothing to merge. --- Deville (Talk) 00:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Headingley ground

hoax article started by NothingMuch, a sockpuppet of Mattisse, patent nonsense —Hanuman Das 23:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. Nickieee 23:26, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Headingley Stadium - nothing worth merging though. Grutness...wha? 00:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Hello32020 01:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Headingley Stadium. It isn't a "hoax" but simply a low quality duplicate. Headingley is one of the six leading cricket grounds in England. Piccadilly 01:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted by User:FrancisTyers Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 23:52, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Serbian expansionistic wars in 1990's

To my opinion the sole reason of the creation of this article will be obvious to anyone if he/she sees Wikipedia:Attack page. Not only that it is slightly offensive, it also violates Wikipedia:No original research, as it states no source at all and its Google search shows a total of 0 results. The same can be said through Wikipedia:Cite. It's also poorly and amateurly written and all in all, it's just an attempt to creat a page parallel to Yugoslav wars, but anti-Serb POV orientated - so there is no need to have this article ever dealt with, because we already have one neutral. This could be a desperate attempt to present a POV version of the Yugoslav wars.

Speedy delete as per the nomination. --HolyRomanEmperor 23:34, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per nomination, article has been tagged with db-attack. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 23:49, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of NCATE Accredited Institutions

A more up to date list is on the NCATE website, and this is what categories are for. Nickieee 23:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom (it even points readers to the web site for a current list) Yomangani ^talk 00:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Arbusto 21:31, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, if a politician has never held an office. Moreover, the claims of his being known in Juventude Socialista seem to be belied by this gsearch. In short, I can verify exactly nothing in this article, and as argued below it seems unlikely Sá would meet WP:BIO if we could. --- Deville (Talk) 23:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pedro Sá

Non-notable. Was originally PROD, but User:Kilo-Lima for some reason is confused by an IMDB entry for someone else of the same name, and Google hits without quotes and accent which match irrelevant pages (see Talk:Pedro Sá). This person is simply a "board member" in Portuguese politics: he has never held elected office, or done anything especially notable above anyone else of the same position. He has an unpublished work - as stated in the article itself. There is really nothing here which asserts the encyclopædic importance or significance of the subject. Delete. EuroSong ^talk 23:25, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just reading the article carefully, he seems to be nothing more than a local politician. Oh, but he's a fan of Eurovision! Doesn't that make him notable? --Brianyoumans 04:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe, exactly... this is how I found it actually, by doing a search for Eurovision links. I too am a fan of Eurovision, but I don't warrant my own encyclopædia article :P EuroSong ^talk 10:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was closed; article is bit-for-bit duplicate of Kitty's Dish, redirected as such. --james^(talk) 13:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disney's Kitty's Dish

Already listed for AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kitty's Dish. As I noted there, it's about a not-notable animated television pilot. "Even though the pilot tested highly with focus groups it was not picked up as a regular series." Originally PRODDED. Prod removed without comment by User:Lesserredpanda. <200 Google hits, not all about subject. Most are about, well cat food, Nancy Reagan and Kitty Kelly. We should probably merge the two, but I don't know how. :) Dlohcierekim 14:36, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Deletion of this article is absurd. It is an existing piece of animation history that , while not picked up as a series, is still be played at animation festivals around the world due to its innovated merging of animation techniques. Not to mention that it was created by a well known animaion studio FOR Disney studios. Your deletion time would be much better served looking for the ridiculously obsene and useless entries on this site. In case uyou haven';t noticed Kitty's Dish is an entry on IMDb, a website with MUCH stricker standards than Wikipedia's. Needless to say I STRONGLY OBJECT to this articles deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lesserredpanda (talk • contribs) :) Dlohcierekim 15:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Lesserredpanda is heavily onvolved in the creation of the article. I am boldly marking her comment as a vote to keep. :) Dlohcierekim 15:49, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I (BFJ) am also heavily involved in the creation of this article and working from the same IP address as lesserredpanda, but that doesn't make my objections to deletion any less valid. Yes, Disney did not pick up Kitty's Dish for series but it is still shown at film festivals and still has very real life as an animated short and very well may get picked up by another animation studio or network - it is very well regarded (see: wildbrain.com 's director page/ Nick Hewitt (art director) for an example. The fact that this article links to actors, director, studios and animation techniques within Wikipedia universe should also be considered before deletion. If deletion is decided upon, the Kitty's Dish info; photos, cast list, etc. should be merged with the director's entry (Mark Risley).
Weak Keep somewhat notable, and per other reasons given by BFJ. Hello32020 01:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems like a notable short film, and it looks and sounds cool, too. I'd like to see it. Since it is a part of Disney history and was made by and starring notable people I'm for keeping it.Devourerofworlds 15:26, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Kitty's Dish is notable because of its known cast, crew, production companies and the simple fact that it is an existing animated short film, simple as that. Cgfan 17:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --- Deville (Talk) 00:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Skyscraper Square

No evidence of this term being used for that place can be found on the web - seems to be a neologism. H005 23:36, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. If there is any content worth keeping, merge it into City of London. --Metropolitan90 02:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete its plausible that such a term might come into existence, but I've yet to hear of it and can't find any other reference to it. In London, Canary Wharf would still have a better claim to be skyscraper square at the moment, and several other skyscrapers are proposed and under construction in a number of locations around London so I doubt this term would last even if it were true. -- Solipsist 09:26, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Neologism as per nom (I've worked here and never heard it called that). Catchpole 18:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --- Deville (Talk) 22:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Waud

Internet slang that appears to be unverifiable original research ("Due to the unpopularity of this slang"). RN 05:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Internet slang. VegaDark 09:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:OR original research/original research style. User:Yy-bo 23:43, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_September_2&oldid=1116878385"