Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 September 24

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

Purge server cache

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

The result was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 08:07, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Declaration of peace

edit

POV, unnotable as compared to other demonstrations that have occured against U.S. actions related to the War on Terror, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Controversey articles over the 9/11 Attacks, the War on Terror and the War in Iraq can handle this just fine, thank you. --Kitch 02:32, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Last I checked UPI and the Washingtonpost [1] [2] were major news outlets and wikipedia can handle this just fine, thank you. grazon 02:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
    • A mere news event can go into WikiNews. Unless this does something notable, merely existing does not mean it should have its own article. --Kitch 02:41, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The Washington Post coverage is a local city news article. See this link for the "Metro" category market in the top left corner. That's why the story is filed under the "Metro" section and not the "National" or "Politics" section. Remember, the Washington Post is not just a national newspaper, it is also a local and regional newspaper. There is no coverage of this event in the New York Times at time of writing[3].As for United Press International, this is a newswire service, and like its rivals, Associated Press, Reuters, Agence France Presse and so on, it carries many minor stories as it primarily services news outlets (its main customers) with as a great a choice of news as possible, and is not primarily driven by editorial selection of stories. A Newswire is not comparable to a major newspaper in terms of news selection. Bwithh 13:17, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a week long event and the arrest of jim winkler alone makes this important enough to be on wikpedia. grazon 02:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep. Article needs serious work, but seems to meet WP:ORG and WP:RS. Article should be focusing on the organization, rather than the demonstration, as that what the title reflects. eaolson 03:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There's no limit on amount of storage space we can use. Other marches and events like this get coverage, and it hurts nothing to have an encyclopediac article on it. You going to Afd Million Man March in 10 years as no longer relevant? · XP · 03:57, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, enough coverage for notableness. · XP · 03:57, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It needs some major TLC, but I think we can salvage it. SchuminWeb (Talk) 08:54, 23 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. This is up for speedy delete, which I'm accepting, so I'll close out this debate. Objections seem unlikely. Herostratus 04:18, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grand savage

edit

This article fails WP:N and therefore should be deleted. It has no Google Hits and is very likely a hoax or practical joke. --Ineffable3000 02:27, 24 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 or merge to List of Dish Network channels. Whether this article is kept or merged is a debate that can be held outside of AfD. Deathphoenix ʕ 19:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dish Network Channel Grid

edit

Wikipedia is not TV Guide. --CFIF ☎ ⋐ 01:42, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I agree with the both or none argument. I also don't have a problem with combining both into one complete grid, that can also include cable systems. Though there is one problem with that.. While DirecTV and Dish Network are both national satelite providers (With the same channel numbers no matter where your at in the country), Comcast, Time Warner Cable, and other cable providers are still very regional with channel numbers that vary from city to city. I think it will be a useful list, but impossible to control on the Cable side. EnsRedShirt 03:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Note: That list was created just a few hours ago, possibly in response to this AfD. Firsfron of Ronchester 01:16, 26 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. Though for the life of me I don't know why List of multiracial people has been around since 2003... Grandmasterka 08:46, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of interracial couples

edit

Unreferenced list of people. With "race" being as difficult to define as it is (except in specific societies which categorize people by race, such as Apartheid South Africa or the Old U.S. South) how can we tell what an "interracial couple" is? Under what racial categories do "Alexander the Great and his wife Roxana of Persia" or "King Hussein of Jordan and (1) Princess Muna, (2) Queen Noor" belong exactly? up+l+and 23:35, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Just a few questions: it seems unlikely that this will be kept at this point, but just in case it is, I would like some comments from those wishing to keep it. I have not found any policy page explaining which racial classification system is to be considered normative to use on Wikipedia, and I have some other issues as well.
  • For instance, I always find myself stuck when trying to determine whether a person belongs to the Nordic race or the Alpine race, and I also frequently confuse people of the Alpine race with those of the Mediterranean race - could we please have some clear instructions? (I assume any couple with an Alpine partner and a Nordic one has to be included in this list.)
  • Without good pictures, determining whether a persone is dolichocephalic or brachycephalic can be pretty difficult. Perhaps we could make sure we have a clear set of skull measurements in an infobox in each biography?
  • And how are we going to do with people of African descent — I think "negroes" is the proper terminology, am I right? — are we going to use the one-drop rule? It does after all have a long tradition of established use. For instance, it has been reported in the Swedish press that new prime minister-elect Fredrik Reinfeldt has a great great grandfather who was a "mulatto from New York".[6] Does that make him a negro? Does it make his relationship with his wife Filippa an interracial one? Or do we first have to trace all her ancestors five generations back, to make sure she doesn't also have a similar amount of "negro" ancestry?
Well, there are many questions, but with the help of the enlightened users of Wikipedia, I'm sure this can all be figured out. up+l+and 05:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My favorite part is "in fiction." Jane Austin never explicitly says that Elizabeth Bennet is white, you know. I have a feeling that was an interracial couple. Also, I don't recall Daniel Defoe saying that Robinson Crusoe was white. (The one drop rule should definitely apply, and then there will be no interracial couples, as everyone has a drop of everything.) Geogre 11:44, 25 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 12:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cadillac Database

edit

An advertorial stub about an automotive website (Alexa:475,528). While there's enough here to warrant adding links to the Cadillac & LaSalle articles, there's really no need to have an article on the website itself. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 23:54, 23 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. Ultimately, the subject of this article lacks notability that is demonstrable throuh reliable sources. The state of the article, and the amount of cleanup warranted, were not raised as reasons for its proposed deletion, and are not compelling reasons to prevent deletion. With that said, arguments that solicitation for votes in web comic polls is proof of the comic's lack of notability are also not convincing, as comics such as Inverloch boost their rankings by asking for votes (which is one of the reasons Inverloch is #1 at topwebcomics.com). If the comic wins an award or gets significant press coverage, or the site qualifies under WP:WEB, (yet) another go at this can be had. For now, however, Abstract Gender is not sufficiently notable. JDoorjam Talk 04:50, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abstract Gender

edit

This article was previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abstract Gender. The article contains no assertion of notability, and no third party references or sources from reliable outlets. The site has an Alexa rank of 125,000. We have one guideline for web material WP:WEB, we should start applying it with the same standard and integrity to webcomics as we do other websites. - Hahnchen 00:01, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as a repost. Tagged as such. MER-C 03:08, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I've removed the tag. The original deleted article was created as webspam a few months after the launch of the comic. Although I'm not one of the pedantic, "content must be the same for g4" people, I think taking this through AFD would generate a clearer consensus. - Hahnchen 04:05, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve. Maybe it's Yet Another Webcomic, but the article has potential. --Dennisthe2 05:08, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; no sources or verification as to popularity. --MCB 06:02, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve. HGANBAdmins 11:01, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (and continue to improve, of course). It has potential, and also, non-induvidualy-notable KeenSpot comics seem to be afforded an article because they're with KeenSpot. AG's close ties with The Wotch and a number of others should give them the same benifit, no? (Actualy, existing should, but I'm not going to press that. Today, anyway.) --Kinkoblast 14:04, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I'd like to point out that KeenSpot comics are a different matter, since they seem to meet the third criteria of WP:WEB, which is "The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster." Pleather 23:19, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: By that criteria, any of the crap on Geocities is notable, and, more directly, less-popular comics hosted on comicgenisis are more notable in the wikipedia sense than self-hosted pages? --Kinkoblast 15:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Some of the votes above just show the farcical gulf between the application of WP:WEB, WP:V and WP:RS to general websites and webcomics. We delete other websites with no assertion of notability such as Pokemon-Safari, Final Fantasy Shrine, and Encyclopedia Dramatica, each of them a hell of a lot more popular than Abstract Gender. How are you going to "improve" an encyclopedia article on an unencyclopedic nn subject, that reasoning is just a reiteration of "Keep - I like it". - Hahnchen 14:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Hahnchen should be commended for presenting the issues at hand in a fair, well-reasoned manner. The discussion of other webcomic's current presence on WP is extraneous. The bottom line is that this needs to meet WP:WEB. And unless I'm missing something, it doesn't. Pleather 23:13, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but with the understood caveat that the article needs improvement.Johnbrownsbody 23:22, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This webcomic is minor- there are also no reliable sources to [[WP:|verify it]]. How can you tell it's minor? For starters, on its home page, it has a big "DON'T FORGET TO VOTE FOR US!" at the top, which should be a dead giveaway. It has an unremarkable Alexa ranking , and only 29 unique sites link to it, all of which are blogs, forums, or submission webcomic directories. Keeping under "the article needs improvement" is not a valid argument- it doesn't address the question of whether the article should even exist.

--Wafulz 23:39, 24 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 12:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kagerou (webcomic)

edit

I tagged this webcomic as unsourced over a week ago, and notified the author who started the article. This webcomic, seen here and it's LiveJournal community here, is just one of many trivial interchangeable websites. There is no assertion of notability, its traffic rank on Alexa is 450,000. - Hahnchen 00:09, 24 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 12:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fubumquat

edit

I can find no references either for the fruit or for the tree. If it exists, it must be original research, and hence ineligible for wikipedia.--Anthony.bradbury 00:08, 24 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 non-notable webcomic per nominator. JDoorjam Talk 04:55, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anime Arcadia

edit

Another unsourced and non notable webcomic, seen here. This webcomic was suspended in August this year, and its current Alexa rank at 180,000 may be slightly misleading. The Alexa rank 3 months ago was 130,000. As the other webcomics nominated today, there are no reliable sources and no assertion of notability. Searching for "anime arcadia" on Google largely brings up irrelevent links, and if you add the webcomic writer in the search string, it brings up around 40 links + 40 links maximum. - Hahnchen 00:27, 24 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 12:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Damon Amos

edit

While this article makes claims of notability, it fails WP:BIO. There are 6 unique hits for the subject name and his signature contribution, titled "Queer magazine". All of them appear to be either promotional material or from sources not suitable for this project. Speedy deletion template removed by creator. Finally, it is likely due to user name that this is a vanity article. Erechtheus 00:42, 24 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 12:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EmlenMud

edit

PROD removed without discussion. Ariticle does not assert importance or meeting WP:WEB. --W.marsh 00:42, 24 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 12:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Catharsis (comic)

edit

You can see this webcomic here. There are no assertions of notability made in the article, and no professional reviews/commentary etc can be found on Google. An Alexa rank of 300,000 suggests that it is not popular. Note, on the Alexa "sites linking in" report, the Wikipedia list of webcomics is on top, does that mean most incoming links come from that infamous advertising board? - Hahnchen 00:43, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, not even the slightest hint of notability established and article contains nothing but a small outline and a list of characters. WP is not an advertising medium for the world's pet projects. I actually thought it looks pretty funny, but with such a complete infrastructure of webcomics sites, there seems little point in dragging so many onto WP without them establishing some notability. QuagmireDog 03:26, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. —Jared Hunt September 24, 2006, 23:17 (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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 12:25, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Minnesota State Highway 91

edit

Non-notable. "Article" composed of one sentence -Nv8200p talk 00:50, 24 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 12:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Comics

edit

There's quite a few absolutely nn-webcomics which I haven't yet nominated because they're still orphaned links and will never get any spamming attention. The guy who wrote this article though, had the cheek to link it from the webcomics article though. It's hosted on Tripod, which makes it even worse than the free webcomic hosts Comic Genesis. There's absolutely zero chance of this surviving AFD, although it does have a link to the author's myspace. You could actually speedy this, but it would take an admin with more common sense than pedantic process following. - Hahnchen 00:55, 24 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 Transwiki to Wiktionary. Deathphoenix ʕ 19:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Production use

edit

Written like a dictionary definition -Nv8200p talk 01:00, 24 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 move to Charlie Kulp and delete redirect. Daniel.Bryant 06:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"The Flying Farmer" Charlie Kulp

edit

Possibly non-notable aerobatics flyer. Has performed at air shows for 60 years, but low on Google hits and news mentions. Neutral. Andrew Levine 01:07, 24 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 rename to Hispanic and Latino politics in the United States. I know that I am disregaring several "delete" suggestions below, so let me explain why. First, let me point out that deleting an article containing original research is not the proper remedy; the proper remedy in this case is editing. One editor assesses this article as inherently OR, which is grounds for deletion, but I don't think that has been established. For example, this Gsearch comes back with more than 100,000 hits, and looking through the first ten, one sees the domains include the Annenberg Public Policy Center, USNews, UPenn, etc. This is clearly a subject of informed and scholarly debate, and although the current incarnation of the article could use with a lot more sourcing, there is no question these sources exist. Finally, in terms of analogy and precedent, not that there are at least five analogous articles about the Black constituency in the U.S., namely: Garveyism, Black nationalism, Black populism, African American leftism, and Black conservatism. Surely an even larger group has enough effect on politics to generate one article? --- Deville (Talk) 16:57, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hispanics and Politics

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:35, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marks up

edit

Non-notable children's game. Looks like something made up in school one day. Andrew Levine 01:26, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Andrew, it is a fairly common game played in Australia, and although it may not be known overseas, it is well-known in parts of Australia. I was expanding a stub on the Aussie Rules page, but I am fairly new here and still learning the ropes and I am still learning what to do and what not to do, so if you feel that this wiki should be deleted, then by all means, go ahead. --Stuart D. 05:44, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia, Stuart. We have to be able to provide reliable sources to back the information up. See WP:CITE and WP:V. Andrew Levine 06:06, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that Andrew, I will try and do the right thing by Wikipedia in the future. --Stuart D. 06:33, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete for lack of sources and verifiability; Google search for ("marks up" + game) and ("markers up" + game) both yielded no relevant results. --MCB 06:11, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per MCB. Had a look at some playground games site and couldn't find this one. I can and will happily change that vote if someone can come up with a good link. I think half the problem here is that a lot of these playground games have different names - it might be called something else and be abundantly listed on the web under that name. Welcome to WP Stuart, don't let these things put you off. QuagmireDog 06:39, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain/comment; IMO, I think something like this can lack Internet hits. I'm willing to keep this if references and the right links are found. —Jared Hunt September 24, 2006, 23:21 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:35, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Bagdad Theater and Pub

edit

Non notable place/hangout in Portland OR, < 70 unique google hits. Theres a wikitravel article on it; it's just too nn for us. · XP · 01:40, 24 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. Dakota 22:46, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tong Fa Chorus

edit

Non-notable per WP:ORG and does meet WP:V -Nv8200p talk 01:45, 24 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 12:36, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jerome Atputhasingam

edit

Contested PROD Yanksox 01:51, 24 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 12:36, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Japani NORWAY

edit

Non-notable Norwegian anime forum. Article itself reads like a guide to the website. Doesn't meet WP:WEB notability requirements, and the {{importance}} tag has been on the article since April with very little done to rectify the issue. A VfD on an earlier version of the article ended in no consensus. NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 01:55, 24 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. —Mets501 (talk) 00:46, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hostorthobics

edit

Seems to be a neologism made by some scam artist. A Google search turns up the same information on many different websites, without ever describing what it is.--Nonpareility 01:56, 24 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. Dakota 23:52, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kyrstal Point

edit

Shopping mall. No sign of other notability. The Google search comes up empty if you remove the wikipedia related links. [8] It definitely seems to exist but there's no sign of any notability outside its existence as a business and there's no hope to ever build the article from reliable third party sources. Pascal.Tesson 01:57, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. "Kyrstal Point" is apparently a misspelling for "Krystal Point", which is in fact a commercial district in Penang, Malaysia [9], but there appears to be nothing notable or distinctive about it, nor are there any sources available regarding the shopping center mentioned in the article. --MCB 06:20, 24 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 per G4. Yanksox 04:28, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BWL Hardcore Championship

edit

Article previously deleted in CSD. Completely non-notable league/title. CSD and prod removed by author Wildthing61476 02:03, 24 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 12:38, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prolen

edit

Created by product spammer (see Fertrejo2 (talk · contribs)'s edit on September 9) with no sources and POV text. –– Lid(Talk) 02:09, 24 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. No first game to redirect to, as far as I can tell. No verifiable sources at this time. Luna Santin 08:25, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hordes: No Escape

edit

Not notable. Google only returns one reference to it in passing, one translation, and a bunch of wiki mirrors. Nonpareility 02:19, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. According to the entry, it's a "code title for a game currently in development". No source, nothing, it isn't possible to build an article from that that wouldn't reek of original research. Equendil Talk 20:31, 24 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 12:38, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apple-O

edit

Indie musician, hesitated to prod. Basically the content seems unverifiable. Google search for "Apple-O" is useless but "Apple-O" with any of the claimed album titles turns up empty. I'm not denying he exists but he's too obscure an artist to have reliable sources to build on. Pascal.Tesson 02:25, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Non-notable. This seems to be the only link Here is the description of the Applechords album: "Applechords. Songs recorded in a bedroom (most seconds after they were written). Instrumentals in many moods. Words about friends, cats, oxygen..." RickReinckens 04:03, 28 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. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 03:11, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Smith Of Winding River, Mississippi

edit

Speedy Delete If you see the history, obvious vandalism and biographical --DanielES15 02:24, 24 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. Luna Santin 08:22, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hopoetry

edit

Non-notable neologism. A google search turns up an CD called "Jazz-Funk-Hip-HoPoetry" and a handful of references of people talking about "hip hopoetry" Nonpareility 02:30, 24 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. Luna Santin 02:45, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Top Gayer

edit

Contested prod about a non-notable website. No Alexa traffic rank: [10]. MER-C 02:24, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete; site does not even appear to exist: www.topgayer.com displays a page that says "Coming soon", with a link to "visit the original site", which leads to a page on the site queernetwork.co.uk. Can't possibly meet WP:WEB. --MCB 06:24, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete; The website is not the main part of the article. The article is supposed to stress the lobbying aspect of the group which has been successful in changing the policies and marketing of companies in UK. I have ammended the article to stress this. If the website itself can't meet WP:WEB then the link can be taken off, but this is only there to direct the reader who wishes to know more about the group. --Mattsibley 19:59, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: in its current form, the article is mostly unreferenced. You claim that this group has received much attention from the mainstream press. It would considerably improve yoru case if you can provide citations for these mentions. I myself remember this group from the Top Gear episode where it was first mentioned (and someone joked that "Top Queer" would have been a better name), but (without doing a careful search) I can't seem to find the transcript at the moment. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 04:42, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:47, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Soompi

edit

Contested prod about a website that asserts its non-notability, e.g."Dec 2005: 578 active members". MER-C 02:25, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. 500-odd members is seriously tiny. Zetawoof(ζ) 02:47, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Regardless of a site's popularity, portals are not encyclopdia-worthy IMHO. If the portal contributes to something significant in past or current history, or is a significant part of current popular culture, then it would be worthy of a page. As an example of a portal having its own article, 2channel has one because it is linked to pop culture, specifically responsible for the creation of Densha Otoko. I don't see any criteria around that says "as long as XXXX site has YYYY users, then it is okay to have its own page." If this Soompi article slides by, then EVERY portal - and there's millions of them - are allowed to create articles for themselves on Wikipedia. The outcome of this removal request will set a documented precedence for all future articles regarding portals. Groink 04:47, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; appears to be a forum site rather than a portal site, but with 500 members it's clearly not notable. --MCB 06:26, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's a portal. The link posted on the main article page incorrectly points to the forum. The main portal site is http://www.soompi.com/ . Groink 07:24, 24 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 12:47, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eat Football

edit

Appears to be created by spammer Patstuart 02:24, 24 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. Luna Santin 21:48, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carson Cooman

edit

Not particularly notable, as far as I can tell. Has performed a few places. Article does not assert notability. Adam Cuerden talk 02:33, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Note: Another of Musikfabrik's promotional sites, I think. (Statement 2 of the Jean-Thierry Boisseau discussion here, specifically says Musikfabrik was set up to do this.}}
  • On second thoughts, perhaps keep. I don't really know. "Carson Cooman composer" (to distinguish him from the other carson coomans of this world) has 9,000 google hits, but then "Adam Cuerden" (real name) has 22,000. Tricky. Moreschi 11:25, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • A search for "Carson Cooman" in quotes, however, gives a mere 882 hits. "Carson P. Cooman" (again in quotes), 971 more, and "Cooman, Carson", 397. There's likely to be significant overlap. Meanwhile, the I-don't-think-I'm-notable "Adam Cuerden" (in quotes) gives 12,000. Delete, IMO. Adam Cuerden talk 12:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete then. Moreschi 12:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks like a case for deletion --Folantin 12:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. He sounds a talented man with many achievements; I have tried to be convinced, but the article doesn't establish it as my opinion that he is notable per WP:MUSIC. The article says he has composed 600 works - a reference to a review of one of them by a reviewer in a national journal independently opining that it is a notable composition would convince me. I notice that one of the hundreds of works the article says he has premiered is by Peter Maxwell Davies, although the piece was not written for him; however, although this appears to be his most notable first performance, it does not of itself convince me, either; I was somewhat surprised that it is not mentioned in the article. His activities as journal editor, music reviewer, and collaborator with authors would be good article content if he were otherwise notable. Notable teachers (and Bernard Rands and Gillian Weir certainly are notable) do not confer notability on the pupil. The references cited are his own website and Musikfabrik, neither qualifies as independent. --RobertG ♬ talk 14:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Without comment - List of recordings [12] - Recordings on MMC, Zimbel, ABC (Austrailian Broadcasing company), Jade, ERM Media, and others (an all orchestral music CD will be coming on NAXOS in about six months...).

Article about his work in promoting new music : [13]

Off of [14] -

Programming Notes: Jennifer Higdon and Carson P. Cooman will both be guests on upcoming editions of Classical Discoveries hosted by Marvin Rosen.

Higdon will appear tomorrow morning, August 2 from 8:30 until 11 (eastern time) and the young Carson P. Cooman (who has already composed over 650 works) will appear on Wednesday morning, August 9 also from 8:30 until 11--if there is a Wednesday morning, August 9 from 8:30 until 11.

Classical Discoveries airs every Wednesday morning from 6:00 until 11 on WPRB (103.3 FM or on line at http://www.wprb.com) from Princeton, NJ.


There's more where that came from, if this isn't enough...Jean-Thierry Boisseau 00:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so I'm biased. but I'm going to vote anyway. Obvious Keep. Jean-Thierry Boisseau 00:39, 28 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, unreferenced. JYolkowski // talk 02:31, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Universal School of Buffalo

edit

Seems to be self-promotional spam, with no assertion of the notability of the school. Leuko 03:15, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is a way to open up collaboration for our teachers, staff, and particularly students. Intended to make an historical record of sorts as well. I got the idea from a book published by Will Richardson from Webbloged. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Amosstarz (talk • contribs) .
  • Delete per nom, self-promotion and no claims to notability. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, WP is WP:NOT a social networking tool (see 1.6 of WP:NOT). Articles about whatever the subject are better-off being written by someone who isn't directly involved with that subject. The kind of information required to establish notability is listed under WP:SCHOOL and could be of help to those editting this article. If notability can be established then I will happily change my vote, but the article as stands does not reflect the nature of Wikipedia. QuagmireDog 04:20, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I should point out that WP:SCHOOL is not a Wikipedia policy, but an ongoing discussion as to how schools should define notability. That said, notability is not the only issue, WP:NOT is still in breech. QuagmireDog 08:23, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've looked around for some links on Google to see if I could find some references made to the school, but came up empty handed. The school seems very nice, nice website, which is why I've tried to find something, but all I can see is that the school is of course notable to its pupils and their families (more than notable), there's nothing out there justifying an article on WP. I'm wondering if Will Richardson from Webbloged was referring to a seperate wiki or mentioned the WP without discussing the requirements of notability etc? I would advise the staff of the school who are involved in this to seek information on setting up their own wiki, and hope this hasn't put them off Wikipedia (it can be great practice for your students to edit articles on all the subjects here). The Village Pump on the main page is also somewhere to turn to for help if needed. If someone else more experienced could have a quick look to see if they can find some notability citations I'd be greatful. QuagmireDog 04:17, 26 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. - Mailer Diablo 12:48, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Pulsifer

edit

non-notable Wikipedian hoopydinkConas tá tú? 03:23, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Previous AfD here.--Konstable 03:25, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Simon in the news

edit

Simon's mention in the press, the article doesn't cover it all:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 12:49, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ATPDevelopment

edit

Prodded and Prod2'ed. Deprodded by anon. Company fails WP:CORP Roninbk t c # 03:34, 24 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 12:49, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ma Nao Books

edit

Vanity article that does not conform to any Wiki standards. Article is supposedly about a book publishing company, but is only briefly mentioned in the opening. The rest of the article reads like a resume for the company's founder. No edits other than creation by presumably the company's founder, and that is the only edit in their history. Google search of the title in quotes returns 25 hits, so company lacks notability. Crockspot 03:36, 24 September 2006 (UTC) additional comment - Just thought I would mention that I found this article through the "Random article" link, and have no special interest in the article, company, or its founder. Crockspot 18:41, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment addressed Crockspot criticisms; what number of google hits constitutes notability? (posted by User:Ma Nao, formatted by Crockspot 03:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]

There is no magic number, and google hits are only one way to guage notability. But twenty-five is a very small number of hits, and most of those hits are from the company website. See Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations), Wikipedia:Spam#Advertisements masquerading as articles, Wikipedia:Vanity guidelines, and Wikipedia:Cruft. Crockspot 03:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 19:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NULL programming language

edit

This article was part of the mass AfD of "Esoteric Programming languages" overturned by DRV here. It is being relisted for individual consideration. All these languages will be relisted, at five/day to prevent congestion. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 03:47, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep, the idea of this language sounds rather interesting. JIP | Talk 12:56, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Dozens of such languages could be invented. This article doesn't present interesting information except the claim of "zero-dimensionality" (what's that?) and doesn't provide valuable insight into numerics or computer science and is not even funny.
[Encoding some information into a large integer which is operated on later was at least once presented as a compression technique in computer science (I did my thesis about encoding of 3D objects in such a way (my result: no advantages compared to the classical data structures)).] Pavel Vozenilek 14:02, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The only interesting thing about NULL is that it works like a canonical way to enumerate differently working programs in a basic, minimal Turing-complete language. If Wikipedia already has an article about that, then I might change my vote to "delete". JIP | Talk 14:57, 24 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 14:57, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Numberix

edit

This article was part of the mass AfD of "Esoteric Programming languages" overturned by DRV here. It is being relisted for individual consideration. All these languages will be relisted, at five/day to prevent congestion. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 03:51, 24 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 to Evening Prayer (Anglican), given that this article already contains a "Common Worship" section. Deathphoenix ʕ 19:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evening Prayer (Common Worship)

edit

We need to fold this into Evening Prayer (Book of Common Prayer) and add information about non-CofE liturgies to create one Evening Prayer (Anglican) article. We can't have articles for every version of Evensong that there is. Furthermore, there is no substantive information on the rite in this article. I propose that we delete this, put any info in the other article that is not already there, and expand the newly merged article. Carolynparrishfan 03:53, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: That's exactly what I've attempted, but now we've this "spare" article. And I don't know what to do with it other than delete it and re-create it as a redirect.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MER-C 06:55, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SkyScan-1078

edit

Non-notable product. Borderline advertising. Most of the text is taken word for word from here -Nv8200p talk 03:55, 24 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 14:57, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Obfuna

edit

This article was part of the mass AfD of "Esoteric Programming languages" overturned by DRV here. It is being relisted for individual consideration. All these languages will be relisted, at five/day to prevent congestion. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 03:55, 24 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 14:57, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wally Shiel

edit

A non-notable self-proclaimed activist whose major achievements are once running a marathon and launching a failed law suit in Tucson, Arizona. Harro5 04:00, 24 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. Nandesuka 11:33, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ook! programming language

edit

This article was part of the mass AfD of "Esoteric Programming languages" overturned by DRV here. It is being relisted for individual consideration. All these languages will be relisted, at five/day to prevent congestion. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 04:00, 24 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 14:59, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Figure It Out Panelists

edit

nn list for modestly (at best) notable cable game show Giant onehead 04:01, 24 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 14:59, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orthogonal programming language

edit

This article was part of the mass AfD of "Esoteric Programming languages" overturned by DRV here. It is being relisted for individual consideration. All these languages will be relisted, at five/day to prevent congestion. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 04:04, 24 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 14:59, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Ettish

edit

Someone put this up as a speedy. It's not a speedy candidate, but it's still probably worth deleting. Fred Ettish is a name known to fans of Ultimate Fighting Championship. In one of the early matches in the early days of UFC, the UFC was known to take a lot of amateurs. One of them was Fred Ettish, a karate instructor who displayed more bravado than martial arts prowess, and lost his one and only fight in a particularly lame way. Shortly thereafter, a mockery site sprang up, which is still in existence. Does this make Fred Ettish notable enough for a bio? Dunno. I leave it up to you guys. Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 04:05, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Thanks to nominator for the background. A Google search seems to indicate this guy has/had some sort of facetious fan base, but I don't think that passes WP:BIO. --MCB 06:40, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not a noteable fighter. In fact, he is mostly known by old time fans who enjoy mocking him! Aika 15:20, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the user who lodged the speedy template. If the admin didn't happen to have specific knowledge of who this guy was, we wouldn't even be having this discussion because the article was in terrible shape. I appreciate the effort made to explain who the guy is because it's actually a somewhat interesting story. He's not notable, though. Erechtheus 15:38, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep'

He is very noteable, because he took the fight in 10 minutes, he is maybe not noteable to the people who dont follow Mixed Martial Arts but he is to those who do. And Wikipedia is about giving information on everything, including the master Fred Ettish. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.214.204.248 (talk) 18:25, 1 January 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 Keep. The final two !votes are pretty strong. Deathphoenix ʕ 19:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vic DiCara

edit

Found while cleaning out CAT:CSD. I originally deleted it as lacking content/context, consisting mainly of an external link, and not asserting notablity, but then I saw that it had been created back in 2004, so I decided to send it though here instead. Titoxd(?!?) 04:10, 24 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 15:01, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of rooms on Finders Keepers

edit

Very odd game show fancruft for a fairly short-lived cable game show, really doesn't need it's own article. Giant onehead 04:15, 24 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. MER-C 07:10, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago Lakefront Soccer Club

edit

Non-notable children's soccer club with no external sources. 66 google hits. No mention in any third party media that I could find. Most of the text is directly copied from the website. —Nate Scheffey 04:24, 24 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 15:01, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lacroix Forest LLP/s.r.l.

edit

Contested PROD. Yanksox 04:26, 24 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. Luna Santin 08:15, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jorts

edit

Neologism -Nv8200p talk 04:32, 24 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 15:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

American Beauty X

edit

Hoax ˉˉanetode╦╩ 04:52, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete Looks like a hoax or prediction. Keep oncethere's some credible verification. --DjSamwise 04:22, 28 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, hoax article created by an indefintely blocked user with previous history of vandalism. Titoxd(?!?) 22:07, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Batesville, Louisiana

edit

This town doesn't seem to actually exist. It should be pointed out that there is, in fact, a Batesville, Mississippi around 300 miles north of New Orleans (but not on any coast, obviously); 300 miles east of New Orleans happens to be in Florida. Kirill Lokshin 06:12, 24 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 15:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Earthstation One

edit

No evidence of meeting WP:WEB; seems to be about a non-notable commercial site. Incidentally some of the text is the same as the OTRCAT article about a competing site, which I've also nominated for deletion. Wmahan. 06:33, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update: The other article was listed for deletion separately at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OTRCAT. Sorry if that was unclear. Wmahan. 14:21, 24 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. Deathphoenix ʕ 19:59, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of PlayMania E-Mail Themes

edit

This does not seem important enough to have it's own article, nor is the subject matter encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. I suggest that anything relevant be merged into PlayMania. Khatru2 06:43, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

— Possible single purpose account: TRAiNER4 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
  • Comment. This discussion is about if having this list is notable to WP, not if hypothetically someone might actually have a query as to what a theme is that day (and in all honesty, I don't know who would). That's just totally stupid reasoning. Giant onehead 01:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete article, Merge some content Fancruft that could be described just as well in a paragraph within the main article. Nate 12:36, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    How the hell are you going to get all 39 E-Mail themes into 1 paragraph without the use of a table?  — JT (TRAiNER4)  [T·C·E] 12:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Mention a few of the themes in passing, not all of them. They can be generalized into broader themes about family, friends, the show, contests, and hosts. Nate 22:57, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This was originally part of the PlayMania page and no one had a problem with it, but the length become too long for the page so it was moved to its own in order to keep everyone happy. I feel that it should stay on its own for the time being, but if it continues to get longer or if it its "unimportance" continues to grow (which it shouldn't because PlayMania itself is growing), then we'll talk. If television programs can have episode guides on Wikipedia, PM can just as well have a guide for themes. — Chad "1m" Mosher Email Talk Cont. 17:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Additional Comment: I am the creator and co-main up-keeper of both this and the PlayMania articles. — Chad "1m" Mosher Email Talk Cont. 02:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. Again, we are talking about a late night show on a fairly minor cable network. This portion of the show is not even very notable within the context of the show. It has potential to be a gigantic page and it is just unnotable cruft in the context of WP. As I had suggested to Chad and Trainer (who really should butt out of the discussion some), why not just create your own webpage and include the table and work on it from there. This just isn't important and should be removed soon. Fancruft at its very worst to a low-rated late night cable show. Giant onehead 00:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment AFD equitette states "Please disclose whether you are an article's primary author or if you otherwise have a vested interest in the article." By this, I believe that Chad and Trainer should state this, as they both have stronger than usual interests in the show and one of them created the article, and the respective talk pages should say even more. That should be mentioned to make a clear decision. Giant onehead 01:10, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I think this list was started in the Playmania article when there was a sense that it might be a limited term publicity stunt. That clearly is not the case given the expansion to six nights a week and the presence of at least one competing show on another network. We don't keep track of a list of Letterman top 10 List themes here, so we shouldn't keep track of a list of Playmania email themes. It's an excellent idea for a part of a fan page, but that's not what Wikipedia is. Erechtheus 16:20, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I am having suspisions that Trainer4 has a single-purpose account, which I have tagged, and said user keeps removing the notice because they do not agree with it. I have restored the tag (again, it's not confirmed, it's suspected, if you don't think you are, you should be alright) and it should be kept until the debate closes (and I'm a tad confused to why it has not). Giant onehead 00:52, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Will undelete and userfy upon request, if desired. Luna Santin 08:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moshe Ayalon

edit

This author is not notable. None of his books have been published. There are no citations in the article, and I could not find any references to his works on the Internet. I spoke with a self-described expert in the genre of Israeli Alternate History and he never heard of this man. nadav 06:42, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification His books may have been self-published, but I was unable to find any of them in the authoritative MALMAD catalog. nadav 07:11, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
nadav1, you didn't quite do this right. First you placed a Template:Unsourced on the article (fair enough) but with a misleading edit summary, {A} then you gave the article creator a warning (right thing), but using a Template:Nn-warn? {B} The article is *not* a candidate for speedy deletion, or any kind of deletion at that point.
The speedy deletion warning was a mistake. I was following the instructions on WP:BIO at the bottom, which I thought meant only that it could be nominated for speedy. The edit summary is accurate, I think. This is my first deletion nomination, so I'm learning. nadav 20:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not up on Vf..AfD trends, but is moving pet subjects to user space still fashionable? If google tests are still in, I'll save y'all the bother of parrotting and say, shock horror, there's not much. Clearly google is about as 'reliable' on fringe subjects as self described experts... or wikipedia. --zippedmartin 07:02, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but national catalogs of books (both the Israeli and Australian) are reliable. If an author's books are not in any library, he's not much of an author. Moreover, the article seems to be entirely based on personal interviews with Ayalon. And since there is not a single mention of Ayalon anywhere on the internet, I doubt any verifiable information on him can be found. nadav 20:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a google search for moshe ayalon. It weeds out most references to a prominent sports medicine scientist and misprints referring to Moshe Ya'alon, the former chief of staff. This is a Hebrew Google search. All the results refer to the sports scientist. nadav 20:55, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article references no sources. We expect claims of notability to be sourced to independent reliable sources. With no sources, no claims of notability are sourced that way. The above discussion about the lack of evidence of the book in any library in the countries where published is further indication, but not as important as the lack of sourcing. GRBerry 21:15, 28 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, though some of the !votes mention a merging. Was this article merged anywhere? I don't see much evidence of merging (nothing in Wiktionary, epispiral merely contains the formula in another form), and the original article was a mere dicdef. Therefore, I think it's safe to delete this. Deathphoenix ʕ 20:05, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ear curve

edit

Dictionary definition. Dismas|(talk) 06:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • To clarify what I meant about merging: the information that this curve is inverse to the rose should be included in Epispiral; it isn't there now. But I agree with Lambiam that a redirect isn't appropriate because there seem to be no references to the curve by this name outside WP. —David Eppstein 19:12, 24 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 15:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EPC All Church Retreat

edit

Wikipedia is not an event advertisement site, no matter how worthy the event might be. Delete. (I would have written speedy, but can't think of a speedy deletion criterion.) --Nlu (talk) 08:01, 24 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, meets guidelines --- Deville (Talk) 17:14, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Courtney Cummz

edit

Not notable, doesn't seem to meet WP:PORN BIO or WP:BIO guidelines. CJ 08:02, 24 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. Luna Santin 08:01, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Primortals

edit

Unsure as to notability, and very short article, however uneasy to use {{nocontext}} if article has potential. haz (talk) e 08:32, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - fails to assert notability. MER-C 09:21, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Well, the notability is that it was an 15-issue comic book series by someone who is himself notable. Two someones if we work Isaac Asimov into it, since Nimoy credited discussions with him as helping develop the story. I wouldn't do more than one article for the whole series, but since it did make some news at the time, I'd keep it. FrozenPurpleCube 13:44, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, the article is only a few days old. A little time for folks to expand it would be appreciated. FrozenPurpleCube 14:01, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Move to Leonard Nimoy Notability doesn't "leak over". Star Trek is notable on its own (!), not this as far as I can tell. There's an entry about Nimoy and that's the perfect place to write succinctly about his work beyond acting in Star Trek. Equendil Talk 19:05, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Iffy about that, for a few reasons. One, the Nimoy article is already plenty big. Two, the discussion of the story itself wouldn't belong there anyway, and three, there are some questions as to Nimoy's involvement in the series. FrozenPurpleCube 23:35, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Come on, I know fiction notability is hotly contested, but two of the biggest names in science fiction collaborating plus SETI? Maybe not articles for each comic, but one for the whole series seems very reasonable and very notable to me. Guyanakoolaid 09:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the subject appears be a comic book series, a novel and a related CD-ROM, with some media coverage. See here for review of the CD-ROM, and here for the book. I think it's notable enough for a short article. -Kubigula (ave) 18:13, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Both links are dead. Equendil Talk 18:17, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. Same dumb mistake on both. Now fixed. -Kubigula (ave) 18:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Equendil Talk 19:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the article fails to note that Nimoy didn't write the book. He was credited as a "creator" and used to market the book, just like everything else they published. It's worth a mention on Nimoy's page, but the book in and of itself isn't all that significant. Watchsmart 12:30, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
clarifying: The publisher, Teknocomix paid celebrities a lot of money to "create" some "concepts" for comic books. They then passed the the book onto someone to write. They had "Issac Asimov's Ibots" and "Neil Gaiman's Mr. Hero," and even "Gene Roddenbury's Lost Universe," (though G.R. had died some years earlier). Nimoy's involvement with the book was quite limited. The book was sort of alright, though. Watchsmart 02:40, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like details that would be worth adding to the Tekno Comix article, and this one. I was tempted to do so, but lacked sources. If you've got some, it'd be appreciated. BTW, "A novelization was written by Steve Perry" has been part of the article for several days, and the Nimoy one for even longer. FrozenPurpleCube 01:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I rewrote the Primortals article. At the very least, we can take down the "expand" tag. I suppose, also, that we can Keep the article... Nimoy + 27 issues + book is probably more noteable than a lot of other things in Wikipedia. Perhaps the Tekno Comix article doesn't make stuff clear enough about the creation process. I will take a look. Watchsmart 10:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and the two people who wrote the debut issue are prominent enough to have entries themselves. Watchsmart 10:51, 28 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) – Gurch 11:35, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Harris (Rugby League Player, Parade College Raiders)

edit

Contested Prod (I'd originally prodded it, in case anyone's curious) which was removed without comment by an anon. There's no assertion of notability here, for the simple reason that the player in question is only potentially going to have a bright career in the code. Sorry to clog up the works here, so if someone could perhaps slap a Speedy on it (my own attempt at db-bio'ing him was removed by the same anon with the same lack of reason), I'd be much obliged BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 09:04, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The speedy was already removed twice (it shouldn't have been added back after the first one), as was the prod (is it proper to add that after a speedy is removed, I wouldn't think so). Live with it. I don't care whether it stays or not, just play by the rules. But 92.2 kg? Give me a break. Where'd that supposed precision come from; looks like something just made up to me. Gene Nygaard 09:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I added the second speedy tag after coming across the article in the newpages list. In retrospect, I should have checked the page history to see if it had been so tagged before, but I didn't. The prod was not (at least at the time I moved this to AfD) removed twice. I added it based on the fact that the speedy had been removed (twice, in the event) without any assertion of notability in fact added, so the original author or anyone had the full five days. When it was removed, I brought it here. What I meant by the phrase "to slap a Speedy on it" wasn't "to add a CSD tag to the article again", but rather "to speedily delete this article despite its appearance at AfD", something which frequently occurs for things which have only turned up here because of process. To say that I'm not "playing by the rules" is, to me, either an assumption of bad faith or something sailing remarkably close to that area. BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 11:12, 24 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. Dakota 23:57, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TabletKiosk

edit

Contested prod. Vanispamcruftisement. MER-C 09:19, 24 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 Utcursch. MER-C 11:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

105 North Tower (disambiguation)

edit

disambig which links to no articles Ohwell32 10:27, 24 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 15:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Journalspace

edit

Fails WP:WEB. No assertion of notability. No evidence of coverage in non-trivial works. No evidence of winning awards. The JPStalk to me 11:10, 24 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 15:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wrestling news world

edit

This page is just being used as a reason for members of that forum to promote themselves and to bash other members. Check the history to confirm this. This page is hardly noteworthy. It is an internet forum. Yes, there are forums on Wikipedia that do have pages, but that is because they are actually important forums in rwlation to the show they represent. Wrestlingnewsworld is merely one of a hundred wrestling forums that are equally as big. If Wrestling News World gets a page, why not the rest of the wrestling forums? And, watch out for sock puppets. Some Wrestling News World members are sure to create accounts so that they can try to save their page. Scorpion0422 06:19, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]



  • Comment/Weak Keep - Thoughts from creator of page

This page was not created for members of the forum to promote themselves and to bash other members. I created and maintained this page (for the better part of a month) in order for it to be informative more than anything. I believe it is relevant as at least one example of another article on Wikipedia, that of the Internet Wrestling Community. WNW has also been quoted to be one of the better stops on the internet for "real" news about the American professional wrestling industry.

Having said that, this page HAS degenerated into an extension of rather juvenile feuds (on both sides, by the looks of it, due to the deletion of this article being brought up at this time) that are unnecessary in the forum itself, and totally out of place on Wiki. I do acknowledge that this is so, as the proof is in the history link for the article. I advocate one of two solutions: restricting editing access to the page or deleting it outright. Whichever decision is made would suffice, though I would personally like to see the page remain on Wiki.

Let me stress that I am not a staff member of the forums in question and did not create this page for promotion of the site, forum, or any one individual. My original article included a plea to forum regulars not to add themselves to the page in order for it to remain neutral and solely informative to those who wish to know a little more about the "internet wrestling community" and the culture of internet forums and discussion boards in general.

Once again, do as you will. If this page is deleted, I will not try to recreate it. --UserNumber586 07:17, 24 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 speedy delete, obvious spam (and meets WP:CSD). Kusma (討論) 12:51, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

edit

No claim of notability, including no Alexa ranking. Article added by website owner. Haakon 12:15, 24 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) 17:23, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Willis

edit

This is probably a hoax. Ian Cheese 12:39, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep There are google hits for "steve willis.eu" which is exactly what he gives on air. I used to read the news on 2fm overnight, and later went to Galway Bay FM. I knew Steve Willis, back in about 1999 when he used to use the RTÉ Radio Centre, to present his programme up until 2001 if my memory serves me right. I am now the Group Editor for Galway Now magazine. He certainly is notable in Ireland. SineadNiNeachtain 15:23, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Sorry, but as a new user, I just followed some links and thought that I had done the right thing. Very sorry, but it wasn't clear. I am a new user, still learning how it works.

I can confirm that this is a genuine article. He is also mentioned in www.blogorrah.com along with Irish model Glenda Gilson. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ClaireLMillington (talk • contribs)

  • Comment I stated in my write up that it was a syndicated programme. This is true, but after reading it back it sounds like it syndicated to UK and Ireland together. It broadcast from Ireland and was also syndicated to Spain. The English programme was seperate.

If there is anything else you need to know, please just ask. He is on tonight hopefully, I will be tuning in. Paul-Johnson 16:14, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment / Keep Lets be fair here. If it's any consolation, I did tune in and I did hear him. It ties in and I see this to be accurate. I believe this was added essentially, in good faith, and after spending some time reading what various people have commented, I deem this to be acceptable. Maybe we should contact Steve Willis himself and get his comments. Any takers???

I cant as I am not even registered with you, I just came by as I was looking something up re Dormston School, and I saw the name Steve Willis and it took me here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.37.179.220 (talk • contribs) .

Why on earth would we want his comments ? Equendil Talk 21:03, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep If there is such a thing. When my family lived in Gibraltar (we returned to UK in 2005) Dad used to have the Steve Willis Today programme in the evening. The programme was originally from either UK or Ireland, although I don't know which.

I have also found references to Steve Willis on DebtSmart.com, Express and Star (Newspaper) September 2003, Shropshire Star same period. BBC Aerial Magazine June 2006, and BBC Local radio Website. Beetroot1 22:02, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The edit above is the user's only edit on Wikipedia, which won't surprise anyone, he also removed the last unsigned tag above (the IP one) that I added, I'm putting it back. Equendil Talk 22:08, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He also tried to blank the whole AfD page ... Equendil Talk 00:43, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CommentIt should be noted that the radio station mentioned in the article is a student-run station [25] and does indeed show Willis as the presenter for Sunday evenings 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. So...if the reason for deletion is "hoax" then I would vote keep. I would abstain if the reason was "notability." Risker 01:25, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • And before anyone gets all frantic, I have been posting here since December 2005, live in Canada, and only read this article and did fact checking due to the AN/I comments. Risker 01:25, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not noteable. Cruft.

--Blue Tie 02:13, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I reported the incident on AN/I, WP:AN/I#Steve_Willis.27_Sockpuppet_Theater Equendil Talk 18:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am a new user, just signed up today. I have been reading all these comments, so I followed the link to http://www.stevewillis.eu and I notice that there is a response from Steve Willis himself. I don't think he's too pleased about it. Just thought you all should know.

This is my very first contribution. Hope non of you mind. D@taM@n 21:30, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's no such thing right now on that site I can see. Equendil Talk 21:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes there is. Click HOME at the top!!!! D@taM@n 21:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
::: Oh but there is, HOWEVER, it appeared AFTER our new editor told us about it. Amazing stuff, I'm sure you'd agree. Does D@taM@n have a computer that sees into the future? Maybe amazing mental abilities? or is there a more mundane reason - who can say! (HINT: next time edit your website first and then tell people about it using your sockpuppet) --Charlesknight 21:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Steve, it works now. Equendil Talk 21:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's gone now ... Equendil Talk 22:09, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I email him and ask him when he added the coments. But I don't see your problem. D@taM@n 21:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The second thing about sockpuppeting is to get your story straight. So when you say that maybe I emailed him, make sure you don't say something else elsewhere. --Charlesknight 21:51, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am Paul Johnson, I made the original page, that you are all making a fuss about. The information that I have provided is true and accurate as far as I know. I have seen the comments on his website and, I am very sorry if I have caused any upset. These comments on steve's site appeard around 18.00 UTC, but went off again later this evening. Paul-Johnson 21:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Am I right in thinking that it's possible to relist an AFD and exclude new and unregistered editors from the process? Because I think that would be sensible before the sockpuppets start breeding. --Charlesknight 22:00, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's not really necessary, any closing admin will be able to see what's going on here and make his decision accordingly. Equendil Talk 22:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Gosh - someone is now attacking my page - what an interesting user history! --Charlesknight 22:14, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am not a sock/meat puppet by any stretch of the imagination. I am a "Willisette" which is what he calls his female followers, he was pulled up back in 2004 for using the term "WOG's" meaning Willis's Old Gals, a play on Terry Wogans TOG's. hence I am just a listener to his show, He was also connected with Telford FM and friend of Ian Perry, former presenter of Beacon Radio's Midnight Line. I see the comment on the steve willis website has gone again. Along with some slight realignments. It was their at 07.00h this morning. Beetroot1 18:15, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, you just happened to end up on Wikipedia coincidently the same week as several other new users started making edits related to a "Steve Willis", completely unknown to Wikipedia until then, and not exactly a celebrity in the first place ? It is also a coincidence that, like the other users, you happen to know fine details about this Steve Willis, and care very much about him, so much so you had to blank this AfD ? Amazing ! Equendil Talk 18:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I seem to remember I when I visited my friends in Dublin a few years back we listened to a radio station by the name of Phoenix FM. I do remember hearing someone by the name of Steve Willis - that's all I can really add to this debate.82.47.100.243
Let me get this right, you have cable broadband and your ISP is blueyonder just like the other anon involved, and blueyonder also happen to be Steve's hosting company, your IP traces back to Wolverhampton, which happen to be where Steve allegedly work [26]. You also happen to have no other edit from that IP. Do you *really* think we're that stupid ? Equendil Talk 18:49, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, Pheonix FM is a extremely low-power (25W EIRP), community radio station based in a portakabin at a shopping centre. Its presenters do not come anywhere close to the notability requirements to be on the Wikipedia. Your apparent friends would have had to visit Blanchardstown, not Dublin City, to even receive Pheonix FM. --Kiand 18:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What really impresses me about our new editors is how unlike most novice editors they jump straight into AFD debates, sadly none of them have any time to edit any other pages. --Charlesknight 20:10, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep I lived in Ireland several years ago and i used to be a regular listener to Steve Willis on Cool FM. I now live in the county of Berkshire and have most recently heard Steve on London NewsTalk, and have occassionally seen Steve read the news on London Tonight. I would describe Steve Willis as a locum broadcaster, however i would say that Steve is a notable person and this page should be kept. Many thanks, Tania Evans 80.189.171.58 15:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • — I am AMAZED to notice that the single edit by this new member of the (sock)family is to this AFD. It's sooo lucky for Steve that so many of his fans just happen to find this AFD. ': has made few or no other contributions outside this topic. --Charlesknight 18:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I find it even more amazing that they listened to a Northern Irish radio station in Ireland, especially as its transmission site is relatively well shielded and its only cross-NI coverage is on DAB - which very few Irish people have receivers for. I also find it amazing that every listener who "heard him" a few years ago happens to stumble across to this to vote, and that they're all avid AM radio listeners as well as FM and DAB - must be hard keeping up with three modes of transmission to follow eh? --Kiand 18:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As a radio broadcaster myself, (as explained in earlier comments) It is quite possible to listen to any radio. My last radio station was Galway Bay FM and we used to listen to Red FM (Corcaigh) online. I think the comments of 80.189.171.58 are quite plausable. She did not say that she listened off air or online. Also Ireland is a general term, again non specific, (ROI/NI. She says she lives in Berks. UK, After checking the IP, I do indeed see a London connection, and Newstalk 1152 I would have thought would be receivable in that area. I really cannot believe we are all debating how well known he is. What do you all want? Me to put a photo of him on the Galway Now website? SineadNiNeachtain 19:24, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No need, because as another single edit user, you're almost certainly a sockpuppet too. No need to waste even more of your time at this utterly pointless exercise, because I think you should see by now that the article is going to be deleted. --Kiand 19:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you just delete it then? rather that accuse me of being a sockpuppet? It stikes me that anyone who gives a plausable response, or you disagree with, are classed as sock puppets. I'm sure you will find plenty of references too him if you take the trouble too look. At no time have you ever seen me vandalise anything, though I would consider it now.

I have explained once before - I used too work with him, I don't want sex with him or anything, just to stick up for what is right. (By the way) Comment - Why is their not a page about me? I would be reasonably well known too!! SineadNiNeachtain 19:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
sigh - ok, let's accept for the moment that you are a real person, what VERIFIABLE source can you point us towards? not "I think", "I know", "I saw", "I put a sock over my hand, but a hard piece of evidence. This is your chance, show us the evidence... --Charlesknight 19:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I would also like to see this. "Hard evidence" doesn't cover websites you or any of the other supposed people who've voted on this thread own/run/work for, for a start. So far, the only "hard evidence" we have is that he does two hours a week on a student-run AM radio station, which means he fails entirely on notability requirements. Theres no proof he ever worked for Today FM, and no web references to it; no proof he ever presented London Tonight and no web references, and so on. No evidence at all. --Kiand 19:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is what I have found!! ClaireLMillington 20:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC) This was done to welcome him back from Ireland, He still does other shows, but this is the station who got the credit for having him.[reply]

OK, that proves what new information? That he works on a AM student radio station.... which we already knew as the sole provable piece of information about him. Anything else you can drag up from your personal archives that might actually prove some notability, cause community radio presenters don't come close to the requirements. --Kiand 20:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot believe you don't know who he is. I bet non of you have even heard his show. And what makes you people the judge & jury in this case.SineadNiNeachtain 20:13, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nope no idea who he is. No I've never heard his show because I don't tend to listen to student radio stations. And we are the Judge and jury because we have read Wikipedia policies. By the way, I am going to request a checkuser on your and Claire's IP addresses because I suspect they might be the same. --Charlesknight 20:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know who he is because he's not notable in the wider radio market, or the Irish one, and I haven't heard his show because I don't live in Wolverhampton, or indeed listen to AM radio or community radio at any stage. And when/if he was on Phoenix FM, well, I don't live in the car park of the Blanchardstown Shopping Centre because their signal doesn't go much further. And I'd support a full sock-check of the IPs and new user accounts involved in this pointless charade. --Kiand 20:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What I particularly liked about the notice Willis put on his website (now interestingly removed) was that he talked about Wikipedia as if he'd just heard about it ("some site called Wikipedia"). When, in fact, he'd set up a user account, User:Stevewillis, several months ago to spam the same sort of vain nonsense. Either he's a dreadful liar (surely not!), or dementia is setting in at an early age. Best get to the doctor Steve. --Plumbago 21:13, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nice catch, I'll add it to the AN/I case, though nobody seems to care there. I suppose this should go to checkuser, but then, checkuser is not supposed to be used for obvious sockpuppetry, so I hope an admin will step up and stop this nonsense instead. Equendil Talk 22:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Either a hoax, or it fails WP:V very badly. Google test didn't come up with any answers for that that question, so I'm inclined to

say Delete as unverified information. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 11:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No-one is denying that he exists. The debate is whether he is notable enough to appear in the Wikipedia. Given that he is just one of many presenters working in a local radio station, his notability is very much up for grabs. That he's (ineptly) been using sock-puppets to vainly promote himself in Wikipedia is, to a degree, a secondary issue (though it hardly helps his case). Anyway, I don't know why I'm saying this to what's probably another of his sock-puppets. --Plumbago 14:38, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It would appear that SineadNiNeachtain may not be a sockpuppet after all. She has a website here, but I can't find a way to contact her directly to check this account really is being operated by her. --Plumbago 13:14, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note that this is the second time SineadNiNeachtain has tried to vote in this AFD. --ForbiddenWord 15:33, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:12, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Twenty2product

edit

Delete: Self promoting company with no evidence of notability.  — Tivedshambo (talk to me/look at me/ignore me) —  12:41, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

very sorry if the entry appears as self-promotion, and i'm hoping you'll have some guidance to make it appear less so. i was sent email that there was an inactive link for us in the 'flux television' entry, and thought it was my responsibility to correct it. i also took the opportunity to set up supporting links w/ other wiki articles. re: satisfying the criteria for companies and corporations, i'd refer you to this link, an international list of publications not authored by twenty2product that feature the work of the company. if you still feel the article is best deleted, i'll make no more of the matter. best wishes, Twenty2 14:36, 24 September 2006 (UTC)terry[reply]
 — Tivedshambo (talk to me/look at me/ignore me) —  15:08, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - still remains self promotional, and no evidence of notability. Provided this article is expanded to explain it's notability in full, my vote may change to keep. --Paulus 21:04, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • catch22? - i fear if i make the article subject more notable, it also becomes more self promotional. please advise, what is the specific criteria for notability? --twenty2
  • Delete understood, i'll trouble you no further. --twenty2
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Deathphoenix ʕ 20:09, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Needlegun

edit

Fancruft born of the confusion of the historical Needle gun with the real prototype Special Purpose Individual Weapon. Leibniz 12:55, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Merge to Flechette as a "cultural references" section or more likely Delete for OR. This article appears to be about fictional recurrences of a type of weapon in science fiction, but there is no objective connection between these recurrences except, well, in this article, which makes it original research. -Markeer 13:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
*I fear the fanboys are quite capable of turning the flechette article into gamecruft in case of a merge. Leibniz 19:53, 24 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 15:12, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Somers

edit

Non-notable author. Leibniz 13:36, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • What IS your major malfunction, Bucky? Small press, zines, and short stories WERE what was listed, so NOTHING I said was untrue, your paranoia notwithstanding. CLAIMS of a notice in the NYTBR means nothing without either actual citation or what the notice actually WAS -- Bylined review? One graf in the "New in Paperback" column? Passing mention in a larger article? Creative Arts Book Company IS a small press -- and I ought to know, since it was based in the town I lived in -- and its reputation has dropped markedly since my last acquaintance, since a little reasearch shows that the SFWA notes that it seemed to have morphed into some sort of vanity press [27] by 2001, further weakening the case against this guy.
  • By the way, if you have some sort of point to make, don't disrupt Wikipedia to do so with your mass removal of "prod" tags with the oddball reasoning of "because I don't trust the prodder or his judgement". --Calton | Talk 00:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete If the NYT Book Review claim were sourced to an independent reliable source, I'd consider it significant evidence of notability. But it isn't sourced, and the article isn't sourced. So I believe that deletion is appropriate. GRBerry 21:32, 28 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 -- new label, self-admittedly lacking any signed artists. Luna Santin 07:52, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plagued Emotions

edit

Delete - the first thing that springs to mind is that it fails WP:CORP Charlesknight 13:51, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

oh and it's a record label with no artists signed to it. --Charlesknight 13:52, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh and where do we keep the AFD cat tags? --Charlesknight 13:56, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What AfD cat tags ? Equendil Talk 19:57, 24 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 Speedied. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 16:01, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trial By Fire (band)

edit

Does not meet WP:MUSIC or WP:V -Nv8200p talk 13:55, 24 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. - Bobet 09:39, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Septim's Pride

edit

Article for web comic that makes no assertions of notability, and fails WP:WEB. Seems to be self-promotional spam to build audience of web comic started 2 weeks ago. Leuko 13:55, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am the creator of the comic. The users on my forum decided to follow suit of another popular webcomic Concerned and make a wiki for it. In no way is this advertising or anything of that nature. The only reason I even signed up here was to correct a minor detail one of the users had put in the wiki article. The article in of itself is a work-in-progress I'm told and will be continued to be

filled with more content as they work on it. In no way is this 'self-promotional spam'. bchick222 12:46, 24 September 2006

  • Comment: However, Concerned has been written about in various magazines, which would qualify it for a WP article, whereas your webcomic has received no independent press, making it ineligible for a WP article. Leuko 17:54, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Does an internet gaming site, such as the Planet sites, count as independent press? There are many mods for Half-Life 2 that have wiki articles here that have not been written about in magazines. So what constitutes independent press? I could make my own Elder Scrolls site and make a news item and review of the comic. Would that be independent press? Even though I have not had any 'press' talk about it, I have tons of support on the multiple forums I frequent. Where do you draw the line? If you are that concerned about it, I will submit the site to PlanetElderScrolls and pray they make a news item of it. Seriously though, it has been out for 2 weeks. Of COURSE it won't have independent press. I say just give it time, my friend. bchick222 13:14, 24 September 2006
  • Comment: The WP:WEB guidelines require 1) multiple and 2) non-trivial independent coverage of a website to be deemed notable enough for a WP article. Reviews from other websites are only non-trivial if they themselves are notable and pass WP:RS. Self-reviews, reviews from obscure websites, or forum postings really don't meet that mark. Once the site reaches the criteria, I will gladly support its inclusion. However, until that time, I am not convinced that the article is anything more than WP:VSCA. Leuko 18:40, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I'll agree that it hasn't recieved any news attention in any sort of form besides people recommending people to the comic. If that meets your view of an unnecessary article for wikipedia then by all means let's delete it. However, do NOT call it 'self-promotional spam' as it is NOT that. I even looked under the wiki pages about what constitutes spam and this is NOT it. You drew the wrong conclusion on that one. Like I said before, my forum members and readers wanted to make this wiki so that info about the comic, the protagonist, and the story in general could be laid out for others. That said, I agree that the comic hasn't had any media recognition and I would not oppose a removal if that small detail breaks some sort of rules here. I truly think you are over-reacting though. bchick222 21:14, 24 September 2006

  • Lets look at Concerned. It's a web comic with a good amount of viewers. Exactly when did it qualify to attain a Wiki? Did it need to be shown in a magazine? Did it need 1000 users? The point where a comic meets the conditions is gray. Deepfatfryed 22:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's really not much of a grey area. As per long-standing official policy, Wikipedia articles must be based on verifiable information from reliable sources with reputations for fact-checking and accuracy. So, yes, the fact that Concerned has been covered by at least three magazines and Septim's Pride "hasn't had any media recognition" means that we'll keep the former but not the latter. Our goal is to create a reliable encyclopedia on topics of historical importance. You may be more interested in Comixpedia which allows original research on webcomics, and doesn't require third-party reliable sources for its articles. -- Dragonfiend 22:58, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Absolutely no assertion of notability. Just check out the website. - Hahnchen 21:34, 28 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 nonsense/attack page.--Andeh 14:34, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Simple Guide to Surviving America for Australians

edit

The article is essentially nonsense and of a nn nature. Rob (Talk) 14:12, 24 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

The result of this debate was delete — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 13:16, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Teamlorio.net

edit

ANNOUNCEMENT: It should be noted that AlQoraton was NOT the creator of this article, as has been suggested below, rather towards Jamino (me) should be directed any discrepancies in regards to posting regulations. It has been put forward that AlQoraton asked members to post their views on this debate via the TeamLorio.net web-forums. However, as he didn't write this article, it should be understood that rules and regulations regarding the posting of Articles on Wikipedia are unclear to him as, obviously, he has previously had no reason to have read them. However, as I seriously doubt the members of the TeamLorio.net forums will be deterred from defending this article merely by the notice posted above, I must also stress as the sModerator of the Forums in question that NOBODY from TeamLorio.net simply makes an account to tip the scales of this debate. This achieves nothing. This message has also been posted on the Forum itself.--Jamino 17:57, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Deprodded, no where near WP:CORP/WP:WEB. Vanity wouldn't suprise me. Andeh 14:33, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain to me which part of WP:WEB it matches with? Just so there is no confusion. (for disclosure purposes it should be pointed out that Alqoraton is the creator of the article) --Charlesknight 17:04, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Criteria 2 and 3 of WP:WEB. (for disclosure purposes it should be pointed out that I am NOT the creator of the article, merely an insider and frequent editor.) --AlQoraton 17:19, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
According to your user page you are part of Teamlorio.net. Also, what notable awards has the website won? I couldn't find the word award anywhere in the article.--Andeh 17:23, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies Alqoraton, braindeath on my part.
following Andy's question - I do not see how it matches criteria 3 of WP:WEB which is basically about non-trival distribution/broadcast. What is the source of this non-trivial distribution? --Charlesknight 17:27, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All teamlorio.net animations are posted on/distributed by Newgrounds. Several have been on the frontpage and won Portal awards. --AlQoraton 17:38, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well at first glance, that would suggest it actually fails WP:WEB which states that Content that is distributed by independent online sites will almost certainly satisfy the first criterion. However, this criterion ensures that our coverage of such content will be complete regardless. For example, Ricky Gervais had a podcast distributed by The Guardian. Such distributions should be nontrivial. Although GeoCities and Newgrounds are exceedingly well known, hosting content on them is trivial. --Charlesknight 17:44, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, but then why are Joseph Blanchette's, David Firth's or other well known Newgrounds author's pages not up for deletion? I don't see why teamlorio.net, as a Flash production team, couldn't have a Wiki-page if they can. --AlQoraton 18:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are always welcome to list them for deletion if you believe they should be deleted according to the deletion policy.--Andeh 18:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I know that, but it doesn't answer my question. Just look around people, there are more well-known Newgrounds authors on Wikipedia. Why is teamlorio.net different? --AlQoraton 19:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
it's not, but Wikipedia has over a million articles there are ALWAYS articles here that should not be. The fact that those are here and maybe should not be, just means that nobody has gone around to AFDing them. However now you have raised their profile to the community, I'm sure that if they are not notable they will be AFD'd shortly (which is generally the result of someone saying "hey what about article X!"). I'll be checking them out myself when I get a moment later.--Charlesknight 19:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BIO and WP:WEB are very different things, you are referring to people, this article is on a website.--Andeh 19:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article ISN'T about a website, it's about TWO people (not ONE, like the other examples) making Flash cartoons. So you're saying separate pages for TheGreyPilgrim and Mithrandir with the same content would be OK? --AlQoraton 20:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So if it isn't about a website or company, then it must meet WP:BIO. Which it doesn't appear to meet at all.--Andeh 20:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Flash artists are also professionals who get a great deal of public interest, just like musicians, actors, authors, painters, etc. WP:BIO also clearly states "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.". And just for the record: I'm not trying to get other Flash artist's pages deleted. I'm trying to understand why the examples I gave have been here for over a year or even longer (without anyone noticing they, apparently, don't meet Wikipedia policy) and this page gets flagged withing two months. To all so-called "patrollers": I advise you to start looking for some SERIOUS breaches in Wikipedia policy and stop coming up with a new policy every time to make your story plausible. And I also invite you to first suggest an alteration of the article, not immediate deletion. --AlQoraton 21:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
and I would suggest that you read WP:CIVIL (To all so-called "patrollers": I advise you to start looking for some SERIOUS breaches in Wikipedia policy and stop coming up with a new policy every time to make your story plausible). Ranting at fellow editors does not help your case. --Charlesknight 21:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for making my point. --AlQoraton 21:32, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Andeh 10:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)--Andeh 10:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It meets WP:WEB so lets keep it. I agree that simply hosting your webpage on Newsgrounds is not signifigant but thate fact that it has been on the front page and given awards suggests that it is in fact notable. Evidence of those things should be presented though. AmitDeshwar 01:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - if WP:WEB says a site is trivial, why does it matter where on that site something appears? --Charlesknight 09:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Vanity? Where? Is the Salad Fingers Wiki also up for deletion due to vanity? How about the World of Warcraft Wiki? The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air Wiki? Any Wiki describing another product of entertainment? No. This Wiki simply disects another product of entertainment, one known as Team Lorio. At NO point during the Wiki does it claim that Team Lorio is the best, or better than anyone else, nor does it even claim to be GOOD beyond what results have provided proven facts to subtantiate. Also, if you're going to post in this debate then at LEAST provide a comment that supports what you're saying, rather than just insulting something that need not be insulted. Wiki-Management, I challenge you to find any form of vanity in this article. If it exists, which it does not, I will remove it. I wrote this article, and great care was taken to ensure all guidelines were met. Therefore is there ARE any breaches then this article should be flagged for ALTERATION, not deletion. That is absurd. Jamino 15:02, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not up for deletion because some users may believe it is vanity, it is up for deletion because there is no evidence that the site or ex-company is notable enough per Wikipedia's notability standards (WP:WEB).--Andeh 16:10, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This fails WP:WEB in every conceivable way. It has not won any well-known awards. It hasn't been distributed via a site that is independent of the creators (submitting it to Newgrounds makes it difficult to claim independence as it wouldn't be in there without Team Lorio putting it on there and the notes make it clear that Newgrounds hosting is considered trivial). It hasn't been a subject of multiple non-trivial published works. IrishGuy talk 19:14, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete clearly fails to assert notability (see WP:WEB) and is something of a vanity page as well hoopydinkConas tá tú? 21:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AlQoraton (Team Lorio's Mithrandir) comment's on the website linked to in the article say it all but there doesn't seem to be a plausible reason to keep a page about teamlorio.net on Wikipedia. --Charlesknight 13:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to stay as objective as possible by not referring to teamlorio.net as us or using Mithrandir as a nickname. Don't make me start and don't twist my words! I was referring to your (as in all the people who posted Delete) opinion on the matter. And what's with the damn "ATTENTION" sign? Don't make it look like teamlorio.net is forcing people to come here. They can make up their own mind. --AlQoraton 15:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First of all: the Attention sign is what we post whenever it appears that someone outside of Wikipedia is attempting to sway the vote. In that case, we remind them that what counts is the strength of your arguments, not the number of bodies you can muster. Wikipedia, after all, is not a democracy. Second, you're getting too worked up over this; please review what we have to say about civility on Wikipedia before you post next. Captainktainer * Talk 04:29, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I know what the sign is ment for, I can read. But in that case: why does the sign specifically say If you came here because you were told so at the teamlorio.net forums? This is just an insult to teamlorio.net's integrity. They are not telling anybody to come here, so to keep this discussion as fair/clean as possible I would strongly suggest to remove that particular reference. And second, I already reminded Charlesknight to stop posting a new policy every time to make your story plausible. I've read WP:CIVL...so allow me quote myself: Thank you for making my point. --AlQoraton 11:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An insult to your integrity? hum... so how does They are not telling anybody to come here match with And if you want to help, make a Wikipedia account and post a Keep message on that discussion page.. There is no problem with doing that - however getting on your high horse and claiming to do A when you are actually doing B - well that DOES demonstrate you have no integrity.
Informing people on what they could do is something different then telling people to come here and post a message. Like I said before: they can make up their own mind. --AlQoraton 18:26, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The notice is there as the forum message was encouraging fans/members to come here and vote keep, that is a simple notice to deter any users to do that and instead participate in the discussion. Interesting enough, recently.. "The board administrator requires all members to log in".--Andeh 17:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is the result of an options reset via a version upgrade. Also, that does not in anyway restrict you from checking what is posted on the forums. All you must do is simply create an account. In light of the previous comment in regards to AlQoraton's integrity - Obviously the members of the forums are going to want the article to be kept. They wouldn't be members otherwise. Jamino 17:31, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete, for the following reasons, all of which are grounded on Wikipedia policy:
  • No reliable sources external to the site or Newgrounds.com are available within the article.
  • No external reliable sources testifying to the notability of the website are available. Generally, I don't believe notability in its own right is a reason to delete. In this case, teamlorio.net has not obtained sufficient press coverage to allow us to write about it from a neutral point of view. Because there is not enough external criticism or analysis to allow us to write about it with that key policy in mind, the article should not be on Wikipedia.
  • Substantial quantities of the information within the article are unverified, even if we were to accept the official site as a reliable source. Captainktainer * Talk 04:29, 28 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, blanked (and replaced with cursing) by author. NawlinWiki 20:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mihalism

edit

"Advertisement for non-notable website. Alexa rank = 2,202,358 [32]. WP:PROD was tried, but deleted by article creator (who is, coincidentally, User:Mihalism). FreplySpang 15:20, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply] 

"Mihalism Images is an easy image hosting solution for everyone."

AmitDeshwar 21:38, 24 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, lacking verifiable notability. Luna Santin 07:50, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The line in the sand

edit

Non-notable political video. Its main claim to fame is that it has been promoted by American Renaissance, Stormfront, National Vanguard, and other white nationalist/neo-Nazi organizations. The film itself does not merit an entry in Wikipedia or any other encyclopedia. Delete Brimba 15:20, 24 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, and redirect to "Straight Outta Lynwood." This song does not merit an entire page as it does not have a music video or a single released for this specific song. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 22:22, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Idiot

edit

Was not released as a single and is non-notable. Joltman 15:29, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, the song has not been released. The album has been released, and the song is to be found therein. There's no indication that it will be released as a single as yet, although there's also no indication that it won't be. The argument that other albums have articles on every song (which I assume is what you're saying) isn't particularly relevant - partly because the fact that other articles of a certain type exist doesn't mean that any specific article of that type needs to exist and also because the albums which have longer articles (bear in mind this is a stub at best) on each one of their songs do so because they're highly significant albums like Dark Side Of The Moon. Al's latest may well become similarly significant, but give it about 30 years or so before it is. BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 22:52, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep (no consensus). Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:43, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Murray (politician)

edit

an alderman, nothing more Mayumashu 15:35, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Not sure whether this affects notability, but he was also a (poorly supported) candidate for mayor of Hamilton. JASpencer 16:21, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I realize this particular entry is borderline, and I wouldn't have created the page at all had it not been for his mayoral run. I'm going to vote keep, but will accept the results one way or the other. CJCurrie 23:31, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't seem to be notable beyond the fact that he was controversial. Being a failed candidate for mayor and a more-or-less nn local councillor (with no outside claim to notability) doesn't meet WP:BIO. Finally, per the consensus at Vaughan, local councillors aren't notable by virtue of their position alone. -- Chabuk 04:02, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vaughan isn't a major city. Hamilton is. Bearcat 03:53, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:14, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roger bacon (musician)

edit

Delete. Does not meet criteria of WP:MUSIC and no reliable sources to back up what is actually in the article. Zero Google hits for "Ventor of Cleo" and no relevant hits for "Consistently Poor"+"Cover Your Ears". Nothing for "Camouflage Mail Truck Gonna Get You". Nothing in AllMusic. Prod tag was removed. ... discospinster talk 15:43, 24 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 all to First two 7"s on a 12" (anything with no content to merge, I will simply redirect). Deathphoenix ʕ 20:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Filler (song)

edit

Not notable as individual from album's article, no unique useful information. Switch 15:58, 24 September 2006 (UTC) I am also nominating the following articles for exactly the same reasons, bundled as they are all from the same album:[reply]

In My Eyes (song) I Don't Wanna Hear It Straight Edge (song) Screaming at a Wall Of all these, the only one even close to notability is "Straight Edge", which would nonetheless contain no useful information not already found in the straight edge, Minor Threat and First two 7"s on a 12" articles. --Switch 16:07, 24 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. - Mailer Diablo 15:15, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JDate

edit

Does not appear to fit WP:WEB but I wasn't comfy hitting the speedy button on this one so it goes to AfD. I had speedied the previous Spark Networks entry as non notable, but wasn't sure on this one. Tawker 16:09, 24 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 15:15, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Authentic education

edit

This doesn't seem to be a significant concept, a term coined by a non-notable professor, written like a stub. There's no name to even merge it with. Nekohakase 16:10, 24 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 Otherkin. Deathphoenix ʕ 20:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elenari

edit

It just doesn't assert notability. Mostly it's webcruft. Anomo 16:18, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please leave the article as is. Some of us have taken the elenari Healing Attunements & like the information separate like it is. Mary Arthur, specializing in estoteric methodology — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.180.233.166 (talk • contribs)

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

The result was Speedy Delete as a recreation of deleted material. Tom Harrison Talk 19:40, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Limecat

edit

Recreation of deleted article yet again. This recreation happened right after Encyclopedia Dramatica made it their featured article. Anomo 16:27, 24 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 15:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Zalewski

edit

Yet another occultist. Notability not asserted. Leibniz 16:46, 24 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 15:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Google that shit

edit

Contested PROD. Delete as WP:NEO bordering on protologism. Yes, on the surface, we all know what this phrase means, but WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of every verb+object combination. References are tenuous at best (so what if Dane Cook said it once?), and to top it off, it cites Urban Dictionary as a source. --Kinu t/c 16:50, 24 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. Luna Santin 07:47, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Riley (Performance Analyst)

edit

Biography of non-notable person, does not pass WP:BIO, only references in Google are Wikipedia articles. Leuko 16:50, 24 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 The Literate Engineer 20:09, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart Walker

edit

Biography of non-notable person, does not pass WP:BIO, only references in Google are Wikipedia articles. Leuko 16:52, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He is a former footballer - that is notable. Mattythewhite 19:27, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. His being a former footballer is only notable if he played at the top level, or had some other reason to be notable. There is no evidence of such. Resolute 22:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Scottmsg 17:04, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article doesn't actually say who he played for, and I can't find any evidence he was a professional footballer. Qwghlm 18:43, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It appears that Walker played for York City in the 1976/77 season. [36]. Scottmsg 19:20, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Was York City a professional club in 1976/77? Punkmorten 06:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Even if they were, was the young Stuart Walker a full professional at the club or a youth player? The fact he only played two matches there and never played for another professional club suggests the latter. I agree with Oldelpaso's comment below that two Third Division games in the mid-1970s are not enough to claim notability. Qwghlm 07:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment York were professional (and still are) when he was a player
Keep. He is a former professional footballer - played in goal for York City when they were a league team. Markspearce 19:30, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Former professional footballer and staff member of one of England's biggest clubs Dodge 19:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While 2 appearances for York meets the letter of the fully professional league phrase in WP:BIO, it probably doesn't meet the spirit of it. 2 appearances for a team in the lower reaches of the professional ranks doesn't constitute much of a pro career, and is unlikely to yield more than a trivial amount of verifiable material. Oldelpaso 21:00, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a tough call. I'm saying keep mainly because Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, and there is no real need to delete this guy. Admittedly he is right on the cusp between notability and non-notability, but for the aforementioned reasons I'm going to say keep. aLii 10:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - played professionally for a league club, and still involved professionally in the sport. I wouldn't see the creation of his article as really a high priority; but now that it's been done, I'd rather see it retained, as its not inconceivable that people would want to access his history given his present involvement with Aston Villa. Robotforaday 03:15, 27 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. Luna Santin 03:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lifter Puller

edit

Non-notable band, does not seem to meet requirements of WP:MUSIC, only independent mention is a link to a discussion board, which does not meet WP:RS Leuko 16:59, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Add to the discussion Lifter Puller (album) The Land 17:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable).
  2. Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable.

Their musical influence is also mentioned in an interview with similarly verbose act The Mountain Goats, published last week on pitchforkmedia, and found here: http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/article/feature/37953/Interview_Interview_The_Mountain_GoatsGrzond 19:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Strong Keep As per above. Also, the band has recieved coverage in a number of notable publications, including Pitchfork [37],

Minneapolis/St. Paul City Pages [38] [39], Rolling Stone [40] and the Village Voice [41], among others. They quite clearly meet the criteria for notablity. Idp 23:34, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep As per above. This band is legendary in MPLS and is becoming more legendary by the day because of the Hold Steady. Though their back catalogue is now out of print, they are what started the neo-art punk movement in the midwest. To delete this would completely insane.WSeconds 14:56, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:17, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Da ! Heard It Records

edit

Advertising. Only one contributer, who has twice removed a PROD tag. This company is completely non-notable (probably becaue they're ve only just been invented). The only Google hit is their own website Chris 16:59, 24 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. - Mailer Diablo 15:20, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine yronwode

edit

NN author. There is some name dropping that claims to make her notable, but on her own merit, I'd say she fails WP:BIO as an author. Leibniz 17:01, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. According to Amazon.com, Catherine has authored (in some cases co-authored) 61 books. I'd say that even if none of these books are particularly successful, she is, by the sheer number of publications to her name. Srose (talk) 17:11, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - whoops. It seems that only the first 20 were authored/co-authored by Catherine Yronwode. She published the remainder. However, the first result on the previously linked search is in the top 45,000 book sales on Amazon.com. Most of the others are in the millions, however, so I'm switching to a weak keep. Srose (talk) 17:18, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. She may not be notable as an author, but she definitely is as an editor. She was once significant in the comic book field; she was the editor of Eclipse Comics, which was possibly the top independent comic company in the U.S. at its height. She was very well-known in the industry. She also edited some of the earliest Will Eisner collections. —Chowbok 17:43, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep cat yronwode is an extremely well known, influential and respected woman in the comic book industry. -Markeer 22:04, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There seems to be quite a bit of vanity, self-promotion and linkspamming related to this page. I have also nominated Lucky Mojo. Leibniz 23:40, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Well, I've had nothing to do with this page so I don't know the intentions of the creator or editors, but regarding self-promotion/linkspamming, I'd say that while the section on other wiki-articles that link to her could certainly be removed, the bibliography of an author is normal and expected, as are external links for those wanting more information. That just tells me the article needs a cleanup, not deletion. And I would add...all of those sections provide evidence of notability, which was the criteria you nominated this article for. Can't have it both ways Leibniz. -Markeer 01:30, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I removed one of the more ridiculous sections, but the article still needs to be cleaned up more. I would argue that the article needs to focus on her contributions to the comic book field, for which she is notable, rather than on her small-press hippie voodoo books, for which she is not. But still, it shouldn't be deleted.
It should also be noted that yronwode herself is active on Wikipedia and has edited this article extensively. Somebody should probably tell her, diplomatically, that it's not the best idea to work on articles about yourself. —Chowbok 03:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment For notability, I would still like to see some evidence per WP:BIO:
"Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work"
Her notability, not Eisner's. Independent evidence, not linkspam or something she wrote herself. Leibniz 12:31, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Well, a quick [Google search for "cat yronwode"] has, among ~30,000 other hits, links to interviews and articles by at least The Comics Journal, comicbookresources, and the Comics Buyers Guide on the first 2-3 pages. With newsarama, those three are the principal sources of comics industry news that I'm aware of. -Markeer 14:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Leibniz: keep in mind that her major published works, and influence on the industry, date from the early 1980s. I'll see what I can do, though. --Dhartung | Talk 09:23, 26 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. —Mets501 (talk) 01:59, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Netvideogirls

edit

Non-notable porn website. Google and Alexa tests have their limitations here, I realize, but there's nothing that can qualify it in the way of reliable sources. Crystallina 17:10, 24 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 21:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hodology

edit

The article itself claims this is a not-yet-notable neologism. Deville (Talk) 17:18, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment. Yes, I realize that. I had several sources coming into this debate: one of them was the Google Scholar search that you did (except that I capitilized the term). I also had the result of a dictionary search and an inconclusive Google Books search. I chose to use the plain old google search because it does, in fact, illustrate my point. I wouldn't want to use the same source twice; I wanted to provide another one. I can provide the rest if you like, but it appears to be unnecessary. If you would look at my google search results, you'd see that my source confirmed the notability of this subject just as well as yours did. Srose (talk) 19:19, 24 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 deletion. enochlau (talk) 02:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Sierra

edit

auto-biography of a non-notable music group. Nekohakase 17:27, 24 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 speedied. Zetawoof(ζ) 22:54, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Victor wood

edit

Unencyclopedic, unestablish notability. Nekohakase 17:32, 24 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. - Bobet 09:34, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Colussi

edit

Non-notable. The only hit he gets on yahoo is Wikipedia. Nekohakase 17:49, 24 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 deletion. enochlau (talk) 02:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Viktor Band

edit

"Viktor's first CD is in progress" Nekohakase 17:51, 24 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 15:21, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duct Tape Marketing

edit

Self-promotional/vanity spam advertising new book. Username associated with article is the same as the book author's last name. Contested prod. Leuko 17:59, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At first glance this entry might appear to be spam but the term duct tape marketing has begun to represent a style of marketing for the small busines - yes, it also happens to be the title of a book, one that I authored, but the title was chosen to represent a metaphorical term that has gained a great deal of traction with small businesses. I have added some references to the term from major publications that don't reference the book title at all. Tracking from all of the major search engines shows the terms duct tape marketing receives several hundred searches daily - having nothing to do with a book. This term is very similar in nature to the term guerilla marketing User:Jantsch Sept 24, 2006

I didn't mean "just happens" to imply "accidentally happens." The title of the book was chosen to capture a term, duct tape marketing, that is becoming well-known as a form of small business marketing. Again, I point to the term guerilla marketing, a Wikipedia page, and the the first few words of this entry - Guerrilla marketing, as described by Jay Conrad Levinson in his popular 1982 book Guerrilla Marketing, is an unconventional way of performing promotional activities on a very low budget.User:Jantsch

duct tape marketing is certainly not an adaptation of guerrilla marketing techniques to the online - it is representative of a systematic approach to marketing - something that is in fact a new concept for the typical small business. User:Jantsch

You know, this might be the point at which you realize that the buzzwords are hurting you. --Dhartung | Talk 18:16, 25 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 15:21, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Jantsch

edit

Vanity self-promotional spam. Article consists solely of links to author's website and books for sale. Author's username is the same as the article. Contested prod. Suggest Userfying. Leuko 18:46, 24 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 15:21, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Silverstein's Comments On WTC Building 7 Collapse

edit

POV fork of 9/11 conspiracy theories Tom Harrison Talk 19:18, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot that "pull it" is also very briefly mentioned in the Larry Silverstein article. So, this would be the fourth article that mentions "pull it". And, they have tried to put "pull it" into the 7 World Trade Center article, as well. --Aude (talk contribs as tagcloud) 00:26, 25 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. Luna Santin 07:27, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cast Member Informer

edit

Non-notable. Article is a single sentence about an undistinguished podcast with only six or seven episodes since March 2006. &#151;Whoville 19:21, 24 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. Luna Santin 07:22, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pija

edit

Nothing more than a dicdef for a foreign word. If needed, transwiki to the es Wiktionary, but only if needed. myTrackerTV (myTalk|myWork|myInbox) 19:25, 24 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. Luna Santin 07:26, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deformables

edit

Non notable, fails WP:WEB. A Flash cartoon with 5 distinct Google hits (for title plus author, since title is common word in other languages)... Fram 19:30, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, subject doesn't meet guidelines in WP:WEB. Equendil Talk 19:20, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD notice was removed by author of article, and page then moved to The Deformables: notice now readded. Fram 20:59, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet WP:WEB. --Charlesknight 23:14, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Luna Santin 07:20, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blockland Mods

edit

A Mod distributed online for some video game. The article has existed for more than a year with no expansion. Andrew Levine 19:33, 24 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. Luna Santin 07:21, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kenny Kim

edit

Insufficiently notable child actor, created and defended by WP:SPA, fails WP:BIO and probably WP:AUTO and WP:VANITY, no response to concerns noted on Talk:Kenny Kim, prod removed without comment by author. Jim Douglas 19:32, 24 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 23:18, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mobile Suit Gundam SEED Club Yonkoma

edit

nn fan mangas--Avsf35 19:34, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But it's not made by fans, it's made for fans, just like any other show/OVA/film/manga/merchandise. I'm sorry, whoever is backing this doesn't know what they're talking about.--HellCat86 22:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, want me to show why anyone calling this a fanwork doesn't know what they're talking about?

If anyone still calls this a fan work, they obviously have no clue--HellCat86 22:58, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This is an offical Gundam manga, just a non-continuity humor one. - CNichols 00:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per above. Notable.Billy Blythe 01:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing vote to keep. This would never have been a problem if such sources had been included in the first place. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 05:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, to be fair, people should know what they're talking about before they back a deletion anyway. A Wiki article shouldn't think for you...--HellCat86 11:07, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Nor should a person have to dig their way through foreign language sites to find information about a subject. Notability must be proven by the writer, not the reader. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 20:03, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The article already noted it was an official spin off and was listed as a stub, highlighting that more info was required. It's not my fault if some people get their facts wrong and somehow read "fan club" as "fan work"--HellCat86 20:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The article did not prove it. It only claimed to be. You did not include a single source in the original version. Furthermore, it was (and still is) somewhat poorly written. You act as if everyone else should somehow validate your article. That is your job. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 21:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    How am I? 'Stub' clearly implies the article is a work in progress and some amount of general knowledge on the subject should be expected from users. Wikipedia simply gathers knowledge, it doesn't provide it. You just seem to be in a foul mood because you went with the crowd calling for this being deleted and had to retract your initial vote when it was proven the call for deletion was on flimsy grounds. The merchandise and such I already mentioned is mentioned with the article itself. Don't blame me because the creator of this whole debate jumped the gun. If they believed this item was about a fan work, the smart thing to do would have been to ask on the article's discussion page. If it was the case, THEN a vote for deletion should have followed--HellCat86 22:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't presume to know my mood. It's annoying. I'm telling you why people tried to delete your article. I retracted my vote as a courtesy because you took the effort to prove your subject notable. I would not have done so otherwise. You do not link to any sources in the article which validate your claims, and you seem to be unaware of WP:V. I suggest you read up. If you continue to make articles as you did this one, expecting others to prove notability for you, then expect more AfDs. Don't start making personal attacks when confronted with your own mistakes. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 23:03, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Confronted with my own mistakes?...why does there have to be a group of people around here who think they can just throw around links to the site's policies then just look down their nose at the rest of us? I've already explained the state of the article. Terribly sorry it doesn't personally please you. I've started a number of other articles on Wikipedia, many of which I've been able to build up myself along with the help of others and have encountered nothing like the attitudes I'm seeing here. Avsf35 jumped the gun. I contributed what I could to the article and took the neccessary steps to highlight it so others who might know more could further improve it. That's the whole point of Wikipedia. I started this article but that doesn't mean I alone am responsible for maintaining it. Don't imply I'm some ignorant slacker when I have a body of contributions that prove otherwise.--HellCat86 23:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Forget it. I honestly don't care. I'm tired of responding when you refuse to listen. You know why this was AfD'd. No one jumped the gun. You created an article that did nothing to assert its importance and it got AfD'd. That was your mistake and no one else's. You are responsible for proving the notability of a subject when you start the article, which you failed to do. Previous contributions have no effect on this fact. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 23:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- XICOD 06:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Regardless of HellCat86's comments, I'm afraid this does seem to be fan-work, and either way it is non-notable.
    It's very common for popular franchises to have fan manga drawn about them. And it's very common for that manga to be published and to show up on Amazon.co.jp. That doesn't make it notable or mean it needs an article. It is simply one common form of fanfiction, which in Japan is given more recognition by the media companies than it is in America.
    At best, this might merit a mention in whichever article discusses the fan club as a whole. It certainly does not merit an article of its own.
    Remember: just because something exists doesn't mean it needs a dedicated article all of its own. — Haeleth Talk 14:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, this manga is produced by Bandai, the company that hold the copyright to Gundam, NOT by fans. Ergo, it is an official Gundam product. The fact that Bandai has chosen its fanclub as a channel of distribution is irrelevant. - CNichols 14:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Adding to that, the comics are also distributed in Newtype magazine. Bandai hold any number of official relations with various Japanese magazines; the official SD Musha Gundam mangas, from which they make a long running line of model kits from, are published in Comic BomBom. Both Dengeki Hobby Magazine and Hobby Japan have hosted official content for the various Gundam series, including in recent examples Advance of Zeta and Gundam SEED Astray. Anyone backing the deletion of this article doesn't have their facts straight. I don't see how something produced by the official license owners for a fanclub they started and maintain is somehow fan work. This is just as official as the exclusive webcomic stories StarWars.com publish on their members-only Hyperspace service.--HellCat86 15:17, 25 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 21:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Miles

edit

this person won a provincial election of.... not stated. Un-encyclopedic, reads like a newspaper clipping, and gives no useful information. Nekohakase 19:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Passes using item #2 under Notability (people) as a provincial legislator. - BalthCat 00:39, 25 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 15:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Phlumx

edit

This reads like an advertisement, and it only has one sentence. Nekohakase 19:57, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unless notability can be established.Bjones 03:30, 25 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 15:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

C Spriting

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

The result was deleted as copyvio. --RobthTalk 22:45, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lloyd Levine

edit

Sounds like an advertisement, and is highly biased. Nekohakase 20:23, 24 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. Punkmorten 22:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Homer Public Library

edit

Non-notable public library. — Joshua Johaneman 20:31, 24 September 2006 (UTC) Joshuajohaneman (talk • contribs • count)

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

The result was delete. Luna Santin 03:05, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arrow Leadership International Ministries

edit

Not notable, about 500 google hits with a variety of name combinations, and basically an advertisement for a very limited interest local religious organization. · XP · 20:33, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. The lack of a notable internet foot print doesn't, alone, make it NN. Still the article reads like an advertisment and there are no WP:RS or sources at all aside from their own website. NeoFreak 03:02, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What inclusion rules does it satisfy exactly? · XP · 04:39, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Notability (organizations)--Tbeatty 05:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't seem to meet the third party requirements. · XP · 05:24, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Search for Carson Pue. He's on the board of World Vision Canada. --Tbeatty 05:30, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Which makes Arrow Leadership International Ministries notable how...? Perhaps you should update the article with what you've found, or else it's due for deletion as it's 5+ days... · XP · 05:35, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so this person is president of the group the article covers. However, that does not make the group notable--perhaps this person, however, is. · XP · 05:36, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The person doesn't have an article. I don't think both articles would survive. But since this is the only one a merge and redirect of Carson Pue might be in order.--Tbeatty 05:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, but then it needs to be under the Carson Pue name as parent, and he also would need reliable sourcing to stand. This article can be userfied to your space by the closing admin post-deletion if you'd like to recreate it thus. · XP · 05:40, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not to be a pain, but it still doesn't meet the notability qualifiers. · XP · 19:00, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Luna Santin 07:10, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tjeu

edit

Appears to be nothing more than a dictionary like entry. Sorry. Paulus 20:51, 24 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. Luna Santin 19:49, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Digital Deli Online

edit

"Digital deli online" gets about 750 ghits outside Wikipedia, of which under thirty are unique. Other things with the name Digital Deli exist and have far more presence on Google. Monograph of Dnyhagen (talk · contribs), who I believe is the site owner (has certainly added many links to the site). Alexa rank is over 1.8 million. No credible evidence of passing WP:WEB. Guy 21:14, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Show the evidence for your utterly false and intentionally misleading assertions. The Digital Deli Online will always be at something of a disadvantage because it promotes 'Golden Age Radio', as opposed to 'OTR', and because of it's stated pledge to avoid all link spam on it's site. The hits we get are from honest crawls, not link spam. But your specious argument is typical of what I've seen on Wikipedia to date. The very proscriptions they say they wish to enforce against link spam, are what the editors use to decide a page's ranking from Alexa. The Digital Deli Online has never, nor will ever, promote the name 'The Digital Deli Online'. The Golden Age of Radio is the name that it promotes--and always will. Your claims are completely unsubstantiated and unsupported. (As would be expected if the editor is relying upon finding the name 'The Digital Deli Online' to substantiate a presence on Alexa--which is without question the most heavily skewed search engine on the internet.) This is primarily because they'll rank you higher if you pay for it, and they're tied to the DMOZ's limited category structure for their rankings. A fairer comparison would be from Google, which is unquestionably far larger and more reliable than Alexa, uses a far more equitable ranking system, and ranks for content, not link spam hits. Their technology is specifically engineered to catch, isolate and adjust for link spam. Let's have full disclosure here, Guy.
Do a Google Search on Golden Age Radio and note The Digital Deli Online's ranking compared to the other 19 million to 23 million Golden Age Radio sites. If you're going to skew results to suit your argument, please make at least a pretense of acting in good faith. The way Alexa participants get their hits is by offering the Alexa toolbar to their users or subscribers to gain more page hits. Do another Google search on the site's actual URL in the Google Images Tab. And while you're at it, do a fair Alexa search, like this one. I opted out of Alexa when I realized how co-opted it was. But as you'll see, even though Alexa has intentionally misrepresented the time to connect to the site for over 3 years now, they still have to use Google for their crawls, and they're forced to list The Digital Deli Online, as consistently within the top five 'Old Time Radio' sites on the internet (even though I've specifically requested that Alexa and the DMOZ remove The Digital Deli Online from from the Old Time Radio category), and despite every effort on their part to hide the site. They've falsely claimed an 8 second connect time to The Digital Deli Online for over three years now. Pull out a stop watch and time it yourself. But since I don't pay them to stop lying about the site's performance, they continue to misrepresent it. Tell us, Guy. Why did you intentionally overlook the fact that Alexa consistently lists the Digital Deli Online in the top five 'Old Time Radio' sites in the world? Is it because withholding that fact didn't fit your argument, Guy? Dnyhagen 05:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not 'credible' enough for you, Guy? Let's talk Yahoo, now. How about Yahoo? Look for yourself. And even MSN, which I won't have anything to do with on principle alone, shows this result. Now if you wish to continue to intentionally misrepresent The Digital Deli Online's significance on any of the search engines, I respectfully suggest you go back to the drawing board before the next round of 'swift-boating' the candidate Article. Unsubstantiated heresay only does Wikipedia a disservice. How about some full disclosure here, Guy? How many pages did you have to scroll through to find The Digital Deli Online on any of these Golden Age Radio searches? Three? Five? Ten? How about none? How about page one on every single one of them. Kinda questions your premise, no? But hey, you're the expert, no? Dnyhagen 05:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I gather from others of your observations that you're 'Mr. Alexa Expert', here on Wikipedia. Help us please understand, given your apparent Alexa expertise why you selectively excluded the most glaring fact regarding The Digital Deli Online's significance on Alexa. Given the preponderance of actual facts cited above, and your apparent extensive Alexa expertise, you'll forgive a casual reader's suspicion of why you'd intentionally fail to disclose Alexa placing The Digital Deli Online as the 4th most popular Old Time Radio site on the internet. If it's your contention that Google, the single largest, most respected, and most referenced web presence in the history of technology is a somehow inferior to Alexa then go ahead and try to persuade anyone to believe that. Just as an example of it's own absurdity, Alexa regularly ranks Google between 3 and 5 some days. A teensy bit self-serving? Huh? I agree it's a darn shame that Alexa is so utterly co-opted and skewed but their management put them on the path they've chosen, not me. Do a little soul-searching, then come back when you're prepared to comment in good faith and with numbers you can substantiate, instead of a lot of hearsay or Alexa nonsense. If you wish to denigrate or diminish the significance or importance of an article or site, respect this forum enough to do your homework first next time. Dnyhagen 05:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has hosted a recent smear campaign against The Digital Deli Online lead by two disgruntled editors from spamming sites, that refused to comply with Wikipedia's guidelines, yet were permitted to launch a heinous smear campaign against the site, comparing it to Osama Bin Laden. You're an Alexa expert, no, Guy? Help the more uninformed among us to understand how the apparently most hated site in Golden Age Radio is continually placed in the top five most popular Old Time Radio sites in the world. Inquiring minds want to know. I respect your apparent long standing expertise on such matters. Help me, at least, understand this teensy weensy little discrepancy of logic. It truly is a an inconvenient little conundrum isn't it? Care to help us understand the disconnect here? You'd be doing all of us a great service if you could. Please help? Dnyhagen 09:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dnyhagen, please see this guideline for some reasons why you should not create articles on your own endeavours. It doesn't matter if you are one of the bigger fish in a very very small pond, the Alexa rank for your site remains at somewhere over the 1.8 million mark ([44]). I would suggest to you that you may not be the best person to assess the significance of your own website. As to golden age vs. OTR, I have no idea what you are talking abut and care even less. WP:WEB is the applicable notability guideline, and we also strongly discourage essentially autobiographical content. The article itself is largely unverifiable from non-trivial neutral coverage reliable secondary sources anyway. Your position in the search rankings speaks to your skills in promoting your site, not to the signifciance of the site. The significance fo the site is measured by references to it elsewhere. The inbound link count [45] also fails to support assertions of significance. Guy 10:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This has been asked and answered elsewhere, but it bears re-addressing. The SINGLE guideline objected to originally was proprietary authorship. As the article was in the process of rehabiliation, suggestions for citations were both submitted, vetted, and approved. The recommended guideline is that an article subject SHOULD not be submitted by it's owner or benefactor. But the article is less about the Digital Deli Online than it is, about Golden Age Radio preservation. Your self proclaimed ignorance of the subject matter speaks for itself, and if 23 million Golden Age Radio sites is a small pond, then you have your opinion and 23 million others have their own. And if 23 million is smaller in significance than 1.8 million I really need to check my math. Somehow that simply doesn't compute. But, hey, if Alexa says their 1.8 million are more significant than Google's 23 million, I guess we'd have to believe that. No? If you feel your opinion is more valuable than the 23 million others, so be it. There's no argument to that logic. That you didn't trouble yourself to verify Alexa's skewing of my daily results also speaks for itself. I stated and cited my specific objections to Alexa's methods. And I'd suggest to you, that since you not only admit, but seem proud of your abject ignorance of the subject matter, you're even less appropriate to assess it's worth. I couldn't give one whit if I ever get a single hit from Wikipedia. It's Golden Age Radio Preservation that the article focuses on. And would have continued to focus on if continued to be developed. Explain the insinuation that I've employed some sort of extraordinary skills that promote the site, rather than letting the site's articles and materials speak for itself, as you apparently didn't take note of, either. Apparently your difficulty is with The Digital Deli Online as the title of the article, as compared to perhaps, Golden Age Radio Preservation Issues, or something of that nature. I take no offense or exception either way. But your snide fish and pond analogy is simply insulting--not to the site, but to Golden Age Radio Preservation and it's measly 23 million internet proponents world wide. So let's recap here: Higher number of Alexa ranking=better article candidate. That's a new one on me. I must have missed that amongst all the other guidelines on Wikipedia. Too late to respond further. I can see where this is heading in any case. Oh, and thanks for all the constructive comments. Very helpful. Dnyhagen 13:05, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
23 million Golden Age Radio Sites? You mean the 18 million hits Google returns for a search on Golden Age Radio?[46] But that's not how you should use Google. The results include all websites that contain all three words, in no particular order or relation to each other. So you get sites about a radio appearance of The Golden Age (a band), of the Danish State Radio Orchestra playing the Golden Age of Light Music. What you are looking for is either a search for "Golden Age Radio"[47] (11000 Google Hits), or "Golden Age of Radio"[48], 147,000 Google Hits. Now remember that these include (many) duplicate hits (hits to the same website or forum), so the actual number of sites that mention the term (favourably, unfavourably, in passing) is still much less. And consider this: no matter if there are thousands or millions of sites about the Golden Age of Radio, only 44 at the most link to your site. And as stated bemow: you are free to write an article on Golden Age Radio Preservation, but that is not what we are discussing here. Fram 20:04, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Intellectual Fraud and Good Faith. Here's what Alexa can or can't do for you if you either opt in to their system or opt out. Intellectual fraud exists on Wikipedia as well. My site was slower then, smaller then, and far more difficult to navigate then. BUT I'd opted into the Alexa tryanny then, till I saw it for it was, and opted out. If you continue to use Alexa as your yardstick, you'll continue to commit intellectual fraud yourselves. This isn't a matter of a level playing ground or not. It's simple intellectual fraud. Wanna know why I dropped off the face of Alexa? I asked to be listed under Golden Age Radio and they refused to even consider the category. Y'all love numbers so much you're transfixed by them. Even if the ones you're looking at are fraudulent. This isn't about being right or wrong. I could be back in their skewed top 20,000 pages any time I choose to--by playing their game and committing intellectual fraud. But I refuse to. It's about intellectual honesty. Dnyhagen 05:24, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I did not use Alexa anywhere, so your answer is completely irrelevant. Fram 06:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I inaccurately cut and pasted the indentation. This was a response to the general argument regarding the integrity--or lack thereof--of Alexa's results. The response should have been indented to the level of the Alexa discussion. I apologize. Dnyhagen 18:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Dnyhagen, please familiarize yourself with WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. As for the article and its subject: on Google (which you seem to trust), "Digital Deli Online" gets only 43 distinct Google hits[49], and only 26 when you exclude Wikipedia articles and mirrors[50]. The references you give in the article are overstated ("Golden Age Radio's international appeal is underscored by Queensland University of Technology's use of The Digital Deli Online as a reference for Golden Age of Radio Advertising," means that they use it once as a reference for a Coca Cola advert: they don't cite Digital Deli as "this is a good reference site" or so, and "and the Norwegian Historical Radio Society (NHRS) has long cited The Deli ,[13] as a source for Historic Radio Clubs" means that your site is included in a long list of links. "Family First has also consistently recommended The Digital Deli Online as a valuable educational source for Golden Age Radio enthusiasts": consistently recommended meaning that DigitalDeli is one of the thousands of sites they have reviewed favourably, and that that review is still online). Digital Deli Online is not notable enough and fails WP:WEB, and so I endore the nomination. Fram 10:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CIVIL, yes. Certainly something you'd do well to adhere to. All of us for that matter. Your opinions regarding the weight--or absence thereof--to two of the article's 17 citations thus far are noted. Please cite the actual count of the 'thousands' of Family First Articles on Golden Age Radio that you refer to, unsupported by fact. Your endorsement of deletion is noted, though; for the most part unsupported as to the content of the article. I will repeat, yet again: searches for only 'The Digital Deli Online' are clearly slanted and biased, by design. The site is not notable--nor sets out to be notable--for it's link backs to the name, 'The Digital Deli Online', or for that matter, popularity outside of the Golden Age Radio community. It's notable only to the Golden Age Radio Enthusiast or Preservation Community, as are any number of the tens of thousands of other niche articles on Wikipedia--or frankly any encyclopedia of any kind. Every article has and will have it's own proponents. Clearly those seeking a specific article on Wikipedia won't give a whit about an article backed by 1.8 million other proponents--or the converse. It's the subject matter of the article they'll search for more information. It's that simple. Golden Age Radio Preservation is addressed no where else on Wikipedia. It is addressed quite comprehensively on The Digital Deli Online and the other 14 citations the article has assembled thus far; as apparently those measly 23 million other Golden Age Radio proponents--on the internet at least--seem to feel, anyway. The Golden Age of Radio, and it's legacy are of great value and importance to that tiny--apparently insignificant to two of you thus far anyway--niche of 23 million proponents who would beg to differ with both of you. Perhaps Wikipedia has outgrown the need to cater to 23 million proponents of The Golden Age Radio. Pretty successful to be sure, to simply snub an interest group of that size. But those 23 million can certainly continue to look elsewhere. If Wikipedia refuses to permit such an article, they'll find what they're seeking about Golden Age Radio preservation elsewhere, anyway. That's the long and short of it. I've made my case, and begun the article with just such material. If the aim here is simply to naysay, snipe, or detract rather than be constructive, it's less a reflection on Golden Age Radio Preservation than on Wikipedia. Far be it from me to either promote or detract from Alexa's inestimable value in assessing an article's worth on Wikipedia. That remains for consensus to decide. Suggestion for future Wikipedia Guidelines: If Alexa's imprimatur in promoting--or detracting--from an article's worth is so key, why not add it as a guideline and be done with it? I'll take my chances with the 23 million Golden Age Radio proponents any day. But I do thank you for your highly constructive comments. Dnyhagen 13:05, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you feel that I have not been civil to you, please point out where, as I don't see where I have done so. Otherwise, please don't retaliate a friendly reminder by accusing me of doing the same. If you want examples of where you have been uncivil and not assuming good faith on this page, I can start with your first line, "intentionally misleading assertions". Having said that: you yourself say that the site is not notable outside its community, but apparently the community of Golden Age of Radio has very few websites, as there are very few links to your website from inside the community either. This AfD is not about Golden Age of Radio, which is not up for deletion. Saying that "Wikipedia has outgrown the need to cater to 23 million proponents of the Golden Age Radio" is not supported by the facts, and I sincerely doubt those 23 million peope would all see an article on Digital Deli Online as necessary here. Golden Age Radio Preservation is adressed in the main Old-time radio article, and for all I care a separate, neutral article concerning the Preservation can be made. This, however, is an article about one website, not about that Preservation. If that was your intention, then the article is named completely wrong, and has too limited contents (it shouldn't be about your website). Finally, an answer to a few more specific remarks you make: Of your seventeen sources, I can't retrieve the third one, none of the first ten otherwise even mentions Digital Deli, just like the 16th and 17th; the 11th and 13th have the site in a list of links, the 12th uses your site as a aource for a quote about the Coca Cola formula, so all we are left with are the 14th and 15th reference. Two references, which both come out of the 40 or so Google found. As for the actual count of the 'thousands' of articles on Family First: obviously they are not about Golden Age Radio, they are about all kinds of stuff, they are to be more precise about websites suggested by readers of the website. I did not say or imply that they reviewed thousands of websites on Golden Age Radio, my actual quote was "consistently recommended meaning that DigitalDeli is one of the thousands of sites they have reviewed favourably," and if I counted correctly, there are 3583 sites reviewed. This is all highly irrelevant to the main issue though, that your website is not notable enough for inclusion here, but I thought it would be better if your other remarks were answered as well. Fram 19:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. In a sense I had expected this article to be here sooner and when I first saw it felt that it did deserve deletion review however other editors were involved in it. I have reflected for a while on this before voting as I have been involved on the edges of some related discussion. However, with reflection, I feel that this is the correct vote. I do not see the article as being truly notable and I believe there is at least an element of vanity here. The author has been & is extremely protective of his article and his position - in a sense I understand this but it is my belief that this is not appropriate for Wikipedia --Nigel (Talk) 17:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete. Oh please, NigelR. Expected, but not instigated? Let me help this along. Delete it. Please. Contrary to your assertion, Fram, there is almost nothing of value in the existing 'Old Time Radio' Article as regards the preservation of Golden Age Radio. Nor, given the underlying forces and parties at work on it, will there likely ever be, since people that feel as I do about it, tend to resent the imprimatur of 'Old Time Radio' or even worse, 'OTR', onto Golden Age Radio Preservation issues. Heck, I can't even get my own site removed from the Old Time Radio category on Alexa, despite three years of repeated attempts. Sadly, those two factions appear to be at cross purposes with each other--the one faction wanting to continue to profit from it, and the other wishing to promote an urgent message to preserve even more of it. Even worse, it's an unwitting antibiosis; the preservation faction passionately racing against time, to churn out even more preserved recordings, and the commercial OTR faction even more passionately downsampling all of them so as to pack more of them onto a CD for sale for 3 bucks a pop. Indeed, the early decision to lump Golden Age Radio into 'OTR' was apparently made by the same commercial factions of 'OTR' sites with an eye to future exploitation of the articles and the tentacles of Program articles stemming from it--a literal orgy of self-promotion, commercial podcasting, and link backs. A real treasure trove indeed. And apparently little of it, policed or enforced till a naeive newcomer upset the apple cart. That's regrettable, but not entirely surprising in the least. I'll get an article on Golden Age Radio Preservation into Wikipedia in time, one way or the other. I certainly don't need to do it on the back of The Digital Deli Online, and god knows I'll never subject the site again to such naked abuse, insinuations, and unsupported attacks. The 'vanity' aspects of the article were admittedly regrettable, but the initial insistence of the editors to first comment on it, was directed principally toward supporting the website's notability, not the notability of the Golden Age Radio Preservation effort that serves as its only raison de etre. Nor was it indicated anywhere, by anyone prior to that, that the measure of a site's notability stems, as a prerequisite, from it's Alexa ranking. If that's truly the case, from what I've seen thus far on Wikipedia, there are hundreds of similar internet site-related articles that will certainly never rise to that measurement, as well as conversely, hundreds of potentially valuable internet site articles, encyclopedic in nature, that will never grace the pages of Wikipedia. More's the pity. Frankly, I find that an absurdly narrow prerequisite for notability, if not a disservice to the ultimate goals of Wikipedia in it's effort to become the world's most accessible online encylcopedia. To my perhaps naieve way of thinking, notability stems from an entity's uniqueness of content, promotion of a noble effort, encyclopedic information value to a noteworthy niche or broader interests, or perhaps even to purpose alone. In retrospect I regret misintrepreting the means by which editors were seeking notability from the website, versus the message. I honestly do, but the positive comments I was receiving along the way from other Wikipedia editors left me with the mistaken impression that I was pointing the article in the right direction. I'm nothing if not passionate about this effort, and I fear that passion served more to detract from the message, than contribute to it. All in all, a regrettable, misdirected first outcome. Do what y'all need to with the article. The process of learning the ropes, coding, citing, structure, guidelines, and politics of Wikipedia can only serve to help my next such effort. Lots of lessons learned--some outrageously negative, some very positive. Lest Guy conclude from this any self-serving perception of further justification for his unwarranted insinuations that I either undertook an arbitrary wholesale deletion of spam links, or, since he apparently wants it both ways, that I failed to delete as many as his proudly self-avowed ignorance of the subject led him to believe I should have deleted, I'll reiterate yet again, and for the final time; every single spam link I did--or didn't--remove was based on an informed rationale, from long-standing experience and knowledge of the subject matter. No more, certainly no less, and unequivocally without prejudice, pro or con. Never at anytime did I permit my own passions sway my own deliberation processes. Not once. That dog doesn't hunt. Put it out of its misery. Though I doubt this will cease Guy's continued insinuations, I for one am finished rising to the bait. Period. Dnyhagen 23:15, 25 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 nn, probable advert. Luna Santin 19:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carsoup

edit

Fails WP:WEB - Perhaps big in Minnesota but not big on a broader scale - Delete. BlueValour 21:13, 24 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. Daniel.Bryant 06:29, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LView

edit

This piece of software does not appear to be especially notable Wjousts 21:22, 24 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 as in keep seperate. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 17:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Lee Rose

edit

Procedural note: This AfD was originally listed on September 20, and closed out of process by a non-admin on September 24 as, in effect, a "keep with further merger discussion to continue on the article's talk page." [52] While the discussion, as it currently stands, makes it a near certainty that this AfD will be closed as a keep or merge to lonelygirl15, the improper closure effectively nullified all the merge votes in this debate and turned them into keep votes. As such, I'm relisting this AfD to resume debate and allow for an admin to make the final decision at whatever time he or she feels is appropriate. As this is a procedural relisting, I have no further comment beyond what I have already posted below. --Aaron 21:35, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

People are unofficially discussing deletion of this article at Talk:lonelygirl15 and the possibility of merging at Talk:Jessica Lee Rose. This nomination is intended to end the irrelevant meta-arguments about whether it should be sent to AfD by invoking the official process. (Note: if all editors unofficially discussing this were clearly independent editors, WP:SNOWBALL might apply. However, since most are IP addresses that can't be uniquely identified, the outcome is not so certain.) As this is a procedural nomination, I abstain from the discussion. — Saxifrage ✎ 21:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Merge to lonelygirl15. No notability outside of the lonelygirl15 lark. Maybe CAA can do something with her, maybe not. But no basis for separate article now. Bwithh 21:17, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Jessica Lee Rose is the lead actress in a video series that has millions of viewers, not to mention a gigantic amount of media attention (Google news count for Jessica Rose or Jessica Lee Rose is a total of over 400 articles [53] [54]). Due to lonelygirl15, she has become a big star. She's done numerous interviews now and has even been on Jay Leno. There's a strange argument that lonelygirl15 was the only notable thing she's done so far and therefore shouldn't have a page. That makes no sense. Just because an actor gains notoriety for their leading role in any single movie or TV show means they shouldn't have an article about them? Under this argument, all Big Brother (every country version) and Survivor contestants pages would be deleted. Jessica Lee Rose is arguably more well known then most of those reality show contestants with articles. That people want to delete a page about this extremely notable actress is just nonsense. She's a star now. Marriedtofilm 21:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]
    — Possible single purpose account: Marriedtofilm (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
    (click contribs link. Account has been active since Feb. 06. Many other topic contributions before lonelygirl15 existed. This is a personal attack without research in facts.) Marriedtofilm 22:24, September 20, 2006
    • Note to closing admin: Marriedtofilm joined on February 19, made 13 edits that day (all but three to one article), and left. He returned four months later on June 12, made four edits in the span of 36 hours or so, and left. He then returned three months after that, on September 12, and has made several dozen edits since then, all but two of which are to this article or to discussions directly related to this article. [55] I leave it to the closing admin to determine how closely this pattern of activity conforms to the definition of an SPA. --Aaron 02:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you for the detailed description of the numerous contributions before being active in this topic and not being SPA. And thanks for jumping to the conclusion that I'm a male. Oh, and you forgot to mention that I created two articles in February. So much for you acusatiion of "Single purpose account." Now stop the personal attacks and stick to the subject. Marriedtofilm 03:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC) (Marriedtofilm edit 03:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Correct Google News stats as of 21:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC) for "Jessica Lee Rose" are 18 unique of 166 hits total. For "Jessica Rose" (which gets false positives as well), they are 76 unique of 319. Adding "lonelygirl15" to the last search to eliminate false positives gives 66 unique of 306. — Saxifrage ✎ 21:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • That is false. It's more than 18. Look here [56] TonyLeigh 22:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • That link doesn't use double-quotes in the search and so gets hits for Axel Rose, Jessica Simpson, and other non-"Jessica (Lee) Rose" news stories. My numbers are correct. — Saxifrage ✎ 22:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Saxifrage, my links do have the double quotes. Marriedtofilm 22:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • By "that link" I was answering TonyLeigh directly. Their link lacks double quotes. As for your own numbers, that total includes repeats. Unique Google hits are an important factor for editors who care about the Google test. Unique hits for "Jessica Rose" lonelygirl15 or "Jessica Lee Rose" total 82. — Saxifrage ✎ 22:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Nobody is saying a certain article is not published in more than one place. Like with alot of google news articles, the google repeats are usually articles published in different newspapers or other news services, but from the same source. For instance, if AP writes a story, frequently many newspapers will publish the same story because the editor feels it's newsworthy for their local market and/or reader base. A newspaper editor in Seattle might choose to publish an LA Times article (provided they have a contract with said paper), then that would appear as 2 articles. That over 400 times editors choose to publish an article on Jessica Lee Rose, whether it was their own original material or not, shows she has a huge amount of media attention that can't be denied.Marriedtofilm 23:11, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • The numbers for Jessica Lee Rose are much higher than your claims, anyone can see that by looking at the pages and the descriptions of what those pages contain, the numbers you quoted are way off! 205.188.116.11 22:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • You'll have to be more specific about what "pages" you're talking about. I'm merely reporting the numbers Google returns on the searches I described. I'm not saying those number are low or high, so I don't understand why you think you need to "defend" against them. Are you saying that you think the numbers Google is reporting are too low? — Saxifrage ✎ 08:09, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Lonelygirl15 is the name of the ficitional character/series of videos she has been in. These videos are notable enough for mention so the star of them should also be. There are many one hit wonder pop stars who have articles (and big brother contestants too) and this is no diffrent. What about Howard Brown who is only notable for bank commericals in the UK (very popular ones though) who has his own article? This page should not be deleted. TonyLeigh 22:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is going to be an article that grows, just like the orginal lonelygirl15 article. It will allow for some of the info to be stashed elsewhere. basically, it will keep the lg15 artcile about that, and the info about the actress seperate. The orginal arguments about lonelygirl15 in the AfD's and the undelete there are all going to be made again. I think the same outcome is going to occur. Dave 22:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge- Merge with lonelygirl15. It just doesn't deserve it's own page at this time. Criptofcorbin 22:18, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to lonelygirl15. Her only claim to fame is a direct connection to the lonelygirl15 series. Outside of her involvement in it, which is extensively covered in its own article, there's nothing of note to say about her. WarpstarRider 22:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - She's notable enough by now, and her biographical info does not belong on the Lonelygirl article. If Wikipedia is expansive enough to include articles on reality show rejects and extremely minor "celebrities" like Libby Hoeller and Ellen Feiss, then surely there's room for an actress who has been watched by millions, appeared on Jay Leno, and will almost certainly be starring in more roles in the future. Serpent-A 23:40, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep arguably notable enough as lonelygirl, but might as well make both. FrozenPurpleCube 00:12, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong merge to lonelygirl15 per Bwithh. Subject is the very definition of nn except for this one incident that will be forgotten within weeks. --Aaron 01:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong merge as per Aaron above. Badbilltucker 15:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with lonelygirl. If she ever does anything else it will be easy to recreate an article for her.Jlittlet 01:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with lonelygirl15. This is a very dubious spin-off. JLR and LG15 are completely synonymous, and no separate entries are warranted at this point. Comment: When I voted eventually to keep LG15, I never imagined that that would turn out to be the trashy article which we see today. It is now completely crufty, filled with all sorts of unreliable rubbish, outright speculation and references to blog entries which respectable Wiki editors abiding by guidelines habitually ignore. Now it turns out that LG15 was but an elaborate hoax which has fooled many. Ohconfucius 01:54, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:BIO for actors. --Tim1988 talk 17:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merely your POV. It states "The person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field". Jessica Lee Rose is the main actress is a online soap opera that is a Internet phenomenon. 205.188.116.11 22:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • People are entitled to their point of view, especially because the point of an AfD is to solicit opinions. Also note that editors from anonymous IP addresses tend to stay uncounted by the administrator in charge of tallying the opinions, not least because they tend not to have the best grasp of the real meaning of the policies they quote. You'll have better luck if you establish a reputation as a good editor, and if you demonstrate respect for your fellows. — Saxifrage ✎ 08:09, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since when is policy POV? --Tim1988 talk 22:04, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed. Also, noone who wants this page deleted has explained why they aren't also requesting deltions of pages for one hit wonder pop stars. Carl Douglas for example. Perhaps because it weakens there already weak arguments. 205.188.116.11 18:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't edit on this website, but frequently reference it, like I did when seeking information on this actor and that is my perspective so value my opinion accordingly. Deleting or merging the biography on this person doesn't seem consistent with the rest of this website. I see there are many one-hit wonders and actors who only starred in one thing who have biographies here. This actor seems to be singled out for arbitrary reasons. 206.170.104.47 20: 54 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. She is an actress seperate from the videos she's in. Her Lonelygirl15 project is Wikipedia's 9th most visited article, 8th if you don't consider the main page an article. -- Zanimum 21:14, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. I may not agree with the videos and it's intended secrecy, but if we decide to merge this article with LonelyGirl15, we might as well merge all of the other articles regarding actors and actresses who are only known for one role. She has had roles in other movies besides LonelyGirl15. People seems to forget that "lonelygirl15" is mearly the title of the vlogs she is in, and she plays the role of "Bree", the lead role in them. --Raderick 07:01, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep She isn't just Lonelygirl15, she's a young actress. She's mentioned in dozens of newspapers, appearead on The Tonight Show, and has had a minor career as a make-up artist as well. There are thousands of actors on Wikipedia who have less prominence than JLR who simply aren't flagged for deletion for the ironic reason that nobody is paying as much attention to them as they are to her, along with a sense that just because her claim to fame hasn't been developed by a major Hollywood studio it's somehow less credible than someone who appeared in three episodes of The O.C. - dharmabum 07:28, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, per note at top of debate, Aaron 21:35, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notorious? Nobody will remember this girl in a year's time. I didn't even know who she was until the article got nominated for deletion. Just another random Internet fad. Merge to her character - sad enough that one article need be here, but she has no notability as a person, just as a character. GassyGuy 10:51, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't bring your own views of the future to the table. Hardly anyone goes around saying everyday of their lifes listening to Carl Douglas. If you really believe what you say (and I'm not saying you don't) then ask for a removal of his page as this one is just as notable. 205.188.116.11 18:14, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're saying that a widely-known hit song that's been around for over 30 years is equivalent to a handful of internet videos that began a few months ago? That's just silly, along with all the arguments trying to compare this with people who have starred in feature films and television shows that are far more recognizable. WarpstarRider 21:14, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Carl Douglas is ONLY known widely for Kung Fu Fighting. That's it. His one claim to notability and fame in the entertainment world at large. He has done nothing else anywhere close the that level. So the point is if Jessica Lee Rose's page should redirect to Lonelygirl15, because that's is "the only notable thing she has done" (which is the argument for deleting her page in the first place) then Carl Douglas should redirect to the one song that has given him any notability. There is no difference in the matter. The song may have been around 30 years, so what? The man has had nothing else come close in three decades. So for you to suggest just because his one big success was many, many years ago somehow makes him more worthy of a page than Jessica Lee Rose because her one notable credit (so far) happened this year is what is what is silly. She's also got much more chance of doing something else more notable than Carl Douglas, Robin Beck et all because it's a fact those people have failed again and again to have another success over many years of failed attempts to recapture their one moment in the limelight, what the future holds for Jessica Rose is still yet unknown. 64.12.116.71 00:15, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
btw, those people are only "far more recognizable " to people who have seen and enjoyed their works, to the rest of us they are just as recognizable than Jessica Rose, or less so. 64.12.116.71 00:17, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The idea that there should be a page because "she might do something more notable" in the future is not a valid argument for having a page now. And once again, you can not compare a person who performed a #1 hit song to a person who has only appeared in a bunch of internet videos. There are actual guidelines that support articles for people like Carl Douglas. Where the guidelines stand regarding "internet actresses" with no other credentials are less clear. Until she actually does something else, she shouldn't have an article. If she does do something notable in the future to separate herself from lonelygirl15, an article can be created at that time. WarpstarRider 01:05, 26 September 2006 (UTC)\*[reply]
  • I never said Wikipedia is a Crystal Ball, I said quite the opposite. However, you CAN compare someone who has starred in an online Internet show that has been seen by millions to a person who has had one major hit single. They both have had the limelight for one thing and one claim to fame. There is no difference between Carl Douglas and Jessica Rose other than one is a one shot singer and the other a one shot actress, therefore she is just as worthy of a page as he. If the wiki guidelines somehow view that as different then that is crazy. If the guidelines were than black and white surely this VFD wouldn't even be here, the page simply wouldn't have existed (or at least just simply and quickly been deleted) 64.12.116.71 11:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your example of Carl Doulgas is flawed. Douglas's major claim to fame is "Kung Fu Fighting," but it is not his only one. His song "Dance the Kung Fu" was a top ten hit on Billboard's R&B chart. That too is pretty notable; hence, I won't be nominating Douglas for deletion. Robin Beck had a very prolific career as a background vocalist on popular hits before her success with "The First Time," which gives her notability outside of her song. If Jessica Rose ever does something comparable, this article can be recreated... but she hasn't yet. GassyGuy 15:29, 26 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. Luna Santin 19:35, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hot Death Uno

edit

Wikpedia is not a game guide but this is a non-notable game in any case. Delete. BlueValour 21:43, 24 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 catherine yronwode. Deathphoenix ʕ 20:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lucky Mojo

edit

Promotional page with linkfarm; fails WP:WEB. Part of a walled garden by occultists. Leibniz 21:50, 24 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 Southaven (Sword of Truth). Deathphoenix ʕ 20:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Innkeeper Bill

edit

Fails:WP:N and WP:FICT. Fancruft. An article about a very minor fictional character in the Sword of Truth series; Not notable enough to warrant his own page. The article is fluffed with other NN, non-sequiter info to pad it out and it's fancruft that fails the relavent criteria as laid out in WP:FICT. NeoFreak 21:54, 24 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 15:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of English-language films

edit

This list would be too long and probably take too much time to put in every single english title. Just isn't needed. Thorpe | talk 21:56, 24 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 15:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quotes of Pakistani Claims and admissions of propaganda

edit

Delete. This isn't really an article, it's just a collection of long quotes copied from other webpages. I would say that "Wikipedia is not a soapbox" but I'm not entirely sure what the author is trying to say. It seems to be anti-Pakistan. Or maybe it's against India. I think? ... discospinster talk 22:01, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I am also adding Quotes of Pakistani Claims to this AfD, as the text is exactly the same. ... discospinster talk 22:24, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No need to delete it because, this article will provide information that Pakistan has indeed indulged in Propoganda and the will keep the reality. This is a very valuable article, since this is by Pakistani's admitting that what has been written in certain books and websites are indeed propoganda and not the truth. Also instead of deleting this article, it must be expanded to contain the truth and correct wrong things somewhere else. Chanakyathegreat 13:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to Mud People. (thanks, Runch!) Luna Santin 07:04, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nissel

edit

Fancruft that fails WP:N and WP:FICT. A NN minor fictional character from the Sword of Truth series that doesn't rate her own article. NeoFreak 22:03, 24 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. Luna Santin 06:58, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vapour pressure of water

edit

It's just a list of the vapor pressure of water at different temperatures. It might be possible to merge it somewhere, but I doubt it would be useful. TimBentley (talk) 22:06, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment This kind of information is useful in scientific and engineering fields. It should be kept on a Wikimedia Foundation project. So the question is, is Wikipedia the right project, or should it go on another? Fg2 07:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - while both wikibooks and wikiversity have chemistry and physics materials (so it might be transwikied), this actually strikes me as encyclopedic. It could use some text added to explain what this all means though (I haven't the faintest idea what the vapor pressure of a liquid might refer to). --SB_Johnny|talk|books 13:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Vapor pressure might provide some context for those considering this AfD. No opinion yet. Michael Kinyon 16:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I doubt a sane engineer would rely on numbers that could be changed by anyone and come from an unknown source. An engineering overview with links to futher information could be useful. Pavel Vozenilek 18:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Sorry to burst your bubble, Pavel, but real-life engineering is often done on the basis of post-it notes and company rumours. Wikipedia tables are above average in credibility. Wikipedia already has lots of data tables, e.g. List of countries by birth rate, and there is no simple reliable equation that can produce these numbers.--Yannick 23:53, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 15:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Films that have been considered the greatest ever

edit

This is listcruft, the title itself is POV, and the article is so inherently biased as to irreparably violate NPOV. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 22:10, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes Wikipedia is so TIGHT. Personally, I could list 1000 "greatest" movies, but please consider this list is not for "the guided," but rather for those needed guidance. So many PEOPLE, new to English, new to movies, young people, curious people, and others COULD be greatly helped by it. Please no self-centered replies about the rules...lolart 00:10, 29 September 2006 (UTC)AAAAA[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Mud People. - Bobet 11:12, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bird Man

edit

Fancruft that fails WP:N and WP:FICT. A very minor character that doesn't rate his own page. Article is filled out with NN fluff to flesh out the lack of relavent info. NeoFreak 22:07, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In order to preserve the GFDL chain, a merge should always include a redirect. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 17:22, 25 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 deletion. enochlau (talk) 02:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Morag Paskins

edit

notability not established. Nekohakase 22:09, 24 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 Mud People. Luna Santin 06:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Toffalar

edit

Fancruft that fails WP:N and WP:FICT. A very minor character in the Sword of Truth series that is not notable enough to warrant his own article. NeoFreak 22:13, 24 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 15:25, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frazer Smith (1932-2003)

edit

Virtually 100% nonsense as far as I can tell. I can quite categorically state that no person of this name ever played for Dundee United or Scotland. I can't turn up any info relating to the alleged Mr Smith at Celtic or Shamrock Rovers either. And this is without mentioning some of the other tremendous flights of fancy included! Jellyman 22:20, 24 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 Keep, even after discounting votes from new users and potential sockpuppets. Deathphoenix ʕ 20:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grease Trucks

edit
  • Delete/Merge I suggest trimming and merging any relevant info on this article to the Rutgers University page (in particular,the Student Life section). The article was deleted on March 4, 2006 in the following afd:
*Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grease Trucks
But was recreated 4 days later on March 8, 2006. The article does not meet Wikipedia notability guidelines which states that a topic must be notable enough that it will be described by multiple independent sources. whilst there only seems to exist one real source of nobility for this article (that being the sandwich award from Maxim magazine in 2004 for the Fat Darrel sandwich along with coverage of that award). Jersey Devil 22:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Comment, I never attended Rutgers University, but I did grow up in New Jersey, and I can tell you that not only have I heard of the Grease Trucks, but I have probably talked about them at least 20 times in my life. This is one of those things that everyone from NJ knows about. I wonder if R U Hungry is still around.... --Descendall 05:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC) Changed to comment, I'm not sure if that makes it noteable[reply]
  • Comment yes, I am from Jersey and am currently a Rutgers University student. I don't understand why 1-3 paragraphs in the "Student life" section of the Rutgers University article isn't a reasonable solution to this. Anyway, I just wanted to find a reasonable consensus on this.--Jersey Devil 06:03, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I am a Rutgers student as well as an experienced Wikipedia editor, people have traveled across the state and from other states to eat here. It is as notable as Chicken and Rice and has been cited in numerous magazines. Its notability equals that of Rutger's NonProductive. How is winning Maxim magazine sandwich of the year not notable? Also the former nomination was hardly an acceptable nomination. The nominator didn't leave a comment nor signature. On top of that there were only 4 responses. Sources for notability: [61], [62], [63], [64].(proved "a topic must be notable enough that it will be described by multiple independent sources.") Valoem talk 09:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge I am a Rutgers alumni and life-long NJ resident. I've met more than a few people from NJ and beyond who when told I went to Rutgers would promptly ask about the "Grease Trucks". I have rarely met anyone from New Jersey who hasn't at least heard of them, and many have been there at least once. The Grease trucks are noted in various sources, most famously in Maxim, and are a well-known part of the Rutgers University social environment. At the very least they deserve mention on the Rutgers University wiki page, though it is probably too complex to detail in a small space. Needs its own entry. --Daveyboy37 17:19, 25 September 2006 (UTC) changed to KEEP and clarified position[reply]
  • Comment I am against a merge since the Grease Trucks have grown beyond just Rutgers culture. Students have traveled from others colleges, including community colleges to have a sandwich I am a primary witness to such events. As a free encyclopedia that require a community to expand, democratic methods can be taken even if an article has been deleted (which I did not know since I created this article from a redirect, an improper one might I add, since Food trucks are not called Grease trucks. The name is unique to these Rutgers trucks). I question the fairness of the previous delete because so few responses were taken. The failure to pass may have been due to poor quality, which I believe I avoided in this article, as well as a lack of research in notability (possibly because of lack of citations). This rewritten version comes complete with citations. A simple search of Grease trucks in Google brings copious amounts of results (notable results might I add). Valoem talk 19:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The grease trucks are a well known regional institution of sorts. I would estimate that the majority of people who went to college in the Greater NJ area since 1990 or so have heard of the grease trucks. They are a ubiquitous aspect of Rutgers college life, a large national univrsity and as such, it is my opinion that the entry is valid and should be retained. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.151.113.139 (talk • contribs)

  • STRONG KEEP. Merging with Rutgers University is not a solution since it isn't solely a matter of "student life"...it's grown beyond its connection with Rutgers (as per Valoem). Though a reference on the Rutgers page is warranted, it's already there in the template and I think under the section titled "points of interest" (if not, i'll correct that). Deletion is not the solution, since this is notable and its notability is cited. This subject is just as notable as the Harvard Fuck Truck...actually moreso. —ExplorerCDT 20:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The Grease Trucks are a staple of the Rutgers campus. This article is not about a single truck on a single corner, it's about a specific group of trucks that cluster together. They are notable especially in light of the Fat Darrell/Maxim Magazine exposure. The history log of this article backs up Valoem's claim that this incarnation of the article was only created on 8/25/06 not March, and therefore should not be speedy deleted. Wl219 12:32, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would suggest that in order to make the Grease Trucks even more notable, references to 2005 Daily Targum articles about the complaints of harassment by female students should be added. Wl219 12:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This should not be deleted. The Grease Trucks are quite notable and have had several articles in magazines and newspapers as well as has been featured on a few shows on The Food Network. AntiG

These comments were moved from the Grease Trucks discussion page which is relevent to the debate 71.245.220.176 16:17, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • "STRONG KEEP"* -- I lived in central jersey for 18 years and though I never attended Rutgers University, I visited the grease trucks on more than one occasion. The flow of young people crowding the area late at night is a social event in itself. Good memories, affordable yummy greasy food, more fun than going to the local diners. The grease trucks are a part of New Brunswick's youth culture. I was looking for information about them to show my west-coast friend and this article conveniently showed up in search results. It was helpful... Please don't delete it...68.171.137.121 07:28, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep When I was in Tampa last fall, Rutgers came to play USF and there was a feature on the grease truck (presumably because of the Maxium article). I think notability extends beyond Jersey. Agne 10:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Luna Santin 19:29, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grzybowski's paradox

edit

Seems to be original research or some very minor (and likely unnamed) paradox. There were no references given. Google searches for the term bring up nothing, and Google searches for Grzybowski math paradox and Grzybowski math bring up a Polish math professor, but nothing relevant to the topic. --Wafulz 23:05, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge with the article on computable numbers - this paradox is not discussed there at present.If Turing considered this paradox, credit it to him. Has anybody found a non-trivial solution of this paradox? (The trivial solution is assuming that the set of all computable numbers does not exist). HTG.
    • It's discussed in the first paragraph under "Properties". Please do not add dubious theoretical claims to Wikipedia. Gazpacho 18:03, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Countability of computable numbers is stated, as well as the fact that Cantor's diagonal argument cannot be used to obtain un uncountable set of computable numbers, but the paradox is not discussed. HTG.
      • About each algorithm there is a unique truth as to whether it generates the n-th digit of a computable real number when given n. So it is possible to form an ordered list of computable real numbers. When such a list is given, Cantor's diagonal procedure gives the n-th digit of a number not from the list in finite time, so the reals generated in this way are computable. This fact should not be interpreted as uncountability of computable real numbers. HTG.
    • Sorry, no. A program either computes a number or doesn't, but you can't decide that computationally. Also, no source.Gazpacho 08:13, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Gazpacho. Here is circumstantial evidence that this is OR: the article's creator, User:HTG, has also made unusual edits elsewhere, such as this one in Luminiferous aether. It may be just a coincidence, but there is a physicist named H. Tomasz Grzybowski who is at the Toruń Centre for Astronomy at Nicolaus Copernicus University in Poland. Michael Kinyon 12:51, 25 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 15:25, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Seifert

edit

Minor musician who has written a very flattering article about himself (see the talk page). Anyway, doesn't meet criteria in WP:MUSIC, and google searches of his name bring up no reliable third party sources for verification. Wafulz 23:29, 24 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. - Mailer Diablo 15:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TV IV

edit

Procedural nomination, user did not use afdx. neutral --Wafulz 23:55, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nominators original reasoning:
Seems no longer to exist! Link doesn't work Echalone 23:46, 24 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, which means the article is kept, but cleanup to exclude all non-notable information. —Mets501 (talk) 00:55, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Ó Ruanaidh

edit

The person has no fame or noteworthiness and is using Wikipedia to promote his resume/CV, in contravention of policy. Tt 225 23:52, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Fails WP:PROF, WP:VAIN. Google search with his full name is much much smaller than the one claimed in the article[66]. His work has received been fairly successful in being cited but its not of a level of encyclopedic notability. Bwithh 02:26, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. His biography, publications and awards add up to notability. Wikipedia already has an article on the notable topic of Digital watermarking, in which Joseph Ó Ruanaidh did pioneering work. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 03:04, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I would like to vote for myself if I can. The comment above about the Google search is not accurate since academic references almost never use first names. --oruanaidh (Talk) 19:07, 25 September 2006 (EST)
  • Keep. His book and work are recommended reading at my university. His work has proved beneficial to solving problems in DSP. Recommend article be kept. Proof: Book stocked in university library. and read frequently for research. --(Linuxwikiuser 01:17, 26 September 2006 (UTC)).[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable.--Holdenhurst 12:31, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This seems to hang on whether Ó Ruanaidh's work is significant and well-known which is, as WP:PROF says, hard for those not in an academic's own field to judge. The article itself leaves a lot to be desired though. The introduction doesn't state the person's notability. If this article survives, I'd suggest starting it with something like 'Dr. Joseph Ó Ruanaidh is an Irish research scientist specialising in digital signal processing techniques.', or some other statement which immediately establishes the grounds for the notability. The link to Google is pointless. The link to Siemens doesn't even mention the subject. And finally, I think the author should have waited for someone else to start this article - Crosbiesmith 19:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with the last entry that the article is too terse and needs to be rewritten. However, on closer inspection it is obvious that the subject is proficient in two different fields at the same time - namely Bayesian Signal Processing and Digital Watermarking. Of the two fields, he is very notable in the field of Digital Watermarking although I am concerned that he has not published in quite a long time. digital_watermarker 20:14, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Before writing this entry, I actually read the list of requirements for entry into Wikipedia where it says, for example, (paraphrased) that the average college professor would not qualify. Evidence must be available that the work of the researcher is highly cited, that he may have written a book read by more than 5000 people (I remember that one), be an invited speaker at conferences etc. etc. I have done all this in spades. It was hard work getting to that level (especially when one had to start at the bottom). Please consider the evidence and the Wiki-guidelines carefully before voting. -- oruanaidh 18:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If, and only if, the article is limited to notable information. Themindset 23:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Luna Santin 19:25, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Drug Watch International

edit

Organization of little significance, no references, and appears decidedly POV (exists solely to promote a particular POV) ////Blaxthos 23:53, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Clarification: I'm sorry to step back in, but I guess I should have been more clear. My points are this:

  1. organization itself is a prop: If you do more than a quick google you'd see that the organization in question is only "published" as a less-than-quarterly newsletter. The newsletters only contain opinion pieces, analysis of non-peer-reviewed studies (although the studies themselves aren't published) and pro-viewpoint news blurbs. They do no original research, and do nothing but blare press releases about themselves. It's all flash.
  2. original research: I can't find anything about this organization that isn't original research... it's all circular. Everything you get on google ends up sourcing back to their own press releases! No one else is writing that they actually do anything.
  3. significance: There are only 6 hits on google. All six source back to the same press releases! Six hits is not a significant organization.
  4. repitition: As someone mentioned, avoid similarities with their own self-published history. How come all these google results read exactly the same? it's all from the same source!

/Blaxthos 07:23, 25 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 repost of deleted content by Uncle G. MER-C 09:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Newgrounds Forums

edit

This article has been recreated 3 times after previous deletion, the Newgrounds forums do not deserve their own article, you should simply write a detailed paragraph about it in the Newgrounds article. Jarvisganon 23:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remain undeleted I belive they are in need in there own article but theve actully been recreated 3 times!? Sorry if it's already made but I do belive they are large enouph I mean look at 4chan or SA Forums Or Nintendo NSider Forums You don't see them deleted. BigBlueMeanie 23:53, 24 September 2006 (UTC)BigBlueMeanie[reply]

Yes, thats true but those other forums are much larger then the Newgrounds one. I think that the forums should be a large section of the Newgrounds article but not an entire page. And they were recreated by the same person all three times, so it wasnt three different people wanting it on. And because it got deleted three times it just shows how worthless it is. Jarvisganon.

  • Comment The SA forums have their own article because they are largely why the website is so popular- the majority of the site's features come from the forums. Also, if this article has been deleted three times it should be deleted as a re-post and protected. --Wafulz 00:10, 25 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_24&oldid=1081097962"