Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 September 3

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log
< September 2 September 4 >

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 Speedy deleted by Eagle 101 as CSD G4. Yomanganitalk 12:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cheetah Girls 3/nom 2

edit

WP:NOT a crystal ball. Tracker/TTV (myTalk|myWork|myInbox) 22:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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





















































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

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 17:17, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mimi Gardner Gates

edit

Article is non-notable. Fails multiple criteria of WP:BIO. --GoOdCoNtEnT 07:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC)art[reply]

  • Strong Keep Being director of the Seattle Art Museum during it's largest and most significant period of expansion is distinctly notable, regardless of who her step-son is. I included into the article a reference to her work in establishing the Association of Art Museum Director guideline against selling museum collection art (a very hot button issue in the art world). Also please look at the biographies in the American curator category and the individuals whose notability is intrinsically tied to their position as Museum curator. Being a major North American museum, SAM's director is a notable position. Additionally she is considered an expert in Asian art and I included reference with ISBN for her work. I would ask the delete votes to review the updated article and reconsider their votes. Agne 17:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as notable as the average tenured college professor. Not to mention her work as a curator is noteworthy.  ALKIVAR™ 21:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was SPEEDY DELETE as recreation of previously speedy deleted content. JIP | Talk 07:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

G-Star

edit

Contested speedy, article apparently created by manager. Notability contested. My vote is Delete Danny Lilithborne 00:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agnostica

edit

Almost non existent Christmas alternative invented by a webcomic. - Hahnchen 00:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - A reason for nomination rather than a summary of the article would be nice. Yomanganitalk 01:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was CANCELLED. Nominated by a serial sockpuppeteer. -Splash - tk 23:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Barnett

edit

Doesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:N S. A. B. 22:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC) — S. A. B. (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Progress report - time frame seems right (she graduated in 1994 which would be about right). I'm still digging. -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 03:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Photographs prove pretty conclusively that this Barnette is the Barnette who competed at MTUSA 1990 (and was a finalist), and thus she is notable in that context, regardless of her news career. Put together, she becomes strongly notable. I will update the article with this info. (Photos - Miss Pennsylvania Teen USA 1990, Picture of Susan Barnette) -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 03:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And how did I miss that she was also Miss Pennsylvania USA 1996? That means she is even more notable. -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 03:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment The official photo per kyw is of a blonde, and the ones you found are from a private website, and I would not ascribe the same level of independence (as they could be subject to errors). The best one I found oft he beauty queen is here. Someone with a better eye can jusdge whether they are of one and the same. My vote remains unchanged. Ohconfucius 06:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The private website (if I assume you're talking about Miss USA magic) has a very high reputation in the pageant community for providing pageant information and photos and I would certainly trust them. There is no picture of her at the link you provided... the pic on the left is of Danni Boatwright and the one on the right is of Holly Roehl (I assume you are talking about the pics close to Susan Barnett's name). Finally, the video footage (see Susan Barnett's article proves that the TUSA photo I linked is legit, and since the current photo is from CBS I can't see what the issue is! -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 07:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep. Barnett probably has some name recognition as co-anchor of the morning news (not prime-time evening news) for the second station in Philly, which is apparently the 4th market in the US. According to the kyw bio, she has won one award which could warrant a closer look of keeping her article (WP:BIO does say "multiple" however). I do not subscribe to the view that every journalist who has ever appeared on TV news to be sufficiently notable for a wiki article, and the category appears to contain more than its fair share of non-notables (at least two county level reporters and a number of fill-in reporters with close to no name recognition and no awards). Susan Barnett seems to be quite a common name. "Susan Barnett" + journalist scores 146 unique out of 231 Ghits, other than the 2 wiki articles, geneology sites, the hits were mainly for other Susan Barnetts; many involved a 1992 case (before the subject graduated from Delaware University) between Food Lion and ABC, another who was Miss Pennsylvania 1996; another was/is assistant psychology prof at NW State U.Ohconfucius 03:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. See my comment below. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 19:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Masago

edit

None notable webcomic, found here and written entirely by the author of the webcomic User:Sirmambo, as he has released selected images under GFDL onto the commons. There is no assertion of notability, and Alexa comes back with a paltry rank of 4 million. - Hahnchen 00:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Explorepda

edit

Non-notable corporation as per WP:CORP Valrith 00:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Firstly, the user who created this article made his/her first edit about a week ago on this article.
  • Secondly, the username of the particular user is Explorepda. This is a compelling evidence of vanity.

Furthermore, a google search shows less than five seperate hits for this company and completely fails the three main criterias of WP:CORP as well. Lastly, in their webpage[1], this company claims to be the leading provider of mobile downloads. This claim, however, is highly questionable. --Siva1979Talk to me 01:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 23:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Mendoses

edit

7 hits, 2 of which are Wiki. No substantive sourcing &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 01:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've improved the sourcing in the article and feel the content is now clearly verifiable The Danish Royal Library seems to be the source for the notorious pirate statement - just follow the links in the article. Editors can decide for themselves whether the subject is sufficiently notable or not. Dlyons493 Talk 15:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- this has naught to do with assuming good faith. Also, how do you know the back-story is verifiable, can you read Danish? BTW, one of the "sources" listed, a book entitled "Den danske Ishavafarer Jens Munk" returns this when when searching Danish sites: Vi fandt ingen resultater for ""Den danske Ishavafarer Jens Munk"": -- In other words, nothing. Speaking of AGF, perhaps it might be wise to assume good faith the the person who nommed it for deletion might actually have done some homework. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 12:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the book does exist - see [2].. So apparently does the magazine article Biografi af Jens Munk er meddelt i "Danebrog" 1882. Dlyons493 Talk 13:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I wasn't doubting good faith on your part, just assuming good faith on the part the editor that created it. I assumed you were nominating on the grounds of non-notability, but since you didn't say, I was covering my bases in case you were claiming it was a hoax. Assuming everything that a nominator of an article says is true isn't a good way to go about discussing an AFD in my opinion. And, yes, I can read Danish, but you can turn up info on the existence and history of other of the characters without having to. [3]Yomanganitalk 14:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! No, I didn't think it was a host, but I disagree with the concept of having articles on every person ever mentioned in some book somewhere. It seems that the concept of notability has been lost. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 15:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentThe book referred to in the article is here. So Mendoses is clearly verifiable. That link also makes a claim for notability - editors need to make their own judgement on that. My view is that there are adequate multiple non-trivial sources. Dlyons493 Talk 14:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We tend to think of pirates as notable because they do so well at the box-office and get women with huge busts. But sadly, this is over-romanticized. These people steal, they do so with impunity, and they still exist--and there's nothing glamorous about floating off of the coast of Somalia and terrorizing the fleets which pass by. I have no reason to doubt the sources, either, and assume good faith--however, I think I can pretty safely assume that in this instance, there's not sufficient notability, even apart from the sourcing issue, and the google hits points to that, but isn't dispositive.-Kmaguir1 02:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The listed articles may prove he existed, but I can point to reliable sources to prove I exist as well. The question is, is this particular pirate notable? Based on the article, the answer is no. He was just another pirate. Resolute 05:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per above. I have faith that the "notorious pirate" quote comes from one of the cited documents, which would suggest that he was somewhat well-known in his day. Google hits are low, yes, but most of the available info on the this guy probably exists offline, and in Danish. Zagalejo 07:53, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, then the Danish encyclopedia can judge him notable.-Kmaguir1 08:26, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt he's that well-known in Denmark -- this is the relut for a search on him in that country: "Vi fandt ingen resultater for ""Jan Mendoses"":" "We find no results for Jan Mendoses" &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 12:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not surprising - the admiral Jørgen Daae only get 4 hits in Danish. The Danish Web is not that extensive. But I don't think we'd be proposing deleting a Jørgen Daae article. Dlyons493 Talk 12:24, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Given that there isn't one, the point is moot. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 15:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — Difficult one this. This is the sort of information you expect to see in an encyclopedia but not as a separate article ( as being hanged as a pirate is hardly an endorsement of importance) - fortunately wikipedia has the space to have these separated or together. If 4 sources that can still be found 400 years after his death then he's more notable than many of the other pirates of the time. The article is better referenced than many pirate articles we have. Tag for importance and come back in a few months. Peripitus (Talk) 12:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete or merge with Jørgen Daae and make an article for him. Whether he was a merchant or a pirate doesn't seem that relevant. Either way he was not-notable. If for example his execution had provoked an international incident he might be notable. JoshuaZ 14:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Wikipedia can afford to include people who were notable in their own times but aren't currently the hottest items in the blogosphere. The name of the admiral is more commonly written Jørgen Daa (which also gets more hits). Whenever that article has been created, a merge may be contemplated, but that is no reason to delete a sourced article now. up+l+and 17:41, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's interesting - it throws up a couple of hits I can't read. Are either usable? Juan de Mendoza and [4] Dlyons493 Talk
Not really, or not directly, at least. One is a historical/genealogical discussion board, the other a private webpage. But the first claims that Mendoses/Mendoza was actually a "Belgian" (Flemish, I suppose) called Mandaus, and gives reference to a report by Daa in a source called Norske Riksregistranter, which appears at least partly to be printed. The other is about the arctic explorer Jens Munk and is probably based on the type of printed sources already in the article here. Searching for Mendoses in Google books gets three hits, one of which is Danish Arctic Expeditions, 1605 to 1620: In Two Books (by several authors). I think there is enough to work from here for anyone who is interested and has a reading knowledge of Danish. up+l+and 18:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bertron

edit

only 162 google hits for "bertron superman" despite the fandemonium that superman usually demonstrates. Let's get this straight: he created a machine, Doomsday, that killed Superman. None of these exist, Bertron, Doomsday, Superman. Everything here you need to know is already on the Doomsday (comics) page. Delete and merge with Doomsday (comics)-Kmaguir1 01:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for reasons given by Kmaguir1THB 17:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Edward Wakelin 21:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Swish (Internet slang)

edit

Neologism, there are no reliable sources on this so it doesn't meet Wikipedia:Verifiability Xyzzyplugh 01:24, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chris & Joe

edit

Does not assert the notability of the subject, seems to be WP:VSCA Leuko 01:46, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmet Köksal

edit

Notability insufficient, per WP:BIO. — ERcheck (talk) 01:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

T'AI-KARA-TE-DO

edit

Advertising. Only two Google hits for T'AI-KARA-TE-DO, and they're word for word copies of each other. This is an ad for a single dojo in South Carolina. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to LGBT. - Mailer Diablo 09:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GLBTQQIA

edit

Neologism. 63 Google hits, of which the first is Wikipedia. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was SPEEDY DELETE per author's request. JIP | Talk 07:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Creatology

edit

Wow. Not entirely sure about this one. On one hand, the subject seems legit but there are serious concerns regarding WP:WWIN, WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:AUTO, and WP:VAIN. The article largely credits and references the work of one man, István Magyari-Beck. The article on István Magyari-Beck recently did not survive an AfD. Furthermore User:81.182.83.171/User:81.182.83.49 admits in Talk:Creatology that he is István Magyari-Beck, that he created the article, and that he wishes the article to be deleted. -AED 20:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)edited 16:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Deville (Talk) 02:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Please defer merge discussion to article talk. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Xeper

edit

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, much less an egyptian hieroglyphic dictionary Kheper (misspelled Xeper here) is an egyptian hieroglyph with no semantic meaning. While words like Ankh have semantic meanings, if we allow kheper to exist, we have to theoretically allow several hundred other symbols without semantic meanings, and any other egyptian word as well. Thanatosimii 20:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Deville (Talk) 02:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In response to the above, let us remember that cross, Star of David and pentagram all have their entries. I am sure you can find more examples of religious symbols throughout WP. As for the spelling, I suppose as a religious symbol we should tend in the direction of Xeper. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis 18:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I will point out again that this is not just any old symbol, but one that is used in a religious context. No, I am not a Satanist; I am an atheist. Your friend, GeorgeLouis
  • Comment. All this talk about a religious semantic is pointless in this instance, since that data is not actually in the page in question. This page is about a fairly insignificant hieroglyph, not the philosophy of the temple of set. And a page on a hieroglyph, probably with the exception of Ankh, is cruft. Thanatosimii 03:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I added the data as suggested. GeorgeLouis 14:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If the temple of set stuff is legit, by all means let it stay (although not necesarrily in this article, perhaps then a redirect will be in order), however everything above "philosophy" in this article is still cruft, and rather erronious. Thanatosimii 16:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus to delete. Fernando Rizo 16:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heat of Battle

edit

A mod for call of duty. The article claims this used to be a popular mod, and I do not claim to know the truth of that, but the statement is unsourced. What I do know is that the homepage has an Alexa ranking in the two millions, the mod itself gets very few hits (the over 40,000 hits one gets for "call of duty" AND "heat of battle is misleading because that phrase is commonly used to describe the core game, only the first 30 or so hits deal with the mod, and nearly all of these are just download mirrors), and the article itself reads like advertsing. Indrian 20:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Deville (Talk) 02:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Deleted, obvious hoax. Cyde Weys 03:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wesurvived

edit

Textbook case of WP:HOAX. Crystallina 03:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete but the article was redirected in the meantime. Erring on the side of caution, and to avoid recreation, let us keep it that way. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 19:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beetle (video games)

edit

This article covers a very minor aspect of one level in Sonic Adventure 2, of which the stage itself does not even have a level. It can't be considered a character (such as one that could be listed in Minor characters in Sonic the Hedgehog because it has no personality and is essentially just a robot, a feature of the level. ScarredSun 03:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete as spam. Sam Vimes | Address me 10:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Surplus business

edit

It is an Advertisement masquerading as an article, the author has been spamming the PLC article with this same stuff, similar names to Radwell have been banned such as Radwell International -Crunchy Numbers 03:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Resolution - The direction this AfD was going, my best bet on the outcome would be: 1.) Not only delete, but 2.) Further action such as a noticeboard report, with all the bells and whistles due for the WP:SPAM. I reported this to an admin recently as I did not want this to end up with permanent blocks, etc (but I was willing to take this further). I want to assume good faith here. Brian Radwell, you help us clean up the articles affected? I believe you are here in good faith as you are participating in this. Therefore, lets work together and clean this up. If you have any questions, I might be able to help, but I am no expert on editing, trust me. I believe your response will have an impact on the closing admin's decision here. JungleCat talk/contrib 03:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I will clean this up asap and then request a review of my changes. I appreciate JungleCat input here and follow the advice. In good faith, Brian Radwell 9:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • This article seems to present useful information, although I'd lose the links to Brian's own firm. I don't quite see the relevance of the hand held scanner image to the article but this seems a good faith effort to have an article on a topic. It needs cleanup, but Keep. I would ask those suggesting delete to relate where this material can be found instead, because the material is encyclopedic in my view. ++Lar: t/c 17:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - "Radwell" has been stripped in the text body. I have kept the link to the Radwell URL as an article Source... I believe Wiki policy allows for a link to a Source? It appears I've had some cleanup help from the Wiki patrol; much appreciated . Thank you admins and users for your feedback. Brian Radwell 11:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looking into the history of this page I see that the post from "Brian Radwell" 11:30, 8 Sept 2006, was added by 12.107.75.162. After looking at the edits from that ip I see that at the same time he is "thanking" us for deleting his spam he has been adding it back anonymously to some of the same articles he defaced in the first place. This person has admitted that Brian Radwell isn't his name and is actually the name of the owner of the company.-Crunchy Numbers 16:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - "I added NO spam at the same time I was thanking anyone for assisting me since JungleCat offered assistance and guided me as to how to remedy this situation. It is an incorrect statement to say I was spamming at the same time or since Junglecat post. The entire post by Crunchy Numbers is not factual. Additionally, I have never said my name is Brian Radwell, and it is not. Brian Radwell is the President/CEO of the company, not me. I have not breeched my integrity in any post. I have to say that this is a real drag on adding anything of substance to this site. .-Crunchy Numbers 16:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC) needs to look at history more carefully. Brian Radwell 3:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]
    • Note to closing Admin I am surprised this AfD is still open. I have gone through (a while back) and removed some of the spam links as of these edits:[8][9][10][11].I have warned the anonymous user who was adding Brian Radwell’s sig to talk to stop as this is in violation of Wikipedia policy here. Brian Radwell has since then only added possible copyvio photo as this. That is it. My patience has been worn out. The registered user Brian Radwell, not the anonymous sock, needed to clear this up, but instead Brian was the sock. Very confusing. What a waste of time, etc. etc. I just wish I would have gone straight to WP:ANI from get-go. Strong Delete this as a violation of WP:SPAM. JungleCat talk/contrib 02:30, 14 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. —Centrx→talk • 07:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Franco Bourbon Kassel

edit

Fails WP:V. No references, only Google hits are Wikipedia and its mirrors. Durova 03:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 19:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Melanie Craft

edit

If her major notability is as the wife of somebody, then she isn't notable enough for her own article. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Virginia delegate race

edit

removed speedy deletion tag because I couldn't find any criteria it'd fit under. However, the article makes no attempt to show WHAT delegate race it is. It's all original research, no cites, no external links etc. POV rampant, and just plain bad writing as well. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 03:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 03:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vita (rapper)

edit

Non-notable per WP:MUSIC. Just a few featured vocals on other artists albums and a couple of minor movie roles in two independent features, one that looks like it never got released. -Nv8200p talk 03:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment If this one gets deleted, many other obscure records would have to go instantly. Lots of new articles are indeed about untraded records (and musicians), means they are not the usual sortiment of media markets. Guess this one is noteable enough. Anyway, i have in mind to discuss the issue (in general) on the village pump. Wikipedia needs more exact policies on what is noteable in terms of music records, musicians.User:Yy-bo 14:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom and WP:MUSIC. Marcus22 15:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She receives label credit on "Down 4 U" and "Put It On Me," both of which were top ten hits in the United States. Does it matter if she wasn't the primary artist if she is still credited with two big hits? It doesn't appear to by WP:MUSIC. Her releases were on a major label. The work she did was with major artists. GassyGuy 04:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

T3GM: Genesis

edit

A book that hasn't been released yet, and is due to be released only on the internet. Plus, it does not meet Wikipedia:Verifiability, not just because it doesn't yet exist, but also because it only gets 2 Google hits: one on Freewebs, the other on a fan fiction forum. Prod tag removed without comment IceCreamAntisocial 03:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CPU3D

edit

Non-Notable software company. Fails WP:CORP and WP:VSCA that fails WP:V. Article was deprodded by author. Michael Greiner 03:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hamblin family

edit

Wikipedia is not a genealogical website. Plus the information is mostly speculation. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. Fernando Rizo 16:56, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beer Die

edit

nn drinking game. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this article needs to be improved not removed. Why delete it anyway? (nn?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.226.72.188 (talk • contribs)

*"'Keep'". I love beer die. It is a big part of my cultural experience and I plan to contribute to the entry.

  • Keep. I have considerable experience in this area since I went through Category:Drinking games a while back and nominated all the ones that didn't show at least one non-mirror Google hit (I was being very generous). This one has its own website; that's good enough for me. Daniel Case 05:32, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment It has its own website, at http://www.beerdiegame.com/ but that website has no alexa ranking. The website is neither a sign of notability nor a reliable source. --Xyzzyplugh 08:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • CommentSeptember 20th, 2006 - I am the creator of www.beerdiegame.com and I can assure you that it is a legit site. Some people may play it differently than others but it's all basicly the same. I learned it at Ball State University from a friend in ZBT. His brothers brought the game back from out east in the early 90's. Originally played on a door that had been ripped off frame. From there we/it evolved into what it is today. Minor changes to the game to only make it better and more competitive, like adding the net with the fringe so you can see if the die goes under the net. Circles on each corner among other rules.
  • Delete drinking games are not inherently notable, does not meet any notability standards otherwise. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 11:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • We have quite a category of drinking games (see above), actually, and even a nav template in some of the more popular ones. Now some IMO should clearly be deleted, but when references were put in by badlydrawnjeff (I think), they were kept despite very minimal web presence. I am more partial to saving a drinking game if it has its own site and not just a mention on "submit a drinking game" type sites. (And we definitely need to delete TV-based drinking games like this. Daniel Case 14:55, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Almost anything has a website nowdays. no verifyability from reliable sources for this drinking game. Definately non-notable . Peripitus (Talk) 12:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete Website OK but not WP:NOTABILITY (hits) User:Yy-bo 17:12, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete not quite noteable enough
  • Delete not notable. Marcus22 15:43, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed vote to Keep Just looked at Daniel Case's g hits. There are a lot not related to Beer Die and a lot in German - which means little to me - but it also looks like there are an awful lot of people out there who have heard of this. That does it for me. Looks notable enough. Marcus22 19:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per nom. --Dennis The TIger 16:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prior vote retracted, switch to Keep. If Quarters is in and if Bouncing coins survives, frankly, so should this. Yes, it's silly, but frankly, so is The Fifth Element drinking game. --Dennis The TIger 16:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Don't Delete!! This is a legit game with complex offensive and defensive strategies. It is in the interest of the people to have this page up and running on wikipedia. Froda —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.144.193.245 (talk • contribs) .

Note: edited for a verbiage correction on my own text. See history for prior text. --Dennis The TIger 20:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC) [reply]
    • 43 Man Squamish is, as the article notes right off the bat, notable because it was invented by MAD magazine as a joke, but so great was the popularity and influence of the magazine that students at a number of colleges formed teams to try and play it.

      I can't believe I'm the inclusionist here. I have demonstrated above that a) Wikipedia has a number of drinking game articles and b) Google returns 103,000 hits for this game, very few of which are mirrors. Upgrading my vote to Strong keep to make my point better. Daniel Case 02:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: This is precisely what I said: 43MS is a notable parody of sports, and you have demonstrated exactly why it is notable by effectively summarizing the article.

    It's my opinion that you should not so much be more assertive in defending the article, but find better assertion in why the article should not be deleted. How you do that is left as an exercise. --Dennis The TIger 19:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • "...you should not so much be more assertive in defending the article, but find better assertion in why the article should not be deleted."
      Hmm ... how exactly are those two different? I thought by doing the first I was doing the last. Daniel Case 04:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In and of themselves, no. But eliminate 25% of the ghits for this and you've still got well over 70,000. We've kept articles with far less than that as a measure of sheer notability. I believe that in this case the ghits are a proxy for whether people actually play this game. We've got multiple non-mirror sites discussing and delineating rules for this. To address a point that's come up in other drinking-game AFDs, there are places to go if someone challenges where a particular rule came from other than Wikipedia. Daniel Case 04:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but subjects with zero ghits would be fine, just so long as they cited reliable sources and were thus verifiable. This article doesn't do that, so it has to go. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why I said keep or merge - there's plenty of "reliable" "verifiable" sources available for this, check Amazon. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Deja vu all over again. You have your book but I don't think it's a reliable source. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So this basically comes down to whether this book is a reliable source or not. I suggest we put on hold any deletions over this issue until you settle this one. Daniel Case 03:25, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Everybody please look at this one for comparison, where there are many of the same issues but the ultimate consensus was keep. Daniel Case 04:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also here. Daniel Case 04:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: That's precisely what I was looking for. =^_^= Stand by for my own retraction and recast. --Dennis The TIger 15:58, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep You won't change the importance of this game at Colby, Middlebury, Dartmouth or wherever else it is played, by removing it from Wikipedia. However, just because this game may not be "notable" to some people on this chat, that does not mean this resource should be deleted. Would you understand how to play this game if you hadn't heard about it on Wikipedia? Would you even know about it? I learned about it through friends from school, but now I know people who use this website to verify the rules and find out different strategies - whether they're new to the game or veterans. Keep! definitely keep! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.232.62.11 (talk • contribs) . *Keep. To those of us who have spent literally hundreds of hours playing this game, its relevance is unquestionable. The most compelling reason to keep this is that it is a valuable resource to those who choose to play Beer Die. Additionally, one of the great things about the game is that while there are basic, undeniable rules, the more nuanced rules are open to discussion, debate, and style. This wikipedia entry provides a necessary forum for hashing out those nuances. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jjabodee (talk • contribs) . *KeepWhat makes our country great is the freedom to spend days on end throwing balls at cups - and the right to spread the gospel of the sheer beauty of the game to others.

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Webcam Effect

edit

WP:OR - original research and a non-notable neologism. Crystallina 04:28, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete all. - Mailer Diablo 09:33, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tessa Carlson

edit

Reality TV show cruft, not notable outside TV show. Renominating after a train wreck. Also nominated for the same reason are:

  1. Ebony Haith
  2. Nicole Panattoni
  3. Giselle Samson
  4. Heather Blumberg
  5. Jenascia Chakos
  6. Anna Bradfield
  7. Bethany Harrison
  8. Xiomara Frans
  9. Nicole Borud

MER-C 04:53, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with the deletion of these contestants; however, reality show contestants are a lot different than game show contestants. Elcda0 17:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, but that is beside the point. They are contestants, exactly like these people are. There is absolutely nothing about reality television that is inherently notable. It is simply another genre of entertainment. And the point is, simply appearing as a contestant on a popular television show does not make one worthy of an article. Nobody outside of their families cared about any of these contestants a week after they lost, and nobody will remember them a year after. They are not notable. Resolute 21:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nonsense. Very few, if any (outside of Ken Jennings) are able to spin one of two time appearances into careers, unlike many reality contestents. Furthermore, game shows do not have the same sort of long-term cultural cache for its contestents that reality shows clearly have. Reality television is inherently notable. The amount of discussion, newsworthiness, and attention these shows get proves it quite easily. Perhaps when the day-to-day happenings on "Wheel of Fortune" get the sort of attention "Survivor" does, it'll be worth a discussion. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are correct that the shows are notable, which is why the show itself is not up for deletion. As for turning an appearance on a reality show into a carreer, that may make such an invididual notable depending on what carreer and how far they get. There is no indication that any single individual on this list has done so, however.
  • Really, the only thing you have shown is that other people who have done other things have become notable after appearing on a television show. You havent shown that appearing on a reality show itself confers notability on an individual. Resolute 21:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was CANCELLED. Part of a socketry attempt. -Splash - tk 23:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie Stahl

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 Speedy Deleted per A1/A3. Xoloz 00:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Disassociate

edit

Webcomic and "anonymous column" i.e. a blog by any other name, that doesn't look like it'll make WP:WEB. Daniel Case 05:28, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kingdom of Drakkar

edit

Internet RPG whose main page hasn't been updated since 2001, has an alexa ranking of 6,045,517, no assertion of notability beyond being an online RPG, 67000 google results but a lot of those seem to be lists of RPGs Lid 05:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Electric Head (band)

edit

Notability claim of being well known in the Cinncinati underground dubious and doesn't seem to ascertain true notability article, probably a hoax considering other sections, no discography Lid 05:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AUTHOR'S NOTE: Uh...did you ask anyone in the Cincinnati underground? Probably not, because if you did, you would not be using the word "dubious," you'd be using the word "obvious." Sorry about the discography, my bad, I fixed it. Also, I resent the idea that this article is a hoax. Just because these guys choose to show some individuality in a world of meaningless Top 40 homogenized crap in which "music" has about as much flavor for the ears as extruded cardboard has for the mouth, doesn't mean they're frauds. It means that they stomp some serious backside.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lordpox (talk • contribs) User:Lordpox is also the writer of this article. --Metropolitan90 06:46, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:V. The problem with "underground" hits is they're unverifiable, like the EP from Chimichanga productions: ([13]). In fact the only company I can find of that name is the personal label of comedian Jim Gaffigan. As far as Electric Head is concerned, I can't find anything on them beyond a myspace page, with a blog entry that says they're "now legit" ([14]) because they're on Wikipedia. Fan-1967 06:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to lack of indication that this band meets any of the WP:MUSIC criteria. --Metropolitan90 06:46, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless sources can be added showing this band meets the standards of WP:MUSIC or is in any way notable.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjaminx (talk • contribs) 07:05, 3 September 2006
  • Delete per Fan-1967. The idea is that the band becomes "legit" through other means and then gets listed here, rather than the other way around. BigHaz 07:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Doesn't meet WP:MUSIC, and using Wikipedia for advertising. --Wafulz 22:41, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do not delete. Certainly meets WP:MUSIC, And you can tell this band is using the wikipedia to greater the benefit the world of the internet user. Electric Head is using the wikipedia to allow users to learn about the band. I have been to a few underground shows where Electric Head has played and I liked them and wanted to learn more about them. I can now, I really enjoy that.. --Pirate-M.Lifnen 8:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC) — Pirate-M.Lifnen (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
      • Lifnen is absolutely right. Electric Head's music is inventive to the point that it is difficult to really pin a genre on them. This means that it is difficult for them to find record companies that are willing to take risks on them. They're self-released stuff has been nothing short of amazing, and I fully believe that a few years down the road, they will be hailed among the saviors of rock music. Until just recently, definitely notable punk band Anti-Flag were still releasing things on their own record label, and I saw no one questioning them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lordpox (talk • contribs) User:Lordpox is also the writer of this article. – Lid –(Talk) 23:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • And you can tell this band is using the wikipedia to greater the benefit the world of the internet user. And therein lies the problem. Wikipedia isn't the place to tell people about the amazing band you've just come across. It's the place to write about bands who are notable already. When Electric Head is notable (and passes WP:MUSIC, which it does not), then it gets an entry. Until then, let's stick to MySpace or somewhere like that. BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 21:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete Electric Head's Wikipedia page. They are a real band, they play lots of shows, and just because they aren't very well known doesn't justify deleting their entry. I, for one, found the page very interesting and informative.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.128.47.4 (talk • contribs) — 69.128.47.4 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Nobody ever said they didn't exist. What's in question is their notability, and in a question like that the fact that "they aren't very well known" most emphatically does become relevant for deleting their entry. BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 21:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a notable band though. Thats why people want the wiki to stay up. I am just confused as to how this is not a notable band.. --Pirate-M.Lifnen 7:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC) — Pirate-M.Lifnen (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Contribution actually made by 216.48.128.10 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Does the band pass any of the relevant criteria at WP:MUSIC? There seems to be no evidence that it does. If there's no evidence that it does, it's not notable in the sense that the term is used here. The band may very well be notable to people who've seen them perform live, but that doesn't mean that they get an article here. BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 12:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was {{wi}}. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 19:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Automagically

edit

Dicdef, already in wikitionary, doubt there are any reliable sources about this subject, though they might mention it in passing. Recury 05:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure, I've come across it over the years in technical articles in places like Byte and Dr Dobbs but don't have any definite pointers. It's on Usenet since before 1990 e.g. [15] Dlyons493 Talk 16:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not questioning its usage, I'm just questioning whether non-trivial sources are available (that is, sources that do more than just mentioning it or using it). Recury 19:26, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • {{wi}} Let's at least let readers know where to find the definition; also, let's give people a chance to make this an encyclopedia article if they think they have the sources and can make it pass WP:WINAD. May as well leave this history, too. --ais523 08:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
  • {{wi}} works for me. It's a notable enough piece of computer slang, and there is potential for a more-than-dicdef. Guy 12:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete, csd G7 per author request below -- Samir धर्म 03:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I Am Jack

edit

This article is decently written, long, and in depth. Trouble is, it's just simple vanity. I don't know what else to say. A comic strip in a college newspaper should not merit inclusion in enWiki. alphaChimp laudare 06:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge and redirect. Fernando Rizo 17:09, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Phase I clone trooper armor

edit

Total fancruft, not notable, entirely fantastic. Someone should try to source this multiply--not sure... lots of google hits, but that hardly is a good standard for fancruft-Kmaguir1 06:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Canon, like what? Religious canon? It's trooper armor for clones, clones who do not exist, and armor which does not exist. Does their armor that doesn't exist, and a detailed examination of that non-existence, convey any content to the non-existent clones, or the very-existent drones obsessed with this fancruft? If they have Phase II clone trooper armor (which is next up, by the way), does that protect them from more non-existent things? Merging is an option in addition to deletion, but deletion is the only rational option. Pure, unadulterated fancruft.-Kmaguir1 08:24, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If non-existence was a sufficient criterion for deletion, we would have to delete literally tens of thousands of articles related to Star Wars, Star Trek, The Lord of the Rings, and so on. And that's using "literally" in its correct form, not as a synonym for "figuratively". However, I agree with you that this particular article is fancruft. JIP | Talk 08:46, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'd be willing to make a article similar to List of Ranged Weapons in Star Wars, except for armor and types, from the KOTOR armor and weaves all the way up to clone and stormtrooper armor. Wooty 21:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zoomag

edit

Advertisement, spam Kmaguir1 06:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kamains world

edit

Fan forum for the RPG Maker series. It has 609 members, which is less than marginal, and has an Alexa rating of 3,243,548. Fails the website notability guidelines. Coredesat talk. ^_^ 07:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Murphy's laws-all

edit

Listcruft with a horrible article name; evidently, this stuff wouldn't fit into the Murphy's Law article, so it got shuffled off to a separate article. Brianyoumans 07:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was CANCELLED. Socksocksocksocksock. -Splash - tk 23:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tracy Davidson

edit

Doesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:N S. A. B. 22:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC) — S. A. B. (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

The result was already redirected to proper capitalization. GRBerry 01:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Syed ali akbar

edit

First principal of the first evening college in India? Brother of someone? I hardly think that this is notable, and only answers.com and wikipedia mention it. Hmm. I don't think so.-Kmaguir1 07:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There was nothing to merge! I've turned it into a redirect to Syed Ali Akbar. Taking the AfD notice off will activate that. Dlyons493 Talk 13:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Karla LaVey

edit
Karla LaVey, current High Priestess of the First Satanic Church and former High Priestess of the Church of Satan making one of her regular appearances on Fox News as a Satanism and Occult Expert

Person is of insufficient significance to merit an entire article. Person in question is a local radio DJ and relative of a more famous person but not a famous person herself. Lvthn13 07:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia policy on notability. This individual does not qualify under the Wikipedia standards as a notable person, and the article itself has never advanced beyond being a stub. Additionally, the article for her organization should be given the same consideration and is likewise a stub. -Lvthn13 08:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete Compare to other articles in this category for notability. User:Yy-bo 14:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm concerned that this nomination may not be being made entirely in good faith as the nominator is presently involved in the following dispute. However, if I'm misinterpreting this (I read it as a way to win the dispute about the use of the category by deleting the articles the editor does not wish it applied to) then I am happy to discuss Karla LaVey's notability. Dina 18:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I understand how it looks this way, but actually that discussion only drew my attention to this article in the first place. If this article is not deemed worthy of deletion, then so be it. -Lvthn13 19:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep I'll grant you the good faith but I'll have to disagree with the nom. The correct spelling of her name gets 15,200 Ghits most of which seem to be about her. Variants get another bundle. There's apparently some dispute within Satanism over her fathers will and her splinter group church First Satanic Church. The article needs work, and the controversies need to be explored in the article. And I know as an outsider to this I find this information that is new to me utterly fascinating is not a criteria for a keep. But I think she passes WP:BIO with the various articles about her, her church founding, in addition to being Anton LaVey's daughter. Dina 22:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • It would appear that a large number of the google search results are cursory mentions of her as a relative of Anton LaVey, though I will grant that there are a number that appear to be specific mentions of her. However, a google search for a college professor of mine got over 2,000,000 hits and the top 50 results which I browsed are almost all mentions of her specifically, but she hardly qualifies as a notable person by Wiki standards. So I can admit that there is public documentation on Karla LaVey, but whether this constitutes anything significant enough to merit an encyclopedic entry is another matter. I also feel like her organization is perhaps not of any realistic significance except as a minor footnote of the CoS, but I do not feel like I should discuss that for POV reasons. I am acting in good faith here, there are plenty of articles about people I do not like or agree with that I nevertheless think merit an article, but Karla is not one of them. -Lvthn13 01:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep Karla LaVey is the head of First Satanic Church which holds numerous annual events in San Francisco. Ms. LaVey is a regular contributor to Fox News as well as MSNBC for Satanism/Occult/Paranormal topics. A LexisNexis search will reveal many interviews from Ms. LaVey in addition to a notable amount of attention given to her organization, events and speaking engagements. I think the notion of a deletion, on this topic, by this user, is questionable at best. Absinthe 02:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This user has said here that he/she is a personal acquaintance of Karla LaVey, leading to a possible conflict of POV and bias. The article considered for deletion does not link to or source any specific articles about Karla LaVey or by her, but only makes a broad unsourced statement that she has made public appearances (it does mention appearances on documentaries on Satanism, but in neither of those was she discussed, but only appeared onscreen briefly). If there is a notable amount of attention given to this person, it has not been borne out by sources and especially by the article as it stands. The burden is not to prove that someone is not notable but to prove that they are notable, which has not been done.
As for my own neutrality, I have written and contributed to Wikipedia articles for some time, and in that time I've been involved in disagreements, all of which were satisfactorily resolved by mutual understanding and discussion. I have never shown resistance to making appropriate concessions nor have I showed bias by consistently removing "unfavorable" comments when they are properly sourced, and I certainly have not endeavored to remove the name of any notable figure where relevant. My actions here are in good faith, and I am not nominating a well-written full length article for deletion, I am nominating an article with minimal content about a person of questionable notability. The best way to resolve this is clearly by having this discussion now, which is why I have brought this nomination. -Lvthn13 02:39, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I disagree with your statement that The burden is not to prove that someone is not notable but to prove that they are notable. In Afd I believe the burden of proof is on the nominator. Dina 09:35, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is impossible to prove a negative. However, in the absence of good evidence that she is notable, we must believe that she is not and therefore the meaning of my statement should be clear. Yes, I believe I should justify the nomination, but I cannot prove it. It can be proven that a person meets Wikipedia notability standards, so there is where the proof has to lie. The best I can offer is to ask "Where is the proof?" So far, I really see none. -Lvthn13 04:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The person doesn't have a notability that warrants its own Wikipedia entry. You could just as well add the few sentences about her to the Anton LaVey bio page. To make an analogy here, there's a man named Louis Osbourne who is also a DJ, has made media appearances, and is the first son of a famous male celebrity and his previous wife (namely Ozzy Osbourne and his first wife Thelma), but there's no need for a Louis Osbourne page when a sentence or two on the Ozzy Osbourne page will do. WillieBlues 21:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I might agree with you if this person wasn't a.) the head of a religious organization and b.) a subject of interest in various documentaries, cable news segments, books and interviews for her own accomplishments. I don't think your analogy draws appropriate parallels with regard to notability. Absinthe 22:20, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment She didn't found any religion though, and was not the subject of any documentary, she merely got her face in. Being vaguely mentioned as a relative to a famous person again does not make you validly famous yourself, nor does a few television appearances (I've done television interviews, but I don't need a Wikipedia page). She's not authored any books, either. I believe the above analogy is excellent, and I likewise agree that Karla does merit mention on the Anton LaVey page but not particularly her own page. She is, to be very blunt, a footnote. -Lvthn13 03:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Comment Nobody is claiming she founded a religion. Simply that she is certainly a person of interest within the media, the Satanic community, as well as the city of San Francisco. One has to ask themselves why you are so intent on seeing this entry deleted considering that you contribute so devoutly to an entry of a person of very similar background (read: Peter H. Gilmore). Could there perhaps be an issue of good faith here, considering that you are obviously affiliated with a rival organization?
My only point is that it is crystal clear that Ms. LaVey is a person of interest among various topics, and that having an entry would serve to quickly summarize who she is and what functions she serves in the public eye. This deletion nomination is somewhat disheartening with regard to the issue of good faith within the Wikipedia community. One only needs to look at the exchange here to see the motivation for your nomination. Absinthe 05:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It seems to me a much greater issue of good faith that you're more intent on attacking my character than on improving the existing articles. You bring up articles that are not related and most of your comments here have included an ad hominem attack on me. This does not prove anything about Karla LaVey or her article and is a red herring. You're not making it crystal clear that Karla is notable because you're not providing sources or solid evidence that she meets the Wikipedia standards of notability, you only insist that she is. If this were such an obvious issue of good faith, why would the vote presently be split as to whether this article should remain? Were it so obvious that this article belongs I should not imagine this would be the case. Further, the very discussion you have linked to indicates, again, that you are a personal acquaintance of Karla LaVey. In all good faith, I should think that if you know her so well it should be an easy matter to provide ample real evidence that she is notable rather than merely saying so. I suggest that attempting to shoot down this nomination through me rather than refute it legitimately is a negative tactic. -Lvthn13 05:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why do I bring up this link? Because the person in question is clearly visible on Fox News, is credited as president of an organization, and has web results that mention him, but probably none of us know who the fellow is and he doesn't have a Wikipedia article as a result. Just getting on the news doesn't make you notable.

Further evidence should be apparent in the fact that this very debate hasn't exactly generated a storm of interest. Were Karla LaVey an especially notable person, you'd think her page would generate enough traffic and be on enough watchlists that more people would be chiming in one way or another. Very few have, especially for the "head of a religious organization" of supposed notability, a topic you'd think would arouse considerable interest in her followers. I reiterate, Karla LaVey is a footnote to the life of Anton LaVey.

Also, the image of Karla LaVey does not contain a copyright tag. It must contain said tag to remain on Wikipedia. -Lvthn13 08:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per Absinthe. She is apparently the "go-to" quote source for a major news network as an expert in her area. Though as a comment, I don't think images in AfD is needed. If the image is in the article then we'll see when we review the article. Agne 18:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


I am unpersuaded by the unsupported claim that an encyclopedia article sourced to reliable, reputable publications may be written on the subject of the "Pizza Corner" of Halifax. Besides, surely such monikers exist for a thousand other little spots—alone reason enough to approach any such write-up with considerable caution. Hence, delete. Regards —Encephalon 10:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Pizza Corner

edit

0 for 2. Firstly, the intersection in Nova Scotia: there's little reference to it that can be found quickly, but even if there were, are intersections of streets inherently notable, unless there's a connotation of a neighborhood, like Dupont Circle. But no, I doubt anyone is saying "Oh, yeah, I live in Pizza Corner". Secondly, the pizza place in N. Dakota: I did see something of it on google, but I find it hard to believe it's notable outside of its neighborhood, as well. Kmaguir1 07:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete It's a brand label; probably not noteable; must be nationwide product, not local product. User:Yy-bo 17:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Pizza Corner is a well-known landmark in the Halifax area. A Google search for "pizza corner" +halifax turns up 1400 hits, more than Armdale Rotary (another famous local intersection). The city has even recognized the name: [17] The North Dakota product is too obscure to me, though if someone from North Dakota chimed in as to how well-known the brand name is there, I'll change my mind. And for what it's worth, the first Ghit for "Pizza Corner" is a 36-___location restaurant chain in India. Kirjtc2 21:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's ridiculous. Look, the search didn't pick up any substantial results for Pizza Corner as the one in Nova Scotia--the North Dakota one actually did better in term of google. Of course, we know that's not dispositive, but this is just not notable apart from this. An intersection has to actually be a landmark, or notable as a neighborhood, like Dupont Circle. The link you gave me shows the lack of notability--even they refer to it as "so-called pizza corner"--it's disingenous to call that "recognition", at least as qualifies on a global level. Look, it's just a corner in a city. That's not a notable. If it were a neighborhood, or an actual landmark, it'd be a different thing. In fact, your document states that the area is becoming an "eyesore", which argues strongly against your contention that it's a "landmark", as few intersections are--it could conceivably still be a notable neighborhood, but there's no evidence of that in any of the google searches, not on the page you gave me, really nowhere. I'd suggest you look at the Wikipedia notability guidelines, and reconsider your opinion.-Kmaguir1 22:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First off, I point to the RFC currently against you for, among other things, incivility. Secondly, if you actually looked at the Google hits for "pizza corner" +halifax, you will notice many references to it that identify it as a local cultural reference point, more so than any other intersection in downtown Halifax, if not the whole city. There's no neighborhood called "pizza corner", but it is universally used as a reference point for other things in town. People would not say "it's in Pizza Corner" (unless it's actually on there), but would just as much say "it's near Pizza Corner". Just because it's an "eyesore" (which, I'll admit, it is) does not make it any less of a landmark. Kirjtc2 02:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your definition of a landmark as that by which all other places are differentiated, like "It's near Pizza Corner", is not the proper definition of a landmark--it hasn't been designated as such, as a landmark, by anyone. When it does, you can recreate the article. Until then, there's not a scrap of information that gives this notability. It falls short on the roads criterion, falls short on the intersection notability criterion, and it's not a landmark, on its face. Reference points are not meant for wikipedia, either--should the "third stop sign after Mitchell St." be on Wikipedia? Also, on the RfC, address your comments to the item in question, Pizza Corner, and not on me--it's entirely irrelevant.-Kmaguir1 03:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Deleted: Part of vanity/astroturf spamming. —Centrx→talk • 00:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Charles D'Aprix Economic Development Innovator

edit

Non-notable topic, the phrase "Charles D'Aprix" gets just over 100 results on Alexa and about 1000 results on Google. Also, every article edit made by this article's creator, Dohertydot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), has done nothing but advertise whoever this person is. Tuxide 07:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep, the nominator no longer recommends deletion. — CharlotteWebb 17:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Culture of Saint Lucia

edit

The topic this article purports to address is in fact better addressed in the Saint Lucia page in a section entitled "culture". But as it is, there is very little that can stand alone, in that, it's all better covered on the previous page. Merge and delete. Kmaguir1 08:02, 3 September 2006 (UTC) I'll change to keep, and wait to see developments from people involved on both pages, to see if room for expansion would be needed.-Kmaguir1 22:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The article Saint Lucia may be getting long enough that splitting off a Culture of article isn't a bad idea. If the editors over there agree, I would say merge all the content to the new article. If not, then merge back and redirect. --Brianyoumans 08:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I disagree with that assessment, because the culture page is not significant enough as it is--they should create that new page when they have enough info to fork it. I left a message on the talk page bringing people to this discussion of deletion. It's a pretty small country, and I feel that while it has a rich culture, the actual Saint Lucia page gets to the heart of it, and not this page.-Kmaguir1 08:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 19:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Baklunish Basin

edit

Good technical argument here: the reference is basin, and we can't be expected to know if that's figurative or literal, but that it probably, most likely, refers to a basin, or topographical feature. None of the other links in the article do that. So I think we'd be fine with just "Baklunish", and not the basin--we don't really need fictional topographical features on Wikipedia, do we? I would err on the side of delete, because these gaming things really get out of control--let's at least try to set a limit on topography. Is there precedent as to that?-Kmaguir1 08:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Please note that there is already a Baklunish article (which is even linked in this acticle--perhaps you should read the entire thing before calling for deletion?), which refers to the Baklunish people & culture. Wikipedia is chock-full of fictional topography. I don't see how this is different, so long as such fictional items can't be mistaken for real things. As for "gaming things really get out of control"--please explain what you mean. I was not aware that gaming articles violated Wikipedia policies any more than other types of articles. Then again, if your statement was simply meant to show a bias against gaming, then you should probably do as the above poster suggested, and "refer clearly to a WP policy."--Robbstrd 16:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Robbstrd. And unless there is a Baklunish washbasin article possibility somewhere, I don't believe that disambiguation is required either. - Jc37 19:12, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Flanaess or Baklunish, neither of which is very long, per WP:FICT point 2: "[n]on-notable minor characters (and places, concepts, etc.) in a work of fiction should be merged". "There are worse articles" or "You didn't nominate X" are bad reasons to keep an article at AFD. And outside of Greyhawk and its spawn, is there anything written about this ? If not, policies like WP:V and WP:OR might be applicable. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is an active community of Wikipedians working on these World of Greyhawk references, and this article will continue to grow. There is little doubt that the term is used extensively in Greyhawk materials, and the effort to quash fictional locations seems ill-considered given the fact that the encyclopedia teems with them already (per Fairsing's observation above) and they will continue to be added long into the future.Iquander 07:31, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing comment: verifiability is not a problem, but unless the article documents something really important, it might be better to merge it. And by "important" I mean really important. Remember it's just a fictional place among many in a gaming system. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 19:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Route 309A (Florida)

edit

This article is about a road that does not seem to exist and is of no notable importance. Just because there are other non-notable articles like this in Wikipedia should not be a justification. Those non-notable articles should also be deleted. It can be included in a list and this information can be merged into a list but it does not justify its own standalone article. The real question is: Was this particular road notable? --- Skapur 03:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as a seemingly non-existant road. Current consensus on Wikipedia clearly maintains that any highwya that an American state has bothered to number as part of its state highway system is worthy of inclusion, but I'm not convinced that this road actually exists. There is a Route 309 that connects the cities mentioned in the article, but aparently no 309A. I will gladly switch to keep if I am shown to be wrong, however. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 12:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This road is now County Road 308B (as shown on a 1997 DeLorme atlas; I may also have a photo of the signage on southbound US 17); it was State Road 308B until the mass decommissioning of the 1980s. I have an FDOT Putnam County map that says it was renumbered in 1971, and a 1965 Rand McNally atlas that shows it as 309A. So it is verifiable.
On the other hand, this article is badly named and rather useless, and should be a redirect to one of State Road 308B (Florida), County Road 308B (Florida) or County Road 308B (Putnam County, Florida). So I have no opinion on whether this particular article should remain, but no precedent would be set by its deletion. --SPUI (T - C) 19:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Shell babelfish 21:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per SPUI's comments. I'm surprised by the editors who said "keep per SPUI", since SPUI made no effort to keep, and if SPUI's comment were to be counted as a "vote", it would be as a redirect to an article that does not exist yet. Lacking that article, this one-liner should be deleted, as it has no historical purpose. -- NORTH talk 05:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:33, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Property investment clubs

edit

Written in bad HTML by single-purpose account to hawk real estate in the UK. It has been abandoned and unedited since August 10. Baseball,Baby! balls•strikes 08:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep and cleanup. BaseballBaby 09:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elliott Kalan

edit

Article apparently created with a speedy tag (recreated?); author added info which appears to claim notability; moving here for comments. NawlinWiki 16:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep - needs a substantial rewrite, but there are quite a few independent mentions on Google about the subject. Blowski 17:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I stuck on the original speedy tag because the article was not very serious and contained clearly incorrect information. Right now the reecreated article is borderline notable but is sufficently encyclopedic that I wouldn't consider it for a speedy. Whether it now meets WP:BIO is for editors more aware of the subjet matter to determine. We certainly have many worse articles that have not been deleted. --Spartaz 20:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Shell babelfish 22:37, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - borderline notable, has IMDb entry, needs major cleanup though — FireFox (talk) 11:27, 03 September 2006
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 19:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

edit

I don't see this getting much beyond being just a definition. SeizureDog 18:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Shell babelfish 22:48, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Decentralized Model to Decentralized system. The curent article is an unreferenced personal essay. Federated Model stays for a separate deletion nomination, since it is generically bad. `'mikka (t) 22:00, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Decentralized Model and Federated Model

edit

This article was made by one user who also claims to be the creator of the very system that it talks about. Speedy was removed, as was prod twice, but I still have questions about this article's notability and other information related to it. I may add several other articles to this list if speedy tags are removed from them as well. Ryūlóng 06:43, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the other article to this AFD, as the speedy was removed by the same editor who removed the prod. I am unsure as to whether or not this person is the author, though. Ryūlóng 06:45, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've been in discussion with the author about the concept of federated system models and decentralized models and everytime I refer back to the article, it has notice. The author does claim he invented the concept, but has willing remove any such claim to allow the article to stay. - reader — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.186.238.190 (talk • contribs)
    • But that is not the issue here. The issue is whether or not these articles should be included as part of Wikipedia based on actual notability and use of these things, despite the author being the creator of the concepts. Ryūlóng 06:57, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Point taken. The naming is similar to other articles in Wiki. The concept actually mainly refers to a decentralized software model. Whether it's notable, I'm not the expert, but being a software developer, the concept is intriguing. - reader — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.186.238.190 (talk • contribs)
        • The intriguing or naming is also not the issue either. It is an issue on the truth behind the content, as well as what appears to be vanispamcruftisement. Also, please sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). Ryūlóng 07:08, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • That's a interesting term. I'm not interested in enforcing anything, but the definition of vanispamcruftisement is highly subjective. I, we, thought that wikipedia was an all encompassing encyclopedia of all things, big or small to big or small groups. I agree, ownership should be removed, but notibity is also subjective. You do what you see fit, but I'd change the name to have it suit the concept better and leave it for the public to decide. I can't help mention that Open Space Technology started on a similar foot as a concept and is still considered unimportant on wikipedia, but it's there and I can say it's in practice where I work.206.186.238.190 07:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • It is an all encompassing encyclopedia, but there are issues that concern the notability, etc. of this/these computer system(s), particularly due to the fact that the original author created the program(s) in the first place. I realize that it is subjective, but when an author publishes his own work to Wikipedia, he has more to gain from that than anything else. Ryūlóng 07:30, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • I really don't want this disputed any further. Just delete the article. I don't understand why it is such an issue to publish a concept by the author or creator of that concept who of course would know it best, and I mean any concept by anyone. Anyone can dispute ownership, but I really don't care who claims ownership over this. It's a concept, not a product, to freely share amongst the public and wikipedia looked like a good medium for it. Again, just delete it, both Federated Model and Decentralized Model, which I agree should have been named Decentralized Software Model, though I still think Federated Model is as notible as Federated school which is really a type of federation, but I'm not disputing a thing at this point. Also, how do I delete my account? Robert Demelo 07:49, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Judging from Google, it seems to be a term commonly used: Dept. of Vet. Affairs (US), news about Dept. of Energy, and more. --TeaDrinker 07:51, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there an update to this? 64.231.75.191 03:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I want to add more imformation to this article, but I don't want to waist my time. What is the official status of this article. I believe it's 100% legit because it's all over Google. 64.231.75.191 03:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Original research. Mukadderat 17:17, 1 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, Baseball,Baby! balls•strikes 08:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. I've changed my opinion above. Flying Jazz 04:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because a system is not a model. Definition: A physical model is used in various contexts to mean a physical representation of some thing. That thing may be a single item or object (for example, a bolt) or a large system (for example, the Solar System). In this case, the Decentralized Model or Federated Model refer to the physical enbodiment of decentrlized or federated things of which a system is a thing comprised of smaller things. We don't have to define the what of a Decentralized Model to merit validity to the context(s) of the decentralized physical representation of some thing.64.231.64.244 04:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The word "system" is sufficiently broad to encompass all "things" which a decentralized model could model. We could have an encyclopedia with one article for every notable concept or object in existence and a seperate article for a model of every notable concept or object in existence, but I think most people would find an encyclopedia like that to be rather silly. Another layer of modeling is also possible. One could create an article for a "Model of a Decentralized Model." Why not? Models also exist in the real world. When I was a kid I had a model of the human heart. Before building the model, I created a model of the model on paper. Should Wikipedia have a "Heart Model Model" article? Or just an article on the heart? Flying Jazz 04:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that this discussion has been going on for this long validates the reasoning to keep the article. It appears to me that no one has thoroughly verified the sources to this definition and the fact that a good portion of this encyclopedia is thinking that a system is a model in this case re-enforces the rationality in favour of this document though it's examples refer to systems directly, it is the context in which the system(s) is/are being referred to that matters. Let me remind you that it is NOT the definition that is relevant here, but the need for the subject and it's context of meaning to exist on Wikipedia so to develop the world's most comprehensive encyclopedia of world knowledge. The definition of what is non-encyclopedic is highly subjective and I strongly insist that the determination of what warrants representation in Wikipedia be scientifically rationalized. 64.231.64.244 05:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirecting this page without reason is not proper especially with the debate still not concluded! 64.231.71.162 06:36, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. I've discounted the votes based on parentage (irrelevant in itself), comparisons with Pokemon, and the existence of a portrait by a famous artist (which is even less relevant than having a famous son). —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 20:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edmund Nelson

edit

The article doesn't assert any kind of notability, unless there's something I'm missing. talk to JD wants e-mail 18:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, —Xyrael / 08:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete He isn't notable. Such information as is useful should be included in the Horatio Nelson article. BTLizard 11:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sufficiently notable for a paperless encyclopedia that includes an article for every Pokemon. Flying Jazz 19:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn, the closest thing is his rectorate, and that's far off. The comparisons about Pokemon get annoying with respect to historical articles--just because it happened a long time ago, or a person lived a long time ago, does not mean notability. We should be careful to not make determinations so eruditically detached, yet at the same time, retain suspicion about that popular culture which attacks wikipedia. There's enough articles to be deleted in both category, nn historical, and nn popular culture.-Kmaguir1 20:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep as a relevant article to Wikipedia's coverage of Horatio Nelson. The content in the article would be out of place if included in the main (FA status) Horatio article, however it works in the context as a wiki-link. Of course Edmund's notability is tied into his son and all serious collections about Horatio Nelson includes references to his father. The National Maritime Museum even includes a portrait (referenced in article) of Edmund done by the notable English painter William Beechy in their Horatio Nelson collection. I think the fact that a very prominent museum deems that there is value in including this portrait in connection with their work on Horatio Nelson is very pertinent. As a "paperless" Encyclopedia who obviously does not have the space or financial limitations that a Museum would have, doesn't it seems foolish to have higher standards then the National Maritime Museum for content inclusion? Agne 18:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was KEEP ALL. Herostratus 19:50, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Hope & Faith episodes

edit

Article and others listed appear to be candidates for deletion per WP:NOT, #7 plot summaries.  — MrDolomite | Talk 02:01, 26 August 2006 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages:[reply]

  • Comment If you are asking me, all those episode articles would be a redirect to Memory Alpha or the Stargate wiki. :) But, this AfD is not about all TV episode articles, it is about the ones listed above. In the context of this AfD, this is a current TV show which has not established its encyclopedic notability yet and as such, the episode detail information is not warranted. See also Samaster1991's comment below about another way to include this information without individual articles, but allows for future growth. — MrDolomite | Talk 13:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait If you look at the layout here there is a way to display episodes. Nearly all tv shows on wikipedia has an episode section so I will try to edit the episodes for hope and faith and then see what happens.Samaster1991 18:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Baseball,Baby! balls•strikes 08:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 17:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Ogunsoto

edit

The player is not notable and not famous. He has played only for weak teams. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KRBN (talk • contribs) 09:03, 3 September 2006

Comment if he's the top scorer for the team (as shown a couple of posts below me), then he's patently made a first team appearance. Further, if the criteria for sport notability change, then you're more than welcome to put this guy back up for deletion. There's no point in deleting him pre-emptively, particularly when there's no guarantee that that policy will change. BigHaz 22:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete both. People and things must be notable before they get an article, and notable according to people other than the creator and/or fans. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 20:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Genesis (MMORPG) and Gavan Woolery

edit

NN project per WP:WEB, difficult to get a google hit ([Check Google hits]) perspective because it shares terms with Sega Genesis and MMORPG, but a quick glance doesn't show promise. (|-- UlTiMuS 23:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


In fact, the first google result using the above search terms is an article from Kotaku about the game. I fail to see how that was "difficult". As for showing promise, the purpose of Wikipedia is not to opine about the quality of independant games. The author, Gavan Woolery, has been working on the project for approximately two years, longer than many Linux distros which also have established Wikipedia pages. -Dorin

I suggest, as an alternative to total deletion, renaming it to "Genesis (Online World)" as that does lead to the main site.--n00b 21:44, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, —Xyrael / 09:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would give this project some time before claiming that it "doesnt show promise". As soon as its homepage becomes a 404, then you can feel free to take down the wiki. As for it being noteable, how about this for starters: The engine is produced entirely by one person (unheard of for a MMORPG of this quality) The game is the first MMORPG to stray far from the norm, with dynamic content and story building The game is the first MMORPG to eliminate opponent AI...every person is player controlled The game is the first MMORPG to allow permanent death and reproduction The game is the first MMORPG to feature an open-content system with community contributions And much more...

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Future Rock Hall

edit

Non notable website, prod removed without improvement Nuttah68 17:36, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Baseball,Baby! balls•strikes 09:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bitmicro

edit

See also Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/LUNETA and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/EDSA. This part of a series of spammy articles placed on wikipedia for supporting this company, and this article is included in the mix. If you think it reads like a PR release, that's because it is a PR release. Its from here, and it was released as GFDL via OTRS. But where is the verifiablity? Google searches turn up pages and pages of syndicated "PR news" releases. The only news on news piece I've found so far is this, where Bitmicro is listed as one of companies that buys from ARC International. In the end, they fail WP:CORP (and by that, verifiability) --Kevin_b_er 09:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was DELETE. Herostratus 23:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC) The raw comment total was 4-2 Delete prior to the final four Keep votes. All four of these are at least somewhat suspect, and one of them is that editor's only edit so far. Suspicion of puppetry, one point against. One of the Keep commentor's argument included the notion "If it's taken down, I'll just re-post the article in full." Two points against. So let's leave it at 67% Delete for a raw total. Now to the arguments. The arguments are simple: for Delete, that it fails WP:WEB. For Keep, Bill Oaf's assertion that, as an expert in the area, he finds it to be especially notable. He may be right. However, I think that a disinterested neutral Fair Witness would find that indeed the site achieves no critera listed in WP:WEB, if I read that page aright. Against that, the assertion of one editor. Again, he may be right, but we know that the fails-WP:WEB argument is right. And FWIW Delete has the numbers, if we discount the last four votes. So, Delete. Herostratus 23:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MetroFanatic.com

edit

Vanity article for a site that fails WP:WEB Nuttah68 19:27, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - I've made about 600 edits to Wikipedia on MLS topics, and this is a well-known site - the strongest, largest, and most important independent (that is, non-BigSoccer) site out there for a professional American club. It is historically important in the context of American soccer on the internet. There is no doubt in my mind that we need to keep this page. Bill Oaf 04:

44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

And, since no one seems to be interested in commenting on this AfD, can we close it so that it no longer hangs over this poor article? I'll rewrite the article myself to de-POV it, like I did with the BigSoccer article (which reminds me...that still needs some work). Bill Oaf 05:37, 1 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, Baseball,Baby! balls•strikes 09:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not meet WP:Web ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 11:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment 3100 bbs members User:Yy-bo 15:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Dennis The TIger 16:02, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.--Húsönd 17:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Bill Oaf. DR31 (talk) 13:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (originally at Talk:MetroFanatic.com): Metrofanatic.com is absolutely a notable website, one of the two best fansites for America's top soccer league. If it's taken down, I'll just re-post the article in full. User:Tadghostal
  • Keep from Metro4LIFE. User:Metro4LIFE: This site is one of the most known sites in US Soccer, I cant beleive we even have to dispute it. If it wasnt for what this site did MLS wouldnt even have fans.
  • Keep from Hexlub. User:Hexlub: I rely on this source for information on the New York Red Bulls as well as Major League Soccer. A site with independent views based on fact by fans, for fans. CNNSI.com has used Metrofanatic.com as a source for their online content. If it's good enough as a reference for Time Warner I feel it's good enough for an article on Wikipedia.
  • Keep from LordGhoti User:LordGhoti: This is the best fan site of an MLS team I have come across and a highly detailed repository of team news (new and old) and the overall history of the team and league. It has been the first source to break a story about the MetroStars/New York Red Bulls on more than a few occasions and has been cited by other larger news sources (e.g. cnnsi.com). This site and its creators have meant a lot to the development of an MLS fanbase and I am confused as to why anyone would want to delete this article from wikipedia.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Windian

edit

Neologism, and a vaguely insulting one at that. Page was nominated for speedy deletion, but apparently neologisms don't qualify, so I brought it here. — riana_dzasta wreak havoc|damage report 09:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to Waverley, Surrey, nothing to merge. - Bobet 19:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Waverley Borough Council

edit

This page has no information on it and never will have any that can't be put on the Waverley, Surrey page Aussie King Pin 23:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Baseball,Baby! balls•strikes 09:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sydney Walter Josland

edit

The page fails WP:GOOGLE. I initially put it up for CSD, but quickly retracted it, because I wanted opinions from other people. --Nishkid64 23:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete. No assertion of notability. Well-written, though. Note: page creator removed AfD notice. Powers T 00:59, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As Josland's scientific work was published in the 1950s, the Google test isn't very useful. 'Josland & Salmonella' and various other possibilities come up with more hits, including a page with war poetry (http://www.iwvpa.net/joslandsw/index.php). Chief Bacteriologist at the National Health Institute, Department of Health, Wellington appears to be a claim of notability; perhaps NZ editors can assess how valid. Medline comes up with six papers on NZ Salmonella spp for SW Josland in 1950s, and I've also found multiple distinct veterinary papers on Google that aren't in the Medline listing. Google Ingenta records suggest some evidence of citation, though I don't have access to Ingenta to check. I'd tentatively suggest keep to avoid bias against older research; certainly the author should be given rather more time to come up with notability claims and refs. Espresso Addict 02:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Older page version has a partial paper listing, though it seems to exclude all the papers I found above. Espresso Addict 02:29, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Baseball,Baby! balls•strikes 09:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 21:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uklandscape

edit

Delete: Clearly an advertisement. --*Kat* 09:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --- Deville (Talk) 16:36, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Master Poo Poo Platter

edit

Internet flash cartoon, no real ascertion of notability outside of possibly being a short time meme --- Lid 11:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 21:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Groupie Magazine

edit

Contested prod about a non notable magazine. MER-C 11:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. alphaChimp(talk) 19:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Monkey Say

edit

Prodded as Advertisement for non-notable online magazine. Prod removed without comment.

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

The result was delete. alphaChimp(talk) 19:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pages online

edit

Contested prod which is, to quote the prodding reason, "blatant spam". MER-C 11:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. alphaChimp(talk) 19:45, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zack Coburn

edit

One of six winners of a prize in one year, appears to otherwise be unnotable. Intern, student, owns an ad server. Notable? I think not. kingboyk 11:32, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Low participation, but the claims of non-notability have had only very weak responses from mostly new users. Mangojuicetalk 14:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PROnetworks

edit

Bulletin board website with almost no Alexa presence. Most Google hits appear to be spam links. Likely does not meeting WP:WEB. StuffOfInterest 11:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep and rename. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:28, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of shopping malls in New Jersey

edit

Another list of shopping malls. Since most malls are not themselves notable, it follows that lists of them are also not notable. Valrith 11:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The article is primarily about the role of the Shopping Mall as it affects New Jersey. While the presence of the word "List" seems to be throwing people off, a simple reading of the article addresses all issues of notability. If anyone does read the article, please provide specific additional missing elements by which notability is not addressed. If not, PLEASE READ THE ARTICLE before voting. Alansohn 03:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The extra information you're speaking of applies to many malls, not just the ones in New Jersey. Therefore it would seem to be more appropriate to add that information to Shopping malls. Valrith 17:46, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The aspects specifically speak to Shopping Malls AND New Jersey. Alansohn 03:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we should, and no, there appears to be no relevance, imo. Valrith 17:46, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete served by category (see above). Probably History of shopping malls in New Jersey? But i do not really believe this one can be. User:Yy-bo 17:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 21:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Basementalism

edit

Local radio show, blatant advertisement. Punkmorten 12:24, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 21:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Kerry Collins

edit

Article for non-notable local radio disc jockey. Does not meet requirements of WP:BIO. No reliable, reputable sources per WP:V. Was {PROD} but removed by anon editor with no comment or changes so come here for deletion. --Satori Son 12:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. —freak(talk) 14:30, Sep. 6, 2006 (UTC)

Failure

edit
Completing unfinished AFD nomination. Nominated by User:Steverapaport — ERcheck (talk) 13:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: There may be abstract nouns out there that have enough cultural weight or history to require an encyclopedia page describing them. I contend that "Failure" is not one of these. The article is essentially empty, as it pretty much should be entirely. It belongs only in Wiktionary.

    I was at first shocked to see that there are groups of Wikipedians who spend time deleting pages they feel are unencyclopedic; it wasn't until I saw this article that I understood the need for them. Steve Rapaport 20:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep it: "Failure" is used in enough contexts and disciplines to deserve a page. Someday someone will expand nicely on the "Criteria" section, and the "See also" is itself worth keeping the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lunsford2000 (talk • contribs) 21:15, 1 September 2006
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 21:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HFC134

edit

Article is written about HFC134a, not HFC134. Article contains numerous factual errors, is poorly written, and is innapropriately named and categorised. EdwardShelley 13:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • HFC134 and HFC134a are not the same thing, just one of the errors on the article. The page is titled "HFC134", HFC134 is not used as an airsoft propellant, is not the same as HFC134a. The only entry on this page should be the list of chemical properties of the compound, such as on the HFC134a page. The reason I nominated for deletion rather than editing is because there is nothing of worth to edit:
"HFC134 (aka HFC134a) is the weaker of two commonly used propellants used in Airsoft gas guns."
HFC134 is not the same as HFC134a. HFC134 is not used as a propellant in airsoft guns.
"The other, HFC22, is considerably more powerful. A particularly confusing aspect of this is that both are known as "Green Gas", though HFC22 is more commonly know by that name."
HFC22 is not one of the two common propellants. The two common propellants are HFC134a and Green Gas (Propane). HFC22 is not called Green Gas, it is called Red Gas, and is not one of the two common propellants.
"Many beginning airsofters confuse the two types of gasses, and use HFC22 gas in a gun meant for HFC134. The rule of thumb is if your gun has a metal slide, you can use HFC22. Typically, Taiwanese GBB airsoft guns (such as KWC and KJW) use HFC22, while the Japanese (Tokyo Marui, Western Arms) use HFC134. Using HFC22 in an airsoft gun meant for HFC134 will significantly lower its lifespan."
This could refer to HFC22 and HFC134a but is far more likely to refer to Green Gas (propane) instead of HFC22, as Green Gas is more common. Also should read KSC not KWC.
"Other gasses that can be used in airsoft guns are Carbon Dioxide or Black Gas (CO2) and Red Gas, however, these gasses are more powerful than Green Gas or HFC134a and may cause damage to your gun. Do not use them unless your gun is meant to take the pressure."
Carbon dioxide is rarely referred to as Black Gas. Red Gas as mentioned before is HFC22, not another propellant. Though Red Gas should not be used in certain guns as recommended, the recommendation not to use carbon dioxide is bizarre. Not only is carbon dioxide not readily available in the same kind of dispenser as is used to fill the magazine resevoirs on airsoft guns, but it is supplied in specialised cartridges that will only fit in guns that are designed to use carbon dioxide. EdwardShelley
Fair enough, then delete or rewrite since this article is garbage as is. BryanG(talk) 15:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 21:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RedFlagDeals

edit

spammy vanity page that reads like an advertisementST47 21:07, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Explain how this site lacks the legitimacy that FatWallet's wiki has? jeremy.howell 25 August 2006

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Deville (Talk) 13:46, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. - Bobet 13:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Districts of the Unitarian Universalist Association

edit

vanity, listcruft. Delete sub-articles as well, most likely one-liners, including one website link. WP:NOT. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Metro New York District Young Religious Unitarian Universalists Yy-bo 17:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question. I don't see where you find that HellaNorCal is employed by the UU. --Dhartung | Talk 16:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Answer I assume it because of the style of the user page. If not so, the user has vacany to elaborate, see above. Afd is not immediate deletion itself, just nomination and discussion of it (if it is appreciate or not). User:Yy-bo 17:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this is merely a list leading to pages that say New York branch is based in New York - here is the external link. Unless both this and the individual pages can offer some notability reason this is nothing more than a web directory. Nuttah68 17:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep every Roman Catholic bishopric has its own article, so a list of a large notable denomination's equivalents seems a keeper to me. Carlossuarez46 18:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice of recreation. As is, the article violates Wikipedia policy: the content is not verifiable due to lack of reliable (or any) sources. -AED 06:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment All of this information is verifiable. I have added a Resources section with a link to sources in the Unitarian Universalist denomination website. –Shoaler (talk) 11:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete A7. —Mets501 (talk) 17:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Emmett Hughes

edit

fails WP:BIO. Non notable vanity about a group of schoolfriends Fiddle Faddle 13:53, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 21:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wintermaul Wars

edit

A custom map for Warcraft III; crufty and non-notable. Crystallina 14:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete per the well-reasoned nomination. (Actually it was just an ad for a product with no encyclopedic information and no claim of notability.) - Bobet 13:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

K-CMS

edit

entirely NN Blood red sandman 14:48, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 21:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Masguts

edit
  • Speedy delete

The user who created this article (barefact) is commiting original reasearch as he did here [24]. He already has also tried his hand in ossetic where he went against all scholarly sources and flatly claimed Ossetic is non-Iranic. Now he is trying to claim Turkic origin for Massagate's using unverifiable quotes and sources and folk etymology.

In this article he is cut & pasting materials from his site [www.turkicworld.org] which is a site full of Original Research and non-encyclopedia materials.

First and most improtant reason for deletion is that there is already an article about Massagetes [25]

Secondly again faulty folk etymology trying to connecti meshketian to Massagate is not shown by any scholarly sources.

Thirdly the author names a lot of ancient historians but does not provide the actual references, publications, publication date, pg number, edition and etc.

Fourth he even claims chorasmian and tocharians as Turkic people, which they were not!

Fifth the Massagetes are not related to Turks, Meshketian Turks, Huns and etc. I will just list several academic sources here on Scythians:

“… Scythians and Sarmatians were of Iranian origin” [John Channon & Robert Hudson, Penguin Historical Atlas of Russia, 1995, p.18] , “…Indo-European in appearance and spoke an Iranian tongue which bought them more closely to the Medes and Persians” [Tim Newark, Barbarians, 1998, London: Concord Publications Company, p.6], “The Sarmatians…spoke an Iranian language similar to that of the Scythians and closely related to Persian” [Brzezinski, R., & Mielczarek, M. (2002), The Sarmatians: 600 BC- AD 450. Oxford, United Kingdom: Osprey Publishing Men at Arms Series, p.3]. ,“…of Indo-European stock belonging to…the Iranian group, often called the Scythian group of peoples…they were akin to the ancient Medes, Parthians and Persians. Their language was related to that of the Avesta…” [Tadesuz Sulimirski, The Sarmatians, London: Thames & Hudson, 1970, p.22]. "

other verifable sources that mention them as Iranians: The Cambridge History of Iran edited by I. Gershevitch (1980): Massagate were Iranians[26]

Rome's Enemies: Parthians and Sassanids By Peter Wilcox [27]

Mounted Archers Of The Steppe 600 Bc-ad 1300, 2004 [28]

Note google books did not come up with one mention of Masguts!

Unfortunately the originator of this article has not contributed anything to wikipedia except claiming Turkic origin for dozens of ancient people that are not considered Turkic by standard references and reliable scholars. --alidoostzadeh 09:12, 3 September 2006 (UTC) Khosrow II 14:47, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Merge with Massagetae. We do not need a POV fork here. Obviously, there are many differnces between the articles (e.g. one claims the people are Iranians the other claims them to be Turks) we need to check which data is supported by WP:RS and which are not abakharev 09:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment: The article seems to be just a cut & paste from a polemic book on tatar nationalism or something. To claim Tocharians, Chorasmians as Turks is also false (see the wikipedia enteries). I am not sure how many times a user has to be caught with original research ... --alidoostzadeh 09:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong and Speedy Delete- This is another one of Barefacts POV and OR articles from his website, which claims absurd things. As per Ali, I vote delete. Barefact does not even show his sources at all. He has attempted historical revisionism before with Ossetians and Scythians, and has failed. Ali once proved that Barefact "rewrites" quotes by scholars to fit his interpretation.Khosrow II 14:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Okay another suggestion could be to merge everything to the talk page (and not the actual page) of the Massagetae article and then work through the quotes and sentences one by one and once they are verified, then move it into the Massagetae page. But there is no way an original research article should be just inserted into the Massagetae page that contradicts the Massagetae page. --alidoostzadeh 18:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, could work too. But why bloat the talk page with it? Isn't in the history behind the redirect a "safer" place to hide the B**t? Plus, we are left with the question of whether the redirect as such wouldn't be useful on its own merits. How common is the term "Masguts" as a synonym of "Massagetae"? If there's any likelihood that people might actually search for it, then a redirect would be in order in any case. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Alidoostzadeh. Khorshid 15:43, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sources quoted cannot be verified. Merging therefore imppractible. --Pan Gerwazy 16:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Well, a lot of the article has citations of primary sources, which in fact are perfectly verifiable (e.g. "[Herodotus 4.11]" easily resolves to: [29].) The problem is not so much with WP:V than with WP:OR (and general issues of relevance of detail). If we could find out what the secondary source was that the article author has worked from, then an editor using careful judgment could well find interesting material in the article to be merged with the real one. Therefore: don't delete, preserve in history. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:26, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The problem is that the word Masgut is not used in herodotus. The author is trying to attempt folk etymology going from Massagetae to Masgut (which is not found in any google book) to Meshkat Turks. Or check this one out from the article: At around 950 Al Masudi (died in 956) describes 4 Turkic peoples: Ydjni, Badjkurt (Maskurts, Masguts, Massagetae Scythians), Badjanak (Besenyos, Russ. Pecheneg), Nukardi. Doing away with the terrible grammer (which is throughout the article), the author goes from Badjkurt to Maskurts to Masguts to Massagetae Scythians, all to claim some sort of Turkish affinity! Masudi is an Arabic source and I have it available, yet the author does not give the source. Or check out this invalud quote: In antiquity in the Central Asia the Sako-Massagets were closely connected with the Tochars, who in the 5th-7th cc. AD are known as Türkic nations among the Türkic[citation needed] Ephtalites[citation needed] and other Türks. M.Kashgari lists the Togars (Tochars) as Türks. [citation needed] There is no source for thist, but the tochars or tocharians are indo-european and not Turkic. Furthermore the word Togar (if such a word exists in Kashgari) is not necessarily related to takharians (Tocharians). Please take a look at the standard article [[30]]. In it there are sources verified by major scholars in the field. In this article there is not one major recent university scholar mentioned and the author feels like he can just make up theories. Also note google books never uses the term Masgut and this is probably the authors attempt to connection them to meshketian turks and so he goes from Massagetae to Masgut to Mashkut to Meshkat.. (all folk etymology)--alidoostzadeh 18:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply: Don't worry, I absolutely agree the article as a whole is a mess. :-) I'm only advocating leaving it in the history as a quarry for those bits that might turn out to be useful for Massagetae. Such as the Herodot cites and stuff. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Any useful facts (real facts, not disinfo) can be "userfied" like I did with the "Misconceptions about Iran" article and can be moved to the other article or they can be moved now. Khorshid 20:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, if substantiated as a variant spelling in English redirect to Massagetae. (ᛎ) qɐp 16:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. - Bobet 13:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Irish property bubble

edit

OR (WP:OR), bbs-style argumentation lists, not encyclopedic. group of articles. Yy-bo 14:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. It is in the interest of the property market bulls that this article is deleted, instead of edited.--User:anonymous 22:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The bubble issue is worthwhile and the article - like so many - needs editing.--Mereda 07:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Just needs a clean up, the issue is much debated in Ireland, at present. This is not oringal research, as the issue is much reported in the Irish media and other publications. ant_ie 08:31, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Mereda and ant_ie. This topic is constantly on TV, radio and newspapers. Bláthnaid 09:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete As it stands, this does contain a lot of original research. If it is not to do so, it needs to be cleaned up by including references, as currently the article is full of "citation needed" with little or no real references (compare to main article Real estate bubble which includes many). The tone is also too much in an essay/OR style ("that raises the question...") It could also be argued that the article is very crystal ballish, as a bubble is as much defined by the "pop" as the growth beforehand, so a bubble can only be confirmed in hindsight. The article may be salavageable, if good references are found to say "sources A+B thinks it's a bubble because of reason X,Y and Z", although caution must be applied, as introducing new analysis that are not in the sources would be original research. This article currently contains quite a lot of this type of OR, for example, one of the references is the daft report saying that the yield is ~3%. The yield figure is cited information, yes, but implying that it a bearish argument is OR, as no such implication to that effect was contained in the source. If OR like this can be removed, and good references found, ensuring that the information used is cited correctly and not given a new synthysis, then it may be kept, but until those problems are addressed the article fails WP:V, WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_crystal_ball and WP:NOR#What_is_excluded.3F, all of which are valid grounds for deletion unless fixed. Regards, MartinRe 09:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Updating qualifier after further investigation. If this topic is worth keeping, there should be an excess of reliable sources to back this up instead of a multitude of {{fact}} tags. If by the end of the afd discusssion there are no sources forthcoming, to me that would seem to be a good indication that the topic is not as notable as others are suggesting. Also consider that these sources have been requested for over eight months. Adding {{fact}} is only ever a temporary measure, in the end it always comes do to a simple choice - cite information or remove it, and after the length of time the unverified information was retained in this case, it is weighing very heavily for the latter option. (as once uncited info is removed there is nothing worthwhile left to support the article) Regards, MartinRe 15:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please see my comment (bottom). Article not meaningless. User:Yy-bo 19:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep important article that simply needs some work. Pathlessdesert 13:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and supply with citations. Evertype 16:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (unspecific) Consider an own wiki for this article, move to own wiki. Article looks like can improve from being edited in wiki style, however it is not encyclopedic. See Comparison_of_wiki_farms User:Yy-bo 19:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — original research, crystal ball as above. Some of its content could be salvaged for a Property market in the Republic of Ireland article that does not presuppose one of the POVs it describes. Demiurge 22:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have now found citations for some of the information on this article. Take a look. Pathlessdesert 12:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment I've done some work in trying to clean it up, with some attempt at NPOV, removing the worst OR, tagging facts that need to be referenced, and putting bull/bear arguments in one facts/figures section so as to start to address some of the other OR concerns. However, it is still in quite a state, and even if citations are found for all the figures given, the article itself would comprise of a paragraph saying that some say there is a bubble, followed by a list of figures which could be taken either way, which seems against NPOV in my view. I think it would be better for those interested to add a neutral paragraph to Economy of the Republic of Ireland about house prices/bubble/mortgage fraud (which are mentioned briefly in the lead) than to try and salvage this. (In which case I'd also suggest adding to that article afresh based on the references, and not a merge, as the latter would run the risk of the uncited OR being transferred as well) Regards, MartinRe 14:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Impossible for the article to be NPOV. Putting a headiong of 'Opinions' isn't enough for me. A list of stats doesn't add much without context. Nothing here that can't be found on any Irish news site Dodge 19:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. May need some cleaning but is undoubtedly a very important topic for those living in Ireland. Page has been slowly improving with citations being inserted over time. Criticism of reference to Daft.ie report is pretty unwarranted as a yield rate approx equal to current ECB rate is obviously a Bearish argument. I have inserted this for clarity in the article.--19:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)Panzraam
  • Definitely Delete: Combination of unsupported statistics and opinion. These views have been expressed over and over again through the last ten years and proved to be unfounded. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.71.68.208 (talk • contribs) 23:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 22:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roxy Blue

edit

It's a glam metal band from the early 90s I believe. Anyway, no major hits and one released album, which does not meet criteria in WP:MUSIC. I couldn't find any reliable sources, so I believe the article isn't verifiable. --Wafulz 14:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating Want Some?, the band's sole album. --Wafulz 14:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep and enough with the procedural nominations already. --Tony Sidaway 04:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Philip H. Farber

edit

This article was previously deleted at this AfD. A DRV consensus overturned this closure as improper, citing (among other things) a substantial rewrite near the end of the first AfD. Please consult the DRV before commenting here. This matter is resubmitted to AfD for new consideration. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 15:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. The consensus is clear, unfortunately, because this sets a bad precedent. Wikipedia is not, and should not become, a sports almanac. Mangojuicetalk 14:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looking more carefully, there seems to be consensus to delete FA Premier League Results - August 2001, so for that article, the result was delete. Mangojuicetalk 01:59, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FA Premier League fixtures and results

edit

Nomination of all of the following:

The view of most correspondents at WikiProject Football is that while articles summarising seasons are OK, detailed month-by-month results of every fixture played are not. Therefore I propose deletion of all the above under WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. Qwghlm 15:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fußball-Bundesliga - September 2006 for a similar discussion at the moment.

This is clearly heading to a No consensus. Leave the existing results pages, avoid the fixtures pages (they're copyright liable) and move on to something more important. Budgiekiller 21:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Short version; AFD is not a vote. It's an attempt to build a consensus agreement as to what to do. Granted, that normally turns out to be a vote, but Wikipedia has long had a policy of trying to avoid votes of this form (to prevent ballot stuffing, mostly). If there is "no consensus" as to what to do, precedent usually suggests maintaining the status quo (i.e. keep, in this case). Kinitawowi 19:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETE. We don't want to relist again, we've got a minimal quorum, we've got 3-1 Delete (I have no idea what Punkmorten's stance is). The article is not great, and not sourced. Williamborg (Bill)'s link argument is well taken, though. I think the article could be recreated as a reasonable article if a proper third-party source can be found, but, for now, Delete. Herostratus 04:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Growling (singing)

edit

aside from death grunts, typically used in death metal and associated genres, this is a non-notable singing style. Delete it. Spearhead 21:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Deville (Talk) 15:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. I am boldly going to then move this to Unitarian Universalist Independent Affiliate organizations and remove the list of redlinks: even the orgs that HAVE articles probably shouldn't. Mangojuicetalk 15:02, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Unitarian Universalist Independent Affiliate organizations

edit

not sure if this is listcruft, use of wikipedia as a directory/repository of links. Definetively wikipedia is not a directory/webhosting service. To me, this page does not look encyclopedic (see WP:NOT Yy-bo 15:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See Districts of the Unitarian Universalist Association, also under afd.
Refer author(s) to webhosting. User:Yy-bo 17:43, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In response to some of these concerns, I have added a description of a UU Independent Affiliate to the article along with examples of more closely affiliated organizations. Some of these organizations, even though technically "independent", are the heart and soul of the denomination, are therefore quite notable even though they do not have articles yet. For this reason, I do not believe a category, which does not support red-letter links, is the best way to develop this portion of the encyclopedia. I would also encourage persons who are interested in Unitarian Universalism to start creating articles for some of these organizations. –Shoaler (talk) 13:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was DELETE. The raw comment total is 9-5 Delete (discounting one Delete vote that is that editor's only edit so far). One of the Keeps is Weak. So looking at the arguments. It's clear he's not notable as a professor or as a book author. I think I vaguely remember the email incident. I don't consider that as establishing significant notability. Lots of people get their 15 minutes on O'Reilly etc.

The Keep argument come down to two: first, he's a columnist on townhall.com. townhall.com is a notable site, and many of its columnists are clearly notable. This raises the question: does that mean that all columnists on townhall.com become notable by association (and by the presumably large readership of townhall.com). It's a hard question, but my answer is: no, not necessarily. We don't know how many townhall.com readers read his column. It's just not quite the same as being syndicated in a newspaper. In Adams's case I don't see enough proof of notability as a commentator.

The second argument is that his career as a gadfly is notable. Again, I don't see enough involvement in high-profile lawsuits, protest demonstrations, publications, and the like. I'm not seeing a strong enough Keep argument to overcome the arguments (and greater numbers) of the Delete commentors. Herostratus 21:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Adams (criminology professor)

edit

The article doesn't say why he is really notable and does not meet the Wikipedia:Notability (academics) standards. His book is #417,264 at Amazon [31] and is published by a rather obscure non-mainstream publisher founded in 1997 and may possibly be a vanity press.[32] He also seems to write on some sort of political blog [33] as well, but seems to not have written any scholarly articles that I could find. CEIF 18:05, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete , fails the professor test. Just zis Guy you know? 00:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Townhall.com columnists are fairly well-known, especially amongst American conservatives. Adams was also involved in an incident a few years back that made national headlines, and as a result of the incident, he appeared on big shows like Scarborough Country, The O'Reilly Factor, and Hannity and Colmes, defending himself and his values. I don't know where to begin to look for sources about that on the Internet, but those facts would obviously improve the article. Chicken Wing 17:17, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks,  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  10:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The article poses the subject from the title as a professor, but the keep nom so far only tries to show Adams' status as a pundit. As an academic, fails WP:PROF guidelines for lacking academic awards, being recognized as a significant expert in his field by independent sources, lacking significant and well-known academic work. As a political figure, fails WP:BIO for lacking multiple non-trivial third-party articles. I find one story from a campus newspaper. No documentation for claims that townhall.com columnists are "fairly well-known", but I can say he has only 204 distinct ghits out of a possible 4,040 ("mike adams" "criminology professor"), and Alexa shows his website's traffic somewhere about 831,000th. Tychocat 11:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Notable enough. -Kmaguir1 17:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: not notable. FairHair 23:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: not notable, nor academic. Seems to be vanity ad for pundit.54edo
Comment. This user has only one contribution as far as I can tell, and that contribution was to vote to delete this article. Chicken Wing 03:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable, per nomination and above. TV Newser 02:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable, Lost Knob 05:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Adams is certainly non-notable as an academic, criminologist, or critic of homosexuality. However, as a persistent and active critic of public universities' speech codes and selective funding of student groups (as violative of the 1st Amendment), Adams is a notable gadfly. This notability should be emphasized in the article. I would give the articles' proponents a week or so to put that material in. Pan Dan 21:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Update. For example, a federal judge recently ordered Georgia Tech to change its speech code which had been alleged vague and unconstitutional. See Andrea Jones, "Insults allowed at Georgia Tech; Conservative students' suit alters speech code in dorms," The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Aug. 16, 2006, p. 1D. Adams was active in finding plaintiffs to file the lawsuit. See Mike S. Adams, "The Fruits of Wrath," Townhall.com, June 30, 2006, and other columns by Adams describing his role in the lawsuit. I think activism like this makes Adams notable. Pan Dan 12:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Do you have an independent source for this, ie. not this guy's blog entry? Bloggers tend not to be notable, and I really don't think that this makes this guy any more notable if it is actually true. TV Newser 00:25, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response: The use of the word "blogger" mischaracterizes (negatively, for the purpose of notability) the nature of Dr. Adams' columns. Townhall.com is a high-traffic website, one of the top websites among American conservatives, and many of the columnists there such as Thomas Sowell, Ann Coulter, David Limbaugh, Walter Williams, Star Parker, Michelle Malkin, Mike Gallagher, Bruce Bartlett, Bill O'Reilly, Ben Shapiro, Larry Elder, Brent Bozell, George Will, Pat Buchanan and so forth are very notable, have their columns syndicated in newspapers, host their own radio and TV shows, or have prominently run for political office. I should point out also that a Yahoo! search for "Mike S. Adams" returns 991,000 hits, the overwhelming majority of which appear to refer specifically to the Mike Adams in question. Chicken Wing 04:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC):::[reply]
Ditto to Chicken Wing as to blogger vs. columnist. Townhall.com makes a distinction between its bloggers, who can be anybody, and its columnists, who (1) are invited to write and (2) do write columns, not blogs. Adams is a columnist, not a blogger. Pan Dan 13:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That said, I agree w/ TV Newser that would be best to find sources other than Adams himself that talk about his role in the lawsuit. I am sure such sources can be found. Pan Dan 13:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Running out of bold comment intros: I don't know how important his role in the Georgia Tech situation was. I didn't bring that issue up. So I don't know if any sources exist w/r/t his contribution. Still, the fact remains, I'm not sure how a professor with a column on Townhall.com and hundreds of thousands of search engine hits could possibly be non-notable. How many inferior personalities have articles on Wikipedia? Chicken Wing 20:58, 2 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, Deville (Talk) 16:28, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I'm relisting this as the debate has evolved but not yet been resolved. I think that User:Pan Dan's rationale is compelling for keeping, and I would have closed it as a keep if there were any third-party evidence to substantiate the theory. That being said, I can't find any independent evidence. So, I'm relisting it and hopefully this issue can be resolved. --- Deville (Talk) 16:28, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I have to take back what I said about being "sure" about sources on Adams other than Adams himself. Using Lexis, I couldn't find anything on him in major newspapers or magazines, except that he was an expert source for The Christian Science Monitor in its coverage of the Duke lacrosse rape case.
However, using google, I did find this: "In his columns, books and public appearances, Professor Mike Adams has become something of a crusader for the first amendment rights of students," in Malcolm Kline, "The Bias of Blind Reviews," campusreportonline.net, Oct. 14, 2005, and other write-ups about Adams on campusreportonline.net. And, I think User:Chicken Wing's arguments as to why Adams is notable, are good ones. Pan Dan 17:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 22:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Birati Natun Jagat

edit

The page reads like an advert for a non notable charity company from India. The article suggests that the company name is Birati Natun Jagat, which gets 28 hits on google, 6 on MSN. Natun Jagat gets a few more, 408, but these are not to do with this company. Fails WP:CORP. Thε Halo Θ 10:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The main topic had been changed and edited.

How to prevent the deletion?

  • If you're the author of the article, you would first have to showcase its notability. Start by rerencing reports of the organisation in local newspapers and magazines. Without this, the article will be deleted. Then expand the article on its history, programmes undertaken (in prose), successes, failures, notable people involved, and end with future goals. It has to be well written, well referenced, and have encyclopedic content (as opposed to agendas and proposals) =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:35, 1 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, Deville (Talk) 16:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 22:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Odin Sphere

edit

Crystal balling for a computer game. AfD since prod was removed without explanation. --DrTorstenHenning 16:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 22:01, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just Fred and Todd

edit

Prod removed. Non-notable comic book, probably vanity too seeing as the creator is Jacob S. Google search brought up zero reliable sources, no independent third party coverage, so the article is not verifiable. Most likely original research too. --Wafulz 17:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was CANCELLED. Sock. -Splash - tk 23:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kathy Orr

edit

Doesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:N S. A. B. 22:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC) — S. A. B. (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 22:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pornobilly

edit

Non-notable musical genre. Currently, it reads as an ad for a single band (the article for which doesn't even link back to this one). I found an old VfD; while it didn't pass deletion at that point, I don't think it has gained enough of a following to warrant an article.

A Google search for "Pornobilly" turns up just 1,530 hits;[34] however, most of those are just rehashes of the Wikipedia article. A more refined search garners a mind-boggling </sarcasm> 182 hits.[35]

Duplicate copies of Wikipedia articles do not notability make, so I think we can kill this fairly easily. It can be recreated at some point in the future if the genre is expanded with new, notable bands, but that time is not now. EVula 17:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 22:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Angst the new teen musical

edit

Non-notable theatre production. Appears that the author of the article is also the author of the play. Seems to be a local production somewhere in Minnesota but not a particularly notable production. No reliable sources or verifiablity offered. Metros232 17:12, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 22:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of 2-Letter Word Squares

edit

Computer generated list - OR, unverifiable, unencyclopaedic. I also nominate

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Magin Kennedy

edit

Non-notable; does not meet WP:BIO. — ERcheck (talk) 17:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 22:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Synapsen

edit

This is a procedural relisting, as the page was deleted by WP:PROD once, then re-created, then incorrectly speedied as a WP:CSD#G4 (which doesn't apply), re-created again and WP:PRODded again. The five days are up, but deletion does not follow the WP:PROD guidelines, so let's try a definite decision here. Original concern was "This article reads like an advertisement." (basically in both of the prods). Delete.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kusma (talk • contribs) 15:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Do not delete this article, because it is a good hint to a seldom qnd unique software tool, which otherwise is hard to find. It is not an advertisement! If you like you may delete the phrase "easy to use".—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 90.0.106.86 (talk • contribs) 12:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
    • If it is "hard to find", that could be used as evidence that it does not meet WP:SOFTWARE or WP:V. I get rather few Google hits. Kusma (討論) 12:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I rewrote the article, so that the word "easy" is not necessary any more. The software has a very strong conceptual background and deep roots in the humanities -- see Luhmanns w:de:Zettelkasten). Who tags it as advertisement overlooks this. If this entry is deleted, Wikipedia administration would bite the hand that feeds it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.5.229.226 (talk • contribs)
    • Pls. keep it: it is hard to find and extremely useful software, although shareware and not freeware: excellent and deserving more diffusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.136.159.20 (talk • contribs)
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Deville (Talk) 17:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidence or assertion of meeting any of the tests at WP:SOFTWARE. GRBerry 01:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I've downloaded the manual and have some idea of what this software does. Seems like it might (or might not) be a very useful tool for people with large projects that depend on connecting preexisting literature with their own ideas. But an encyclopedia isn't about things that deserve diffusion or should be used or would help people in their work. It's about things that have already received notability or are already being used to help a lot of people in their work. Also, the creator's webpage http://www.verzetteln.de/synapsen/synapsen_e.html says "See also synapsen's entry at WikiPedia" confirming people's impression that the article is being used as an ad. Flying Jazz 02:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 22:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of three letter English words

edit

No encyclopaedic information, unsourced. (Oh, and it won't be used by Scrabble players who will use Official Scrabble Words :-) ). Delete. BlueValour 17:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 22:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Samuel

edit

Non-notable freeware/shareware game developer, fails WP:BIO; the company fails WP:CORP (and has no article).

I am also nominating the games Warpath and Well of Souls (computer game) in this AfD as they were created by this developer. Crystallina 17:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was it was already deleted by User:Teke. — CharlotteWebb 17:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nicola Tappenden

edit

Has been nominated twice before (first and second). She hasn't become notable since, and the page keeps getting recreated. Can we protect it from recreation (but still have a way for it to be easily unlocked in the event that she does become notable)? We need to put a flag on the talk page after it is deleted so that future editors know that it has been deleted three times already (at that point). EVula 17:41, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per not notable Hello32020 17:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, the article was speedily deleted, but nothing was done to make sure it isn't recreated. All that is going to happen is it will be recreated. I'm adding the correct tags to the talk page. I'd like to point out that this is why I didn't prod the article for speedy deletion; it required just a bit more attention. EVula 21:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete, he lived an interesting and event filled live, but not a notable one. Yanksox 21:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leutnant Helmut Frohberg

edit

Not Notable; he was a low level German officer in WWII. The photo is nice, perhaps we could use it somewhere else, but I don't think we need the article. Brianyoumans 17:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC) Brianyoumans 17:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how this could grow. Searching online, I found what might be his thesis, " Untersuchungsgrundsatz und Parteiaussage im Preussischen Zivilprozess von 1709-1793" - but other than that, I don't see any publications, or any references to him other than this article. --Brianyoumans 12:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Steevven1.com

edit

nn website. I prodded it, but the creator (User:Steevven1 removed the prod. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete: Wikipedia is not a web directory and this is pretty clear vanity. ju66l3r 18:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vanity page. Also fails WP:WEB. Most google hits for the website come from his advertising. --Nishkid64 18:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete I don't know what "nn" means, but I don't think this article deserves to be deleted. It is objective and informative, and the site gets enough traffic to constitute a Wikipedia entry. Wikipedia is not a web dictionary, but it is supposed to be a collection of all human knowledge, and the background and information about this website should be included. Also, I did remove the "prod," but only because it said "remove this if you disagree with it" or something like that. I didn't mean to do anything wrong. As for Google hits, try typing "awesome videos." the site is the #2 result Please do not delete my article. Steevven1 18:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: nn = "not notable" as per WP:Notability and more specifically for websites WP:WEB. As for your traffic, you are ranked around 4,000,000 on Alexa and dropping. Wikipedia is not a collection of all human knowledge. On the other hand, you did not do anything wrong by removing the prod. The prod just allows for an uncontested deletion. Since you deleted it, the deletion requires a 5-day discussion period. It would be best if within the definitions of WP:WEB and WP:V you could provide a clear argument as to how your site is notable. ju66l3r 18:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Okay, I will try. Thank you.
  • Delete vanity. User gets smart similar like talking to a parent. Wikipedia is not a parent. See other created articles (also nominated for afd) User:Yy-bo 18:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could this possibly be Userfied? AgentPeppermint 19:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:WEB, or userfy if the article creator so requests. --Metropolitan90 19:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Article excerpt The site name originated as the username of the owner on various websites and services when he first began using computers. The name is commonly misread as "Stewen1.com," because the double-v's sometimes appear to be a "w." The owner of the site began to wonder if the site's name was too difficult to remember, and consequently set up three mirror sites, "SexWithYourMom.com," "StevenHKeys.com," and "Goooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooogle.com." "Goooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooogle.com" was canceled in February, 2006. "StevenHKeys.com" was set up to bypass the owner of the site's school's block of the URL "Steevven1.com." "SexWithYourMom.com" and "StevenHKeys.com" are still working mirrors to the site. END User:Yy-bo 21:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment If "userfy" means that I am the source for the article's integrity, then I authorize that. I am the owner of the website. How do I go about "Userfying"? Thank you.
        Comment No, userfy means that it gets moved out of article space to you userspace. Of course, as Wikipeda is not a free web-host, we'd have to ask how having it there would serve the encyclopedia? Userfy is appropriate (without active external links), if the site is close to meeting WP:WEB and just needs time for the external coverage to go to press, etc... GRBerry 01:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the article has no evidence or assertion of meeting WP:WEB. GRBerry 01:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources Added Thanks a lot for your help, everyone. I have added 8 sources after reading the WP:WEB, which I believe make it qualify. Let me know if there is anything else I should do. Is my article good enough to stay yet? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Steevven1 (talk • contribs) .
    • Not yet What we are looking for is multiple independent (so the site, you, and pages you have written don't count), reliable sources (so Wikipedia pages, Myspace, and humorlinks.com don't count). That last triggered firewall alerts when I tried to go to it, so I'm not going to it or willing to count it as a citation. GRBerry 02:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • More Sources/Links I added several more sources and links to prove notability. Would it help if I provided monthly traffic information? Steevven1 06:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nonnotable, vanity. —tregoweth (talk) 06:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Not notable. Couldn't find anything that would establish the site's notablity. The 4,000,000+ ranking on alexa doesn't help either. The Bethling 02:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non notable and WP:VAIN. IrishGuy talk 19:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Bobet 13:32, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consult Simon

edit

Delete. Hopelessly nn website, fails WP:WEB. MaxSem 18:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Save. Quite a few hits on website and is apparantly of large cultural significance in Southern England. Captaindansplashback(This user is the creator of the article. No he isn't)

  • Save I am part of the cult and it really is huge here. Just about everybody I know is in the cult and it is of huge significance for us that our figurehead be treated with respect. If christianity has a page on wikipedia so should Consult Simon. Wallamanage 16:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Your friends...you say...That's like less than 100 (even to a generous standard). Wikipedia articles are made for things that are notable! Consult Simon may be notable enough to warrant on Wikipedia for you, but not for the rest of us. It fails WP:WEB. That first link in the article only has like 500 hits!! And don't say that if Christianity has an article, Consult Simon should, because you know how many people believe in Christianity? 2.1 billion people. How many follow Consult Simon? Umm...one thousand is a generous guess. --Nishkid64 21:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. First off I have to point out that you have to be a very sad man to research exactly how many people believe in Christianity, millions of people or billions of people would have done. Also you commented that the user, Wallamanage "totally butchered" the spelling of Christianity, when he merely used a "c" instead of an "s", which was most probably a typo not a spelling mistake and again you have to be very sad to point that out. Anyway your approximation of how many followers Consult Simon has was entirely incorrect, Consult Simon is a cult worthy of over 1 million followers, how many hits a website has doesn't determine how many followers the cult has. Captaindansplashback


Save. i think the simonic religion is very good and should not be deleted. that is all

Save The Consult Simon cult has great cultural significance and heritage. I and many I know are deeply offended by the mere idea of the page being deleted. Also we think it is very sad of user "NishKid 64" to automatically make assumptions about the size of the cult without any prior research and that he is indeed very sad for finding out just how many followers the so-called Christianity has. I can't understand why you wish to delete this completely ligitamate page when there are pages of obvious fiction (Murdoc Niccals, 2D for examples) which are on here. Thank you for listening to me. Take care. And I mean take care. Digeridoodah 15:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep, nominator has withdrawn. — CharlotteWebb 17:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joe E. Newsome High School

edit

not noteable, fails WP:NOTABILITY withdrawn. Yy-bo 18:24, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 22:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Academy Private School

edit

WP:NOT, author obviously violates wiki etiquette Yy-bo 18:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to Clone trooper and leave the redirect to preserve history. - Bobet 18:46, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Phase II clone trooper armor

edit

Delete and Merge per reasons given at [[36]]. Nominated separately, but if one fails, the other should no doubt.-Kmaguir1 18:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Bobet 13:30, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Harris, Abergele

edit

This page is about a man who was unfortunately involved in an accident in which 4 people died. He has done nothing else remotely noteworthy and thus fails the requirements laid down in WP:BIO. RicDod 18:46, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy redirect to dairy, just like milking machine already does. There's really no reason to have a lengthy discussion just to come to this conclusion. Uncle G 18:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Milking machines

edit

dicdef Yy-bo 18:48, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) 13:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wallpaper review

edit

fails WP:WEB, WP:NOTABILITY Yy-bo 18:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) 13:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rosy Rocket

edit
  • Made some changes to make it more journalistic and less ad-sounding. I am in contact with Rosy and am gathering information about her life and career from her first hand. Let me know what I needto do to ensure that the article stays up. Thanks. Pat
It is a very good idea to add citations from reliable sources to ensure that your article will be verifiable. Dan D. Ric 15:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) 13:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

YourHeartWillStop

edit

(Likely self-) promotion of non-notable website, see [37], [38]. — CharlotteWebb 19:12, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : False... Criterion A7 of Speedy Deletion Criterias says "Unremarkable people or groups/vanity pages. An article about a real person, group of people, band, or club that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject. If the assertion is disputed or controversial, it should be taken to AfD instead." This issue is not disputed, or controversial... it's not disputable that the article is a vanity page. --Deenoe 19:41, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETE. Herostratus 04:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Wayne Gillies

edit

Non-notable, possible vanity article. Wikipedia is not the IMDb namespace, nor is inclusion there indicative of right for inclusion here. (I'd be listed on Wikipedia too were that the case...) Girolamo Savonarola 20:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, the pages for the films you listed have an infobox with a producer entry. That entry is for the producers, not the line producers or associate producers or co-producers. Secondly, the quantity of your work is irrelevant on its own merits, no matter how many films you've worked on. Finally, if you think that I actually am called Girolamo Savonarola in real life, why don't you Google me? Furthermore, my creation of the AfD is an implicit delete vote, as is considered standard. Please do not attempt to modify my vote by writing "no vote listed" in front of the nomination.
Notability has nothing to do with the number of films you've worked on or how big they are - otherwise anyone with any decent experience in the film industry in any capacity would automatically qualify. Line producers, as I understand it, usually are in charge of the financial aspects of a film, while UPMs and AD's handle logistics and organization. These aren't generally considered creative capacities, and thus someone's work in these roles generally is not acceptable for notability standards barring the most exceptional of circumstances. But if you'd rather attack me instead, by all means exhaust your energies here instead of on the article. Girolamo Savonarola 23:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Malicious removal of producer credit on pages listed by Bruce Wayne Gillies by Girolamo Savonarola which direclty points to venomous bias and personal attack. Line Producer is considered a producer and is part of the creative process. Non-notable non-pro's as I understand it are of no authority whatsoever, none. Obvious hopeful attention seeker as evident with troubled phrasing like I'd be listed on Wikipedia too and why don't you Google me and rather attack me instead. Never made any attack only made truthful and verifiable statements. You can Google me and I show up on several notable websites. I apologize for putting "no vote listed" but I was making clarification and no harm intended - there was "no vote listed". In comparison to other filmmakers listed on Wikipedia site credit are equal average to above average. The Bruce Wayne Gillies article was harmlessly added from finding earned credit listed on Baadasssss! without proper link throughs. No big deal. Not aware of secret approval process Girolamo Savonarolahas self implemented. Buzzxsassy 01:49, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're taking this personally. It's not. But I'd recommend perusing the guide to deletion and notability pages first. Once again, I'd like to remind you that further comments should be made at the bottom of the page, not the top line.
Also, even The Producers Guild seems to disagree with you: A Line Producer performs the Producer functions involved in supervising the physical aspects of the making of a motion picture or television production where the creative decision-making process is reserved to others, except to such extent as the Line Producer is permitted to participate. Unit Production Managers, who perform no more than the customary services of a Unit Production Manager should be credited only as such. Girolamo Savonarola 19:16, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The number of films is irrelevant - it's the type of work which is the point of contention. Girolamo Savonarola 21:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 22:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Following Follows

edit

Probably a hoax; certainly an "unpublished work circulated on the internet" isn't notable despite the attempts to puff it up. Demiurge 20:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Save succeeds These are only suggestions by light-years. If you delete this page it's down to you - your subjective viewpoint. Don't back it up with rules that a) are actually just suggestions and b) anyone could edit should they have a taste for creating unstatutory regulation.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 copyvio. WinHunter (talk) 12:39, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Rich Enterprise Application

edit

The article appears to be purely original research. In an edit summary, the author wrote "I am a Graduate Management of Global IT sutdent at American University Kogod School of Business. This is acedemic information we and others have been researching" after removing the {{prod}} tag. Further investigation appears to show that it is not possible to write an article on this subject that would not be original research at this time.

The "references" provided appear to either trivially use the term or are apparently merely examples of the subject (many of these do not contain the term at all), except for two. The ZDNet blog post and the "RIA to REA" link actually discuss the subject, but both are blogs. Not included in the article (I dug it up) is this "About REA" page from the newly-launched company/site JackBe, which seems to be the only existing non-blog sources (and then, due to it's unreliable nature, would only be acceptable in an article on JackBe).

Google hits for "rich enterprise application" are only 1,050 (23 unique), and they all appear to merely mention rather than discuss the term. Most notably, one of the "references" in the article is a blog post that seems to indicate that the acronym of the term (REA) was coined August 24 2006.

It appears that the subject's time has not yet come. The article should be deleted as original research on a subject that has no primary sources published in any reliable sources (i.e., fundamentally unable to not be original research at this time). — Saxifrage ✎ 20:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The subject has been discussed with all included companies including IBM. It is not original research; just not very mainstream or publicized yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wagnermr14 (talk • contribs) September 4, 2006
    Comment. If it's not publicised yet, then there are no secondary sources (analysis and synthesis) based on the primary research material. Note that Wikipedia is a tertiary source and so cannot have articles without access to secondary sources. This is why the article has been nominated. Please read our policy Wikipedia:No original research for a definition of "original research" from Wikipedia's perspective. — Saxifrage ✎ 19:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The last thing I have to say is that just because one can't 'link' to a source or mention it just yet doesn't mean it doesn't exist. REA is real and sources are there if one had access to the sources which some don't have the luxury at this point which is why something like a wiki is great for the world. But if you and others keep censoring input, that benefit is severely diminished and is a step back from what Web 2.0 is all about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wagnermr14 (talk • contribs) September 7, 2006
    You might consider reading the very short article entitled The World Will Not End Tomorrow. I'm still not denying it exists, and it's not censoring: there are simply minimum requirements of verifiability of information in the encyclopedia, and one requirement is the existence of secondary sources. If an article can't be verified, it does not belong at Wikipedia. If there are references, please provide them—offline print references are perfectly acceptable given a full citation. This deletion vote will not continue if the article is properly referenced with secondary sources.
    (Also, please follow page formatting conventions [you'll note I've reformatted your comments], and sign your comments to Talk pages. Instructions for signing are provided here.) — Saxifrage ✎ 02:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete early stage, G Hits. Wait a while. Someone is trying to push new keyword?! --MaNeMeBasat 14:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Just take a look at the companies who recognize the term. You little wiki people think you know better than the collective thousands at these orgs put together? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wisconsinmikew (talk • contribs) September 11, 2006.
  • Speedy delete. Original research. Not notable topic. Also copyright infringement with information taken from the following url: http://www.jackbe.com/Resources/rea.php --Sleepyhead 09:50, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.--Peta 09:53, 14 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. (aeropagitica) 13:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Al Peeger

edit

Utter nonsense. It is a revision of the Al Seeger article except with different links. Obviously a non-existant person. I did a search on Boxrec.com (which researches over 300,000 professional boxer's records worldwide) and couldn't find any hits. Maya Levy 20:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Bobet 13:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

edit

Non-notable (defunct) art gallery; zero Google hits. Author also created Justin Louis Wisniewski, which appears to be a vanity aritcle. OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:30, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy deleted by User:Eagle 101 under CSD A7. BryanG(talk) 22:48, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Louis Wisniewski

edit

Non-notable bio, vanity page. Prod tag was removed without comment. OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:32, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) 13:01, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trinity School of Apologetics & Theology

edit

An unaccredited"school" that offers free courses, and charges for "admission fees." It brings up 149 yahoo hits, including wikipedia. Fails to meet notablity ot verfiablity. Article created by someone who made three edits. This is violates WP:AD and fails WP:V and WP:CORP. Arbusto 20:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What category? Arbusto 00:35, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep We generally keep articles on colleges, we often keep articles on diploma mill so that people can learn that they are diploma mills. I don't know if the commentor meant Category:Unaccredited institutions of higher learning or Category:Unaccredited seminaries and theological colleges, both of which are on the article, but that we have both says something about the degree to which such articles are kept. GRBerry 02:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: We often keep notable diploma mills. This one has no notablity. Has anyone written about this place other than the creator of it? Arbusto 02:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete appears to be a just-about-verifiable but insignificant diploma mill. Absent evidence of notable "alumni" claiming status of degrees from here, we probably don't need to give it the oxygen of publicity (or indeed take on the inevitable headache of policing neutrality). Guy 14:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete There is nothing notable or verifable. I can set up this type of "school" and promote on wikipedia in a similiar way. No news sources, alumni, academic standing, accreditation, and so on. CaliEd 16:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It may be unaccredited, but it is very verifiable. Silensor 03:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Is it unaccredited? I originally sourced it that way in the article because I couldn't find proof it was. I have seen nothing from any source other than the founder and operator of the school. How is this wiki worthy? How many students attend? How many have graduated? What degrees are offered? Arbusto 04:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for lack of independent reliable sources needed for verifiability. Without such sources, there's only two potential outcomes for the article: it has unverifiable promotional material for the school, or its used to included unverifiable attacks against it. Neither is acceptable. Currently we're using "source by omission", which means a Wikipedian (in violation of core policy) makes factual claims based on the *absense* of information. This is unacceptable. We can only state something (like say something is an "unaccredited school") if a reliable 3rd party sources has made such a statement. We can't do original research, without violating policy, which sadly we've done by labelling this "school" as we have. The reasons for deleting this, are somewhat similiar to the ones for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johnson C. Philip. --Rob 05:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. I am surprised that there is no recognition or accredition in the country of origin, India. --Antorjal 05:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Rob. Nickieee 21:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is ongoing debate on this school which makes it very interesting to watch. From what I see the school has special accreditation with the Indian government. The information that some have brought makes this legit in my view. It can be verified very easily. Just contact the people in India rather than making spurious attacks. One may not like what they offer but it is not enough to remove the information. Looks like some have a personal axe to grind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.160.71.152 (talk • contribs) 28:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The above "vote" was made by an anon. IP (207.160.71.152)[39], but linked the name "Pablo" (Note: That link went to the wikipedia article Pablo, not any user name)[40] to look like an established user. Probably the creator of this article/operator of the "school." Arbusto 14:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The school does not have "special accreditation." The "accreditor" is ran by the operator of the school, which is not verfied by any WP:RS. See School accreditation and look at India. It is not listed as an accreditor from the Department of India's Education system.[41] A non-notable diploma mill accredited by the operator of the school. This violates WP:AD and fails WP:CORP. Arbusto 14:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Dylan 02:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 This AFD started on the 3 September page. It was relisted on the 7 September page by the original nominator with no rationale in the edit summary. Please add new discussions below this notice. GRBerry 01:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I put that I relisted these for more opinions here[42]. Arbusto 02:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:V. 45 unique Ghits out of 393, the vast majority of which directories and a few other sites picking up wiki content. Appears that the only reals source of info on the organisation is the trinitytheology.org, which we are obliged to discount as unreliable. For an on-line and distance learning course, Alexa rank in the 643thousandsth appears well below radar for notability in any event. The fact that it is unaccredited is not all that relevant. Ohconfucius 01:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) 12:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

International Council for Accrediting Alternate and Theological Studies

edit

An "accrediting" group from India that lacks WP:RS and WP:V information on what it is, has 116 yahoo hits (including wikipedia mirrors), and was created by Lord Eddington (talk · contribs) in Feb. did not make any other edits. There has been plenlty of chance for this to be verfied, but it only gets white washed. According to the article on Education in India, this group is not a recognized accreditor.) Arbusto 20:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 This AFD started on the 3 September page. It was relisted on the 7 September page by the original nominator with no rationale in the edit summary. Please add new discussions below this notice. GRBerry 01:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I put that I relisted these for more opinions here[43]. Arbusto 02:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) 12:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scofield Graduate School

edit

Unaccredited, no notablity asserted, and about 160 yahoo hits including wikipedia. Fails notablity per WP:CORP and WP:V. (I created the original article.) Arbusto 21:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 This AFD started on the 3 September page. It was relisted on the 7 September page by the original nominator with no rationale in the edit summary. Please add new discussions below this notice. GRBerry 01:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Bobet 13:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Association of Reformed Theological Seminaries

edit

An unrecognized "accreditor", 178 yahoo hits, second hit is wikipedia article, and article asserts nothing. Arbusto 20:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) 12:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Centre of Academic Excellence UK

edit

Unrecognized accreditor of diploma mills. Brings up 15 yahoo hits including wikipedia. Arbusto 20:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) 12:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

École supérieure Robert de Sorbon

edit

Fails notability and verifable sources. Brings in 22 yahoo hits. No compelling proof it is legitimate. Hoax?Arbusto 20:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A French "school" ran in Florida without classes. Clearly not wiki-worthy. Arbusto 00:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) 12:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jim McKee

edit

This is a WP:HOAX or WP:V issue. There are 58 Google hits (34 unique) for any of 3 variations of the name and "cocaine", none of which verifies this supposedly notorious drug bust. In addition, there are 0 Google hits for the name of the supposedly infamous boat. Erechtheus 21:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) 12:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Metal Maul Wars

edit

Non notable (Google finds 85 hits) spin off of Wintermaul Wars, a Warcraft III custom map. That article is, itself, nominated for deletion. The creator of the Metal Maul Wars article, User:Evilmaster, has only made edits to that article, to Wintermaul Wars, and to Tower Defense (the type of map Metal Maul Wars is classified as), all of which were made within a 40 minute space of time on August 20th, and hasn't made any contributions since. The article is also poorly written. Methnor 21:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge with Subway menu article. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:39, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Subway's B.M.T.

edit

Not notable. Even though I work at Subway, I don't really think that individual sandwiches deserve their own articles. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information Brjaga 21:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) 12:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Programmable beverage

edit

The notion of a programmable beverage is a very interesting subject, but it remains to be seen whether it is encyclopedic as yet. There are no notable reliable sources for the product, no assertion for notability or it having made something of an impact, and the article reads like an ad. Aecis Appleknocker Flophouse 21:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • I agree that this appears to be a bit premature, however, once fully commercially availabale this technology has the potential to virtually replace all prior product types (single color paints & cosmetics, and single flavor beverages) ... I would suggest labeling it as a stub ...
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) 12:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rent Marketer

edit

spam/advertisement created by account of same name as article ju66l3r 21:24, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Bobet 13:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MQuad

edit

Insufficiently notable perfomer such that reliable, reputable sources are not available. See WP:BIO and WP:V. Was {PROD} but removed by anon editor with no comment so comes here for deletion. --Satori Son 21:26, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete all articles. (aeropagitica) 10:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aston Villa youth players

edit

This is a multiple nomination for the following articles: Zoltan Stieber, Adam McGurk, Chris Herd, Yago Bellon, Damian Bellon, Erik Lund, Shane Lowry, Danny Earls, Ciaran Clark, and David Bevan (footballer). All of these articles relate to football (soccer) players who play for the youth team of Aston Villa. None of these players have made a first team appearance or have been issued a first team squad number, and hence do not meet the WP:BIO guideline. Oldelpaso 21:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

None of these players were members of the Villa youth side which won the 2002 FA Youth Cup final [45], nor the team which were runners-up in the 2004 final [46]. Neither Bellon has played a competitive first team game for Villa, and I have not found any reference saying either did so for St. Gallen. Oldelpaso 19:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) 10:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Livejournal's Next Top Model

edit

A nice sentence/paragraph under the LiveJournal article itself should be enough. This topic does not need an article unto itself. Wikipedia is not a webhost: all of this article's information belongs on ljntm.com, not here.-- PeruvianLlama(spit) 21:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What makes something unimportant enough to not merit a page on Wikipedia? This is a place to share information, and that is what is being done here. When you search 'Livejournal's Next Top Model', there should be a place where the information is relevant and in one spot instead of scattered and overlooked in a single paragraph in the Livejournal article.

This isn't serving a webhost but a compendium of information--exactly what Wikipedia is intended for.— Preceding unsigned comment added by LJNTM (talk • contribs)

Everything stated in that page is informative. There isn't any indication of shameless self promotion on the page at all, and it is clearly being used as a means to inform people that may in fact be interested on the topic, about what/who Livejournal's Next Top Model is all about. The page is in no shape or form being used as a webhost. Livejournal's Next Top Model has been around long enough to have a page of it's own on Wikipedia. If this is not considered important enough for Wikipedia, then why bother having pages for Livejournal or America's Next Top Model?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Minds been lost (talk • contribs)

  1. Gauge the importance
  2. Verify the material presented
  3. Avoid original research
  4. Most importantly, maintain a neutral point of view.
I don't know if you're clicking the wikilinks I'm providing, but they link to the policies that hold for every article on the website. --Wafulz 23:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am, but I still don't understand why this is unimportant enough to not have a place on Wikipedia. I've done searches before for even more irrelevant and unimporant things, and they have a rightful place here, which Livejournal's Next Top Model also deserves. I can't give you any other sources, and if there were you'd have them, but most everything I've ever read on her is original research with little to no verifiablity. User:LJNTM
  • Well, most irrelenvent/unimportant things eventually meet their demise through the same process we're going through right now. If you can't provide reliable sources and you can't verify information, then it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Maybe sometime in the future if it becomes huge and gets coverage, but not now. --Wafulz 23:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's the internet, that may never happen. I disagree with the original research rule--what's a better source for information than the original?
If it never happens, then it won't get an article. Plenty of online events/services end up getting media mentions, sometimes even through online publications.
I'll have to disagree with your original research assertion- it completely violates a policy of Wikipedia. Think of it this way: If I were to write a biography on myself, arguably I could use an autobiography as my only source because I must know what I'm talking about. However, a source like that would undoubtedly be biased and would only provide one point of view. Take a read through Wikipedia:No original research for more on this.--Wafulz 23:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you'd honestly read the page, you'd also see that nothing is at all biased. User:LJNTM
Actually that's not true, there are several non-neutral passages- but the point isn't just neutrality; it's that it's entirely original research. Even if the article were worth of a Nobel Prize or Pulitzer Award, we wouldn't accept it because it violates the original research policy. --Wafulz 00:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, the issue here is that the sources are not reliable. The majority of weblogs and submit-an-entry type sites are very unreliable because anyone can make any sorts of claims without referencing them. Also, please sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~)--Wafulz 23:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • In that case, would referrencing the original site where the competition happened, with links to the particular elimination and whatnot, make it more verifiable? I'm interested in at least building upon this enough so that when and if it does become valid, I can re-do the Wiki. User:LJNTM
  • Delete per Shell and all the other users. Aside from not being encyclopedic, it isn't notable either. I see that none of the winners are identified, nor is there any evidence that any of them proceeded to become models (let alone top models). Risker 00:39, 4 September 2006 (UTC) EDIT: Winners have now been included, but still no evidence any of them have become professional models. Risker 00:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ALL of the winners are identified (they have been since the page was created), and the community is created for leizure. If taken seriously, then one will have pictures that can be added to their modeling portfolio.Minds been lost 00:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) 10:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of cameo appearances

edit

Unmaintainable and impossible to bring to encyclopedic quality or anything near completion. Just a list of all the cameos in 2006 would easily be far larger than this page. Girolamo Savonarola 21:41, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was CANCELLED. Nomination by long-term disruptor and sockpuppetteer. Nomination will have be to tried again with a clean nominator. -Splash - tk 00:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Joseph

edit

In violation of WP:BIO and WP:NN Oat Lock 21:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Articles for deletion archivesThis is an archive of a closed deletion discussion for the article Mikhail Lebedev. Please do not modify it. The result was delete. The actual discussion is hidden from view for privacy reasons. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) 10:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reza Rizvi

edit

This is another WP:HOAX or WP:V issue. Prod removed. Speedy declined by admin due to claim of first gay marriage. 144 Google hits, 53 unique. None of them appear to authenticate anything in this article. Erechtheus 21:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was DELETE. The use of the slash in Mainspace articles to create a de facto subpage is not permitted, and there were no Keep arguments. Herostratus 04:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia/Stable

edit

Disallowed per Wikipedia:Subpage#Disallowed uses. Delete or userfy somewhere. — Dunc|☺ 21:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to List of minor Star Wars Imperial characters. JPD (talk) 10:57, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Davin Felth

edit

A Star Wars character with only one line and a short story to his credit. Seriously. Maxamegalon2000 22:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Bobet 18:27, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cloved lemon kissing game

edit

Not notable. Zorro CX 22:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. WP:GOOGLE: 230 hits. -- Zorro CX 20:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it could be sunk into a generic cloven fruit page? However, the title of the game is often shortened to just 'cloved lemon' (giving 1,010 hits on Google) which is still giving enough difference between it, and pomanders made from cloved oranges. Of course, I'm just an anonymous poster, so feel free to ignore me.

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

The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) 10:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Sin Bin

edit

Does not meet the criteria for web content notability. Frank Quist 22:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) 10:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Parrott

edit

I prod'd this article on the grounds that losing politicians are non-notable, thereby failing WP:BIO. Prod was removed, so the article is brought for discussion. I'm still in favour of delete.--Richhoncho 22:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To be entirely fair, the guy has had a lot of local press in Kingston and is a well known local figure, writes for several notable blogs, is a contributor to the chartist magazine and was campaign manager for the left wing campaign against the european constitution. I don't see why for example, Alex Hilton, Iain Dale and Kerron Cross are allowed articles as they are also all failed parliamentary candidates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.184.128 (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 keep, nominated by a known banned user. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 23:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vince DeMentri

edit

Doesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:N S. A. B. 22:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC) — S. A. B. (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

The result was speedy keep TV stations are notable by default. `'mikka (t) 22:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WTVT

edit

Reads like an ad see WP:CORP WTVT 22:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge with A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism. Relevant info could also be added to other articles. JPD (talk) 11:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dissent From Darwinism

edit

Sounds like an advert. Tracker/TTV (myTalk|myWork|myInbox) 22:32, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy Delete G4 by User:Eagle 101. ColourBurst 00:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cheetah Girls 3

edit

Looking into the crystal ball. This was previously speedied for doing exactly that, which makes me wish there was a csd for it, but we're stuck here once again BigHaz 22:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) 10:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Montgomery County Swim League

edit

nn recreational league, no more notable than some local Little League. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

??! League has been considered perhaps the top in the nation, spawning many gold-medalists and world class coaches alike.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 13:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sonic Vegemite

edit

Doesn't meet WP:WEB, alexa ranking of 3,000,000+, no reliable sources on this so doesn't meet Wikipedia:Verifiability Xyzzyplugh 22:41, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) 10:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Big Mind

edit

vanity advert Yy-bo 22:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) 10:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JS Co

edit

nn "corporation" started by a middle school student. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:46, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) 10:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

V-ology

edit

del. Nonsense religion. Unfortunately not speedy `'mikka (t) 22:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) 10:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exotic Car

edit

Text mostly duplicated from other wikipedia articles MightyWarrior 22:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Information is not entirely accurate. Engine list is wrong for 4 of the cars listed. It does not present a deep interpretation of the term "Exotic Car" but rather presents small articles of the supposed supercars. I believe that the Exotic car page sould redirect to the article supercar. --Cirilobeto 23:24, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Supercars are given out awards for one car that looks the best from all. That car is a exotic car. I have to agree with the first entry the author believe that all supercars are exotic ones, infact there is only one car today that has the exotic car award which is the Pagani Zonda. User: Special_forces_delta 22:20, 3 september 2006

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

The result was Speedy delete. Article made no assertation of any notability.. Shell babelfish 01:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Milind Ghorpade

edit

FailsWP:BIO - no evidence of notability - just 9 Ghits here. BlueValour 23:02, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Kept, weakly. (aeropagitica) 10:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Koji Date

edit

Some feel that this person is not notable. Was deleted under the CSD A7 clause three times and was protected from recreation. Restored after debate at WP:DRV See Review. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 23:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Japan ~ trialsanderrors 23:24, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, he is an actor and musician, a starting Japanese actor. The page probably should be classified as a stub. I don't think it should be deleted, maybe if the user who wrote the article could make the bio a bit more expansive, it'd be better. There are a lot of wikipedia articles out there that are similar to this, but they aren't deleted because they're more 'stubs' than anything. This article's a stub.Vera26 00:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, actually it's 2,200,000 hits if you type his Japanese romanized name: Date Koji, but more accurately it should be Date Kouji 190,000 Ghits. That's what fans call him, they don't refer to him as Koji Date. I think it's the case for all Asian actors. Vera26 00:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Put "Date Koji" in quotes and try again (1500; not 2.2 Million). Your search included any thing with a Date: that mentioned anyone named Koji. Neier 10:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's true that he's a starting actor, but he does have credits, and while I didn't write the article, I don't see why the article should be deleted. It just needs clean up and expansion from the original author. Otherwise than that, the actor Koji Date does have an official site and official blogs for his fans to visit. There are shorter articles out there like Naoya Urata that aren't being subject to deletion, so I think it's absolutely ridiculous that the article for Koji Date is being subject to deletion. It just needs to be classified as a stub and hopefully someone with more knowlege of what Koji Date has done will expand on it. Vera26 10:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. 43k google hits for his Japanese name. Note that searching for English-language romanised names is always going to be problematic, due to both name order and ambiguous romanisation (Koji/Kouji). Anyway, the article may be insufficient at the moment but I'm not convinced it can't be improved upon. --Rankler 10:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's definitely a weak keep, I've already labeled it as a stub. I think it can be expanded on, because I was checking up on his official site and it does seem like he's been involved in more than just the Prince of Tennis musicals, but I have no clue what the other projects are since my Japanese skills are quite limited. He seems to have a fanlisting too already. I think the article can be improved on too. Vera26 10:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per the above comments. RFerreira 19:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirected to Andre Agassi already. (aeropagitica) 10:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jaden Gil Agassi

edit

His parents are superstars, but I can't see that their notability transfers to their 5-year-old son until he turns pro BigHaz 23:24, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete as a non-notable band, WP:Music refers. (aeropagitica) 10:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Mighty Condors

edit

The entry fails to meet the nobility criteria of WP:BAND. The speedy and prod tags were removed by the creator. Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 23:30, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Bobet 13:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stevie Sanchez (2nd nomination)

edit

Canceled spinoff of a Disney Channel show, full of crystal balling and speculation, with the only links being a TV.com and IMDB entry. Previous discussion came to no consensus, buta speculative article like this doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Heck, it doesn't even mention if any episodes were produced. NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 23:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Bobet 13:05, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My Psychotic Motor

edit

Musical group that has released two EPs, two singles, and an album on a minor label. It claims to have been charted on CMJ. However, a search on their site brings up no results. No evidence of independent third party coverage, significant reviews, or national tours, therefore not meeting WP:MUSIC and being unverifiable and possibly original research. --Wafulz 23:30, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

would you mind also nominating Richard J. Dalton? Article created by the same single use account. Unfortunately cannot be speedied. Probably better known than many of the bands on Youtube or Myspace, the band has 3 records in Amazon, "Pretty Pills" has an Arank in the 699thousandsth. No independent write-up in Allmusic, or indeed anywhere else, I could find. Ohconfucius 05:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) 10:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gaytard

edit

WP:NOT a dictionary - no encyclopaedic content. Delete. BlueValour 23:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) 10:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pink Panther 2

edit

WP:NOT a crystal ball. Delete. BlueValour 23:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) 10:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Peoples' Mag

edit

It fails the criteria set out in WP:WEB; it is been around for two days. The text also sounds ad-like in tone. Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 23:47, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kurdish-Armenian relations

edit

Obvious pov fork. Sourceless too,

But where does it specifically state that if information is unreferenced in an article that it should be deleted? -- Clevelander 08:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please see deletion policy. Articles not in accordence with NPOV, NOR and etc can be deleted assuming the concensus is delete... --Cat out 08:31, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment apparent attempt to deal with a content dispute at AFD. Nominator fails to say where this was forked from and believes that the subject is a valid one (per his "delete and rewrite" opinion). We don't deal with content disputes here. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:25, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    See: Wikipedia:Content Forking
    A POV fork is a content fork deliberately created to avoid neutral point of view guidelines, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. Both content forks and POV forks are undesirable on Wikipedia, as they avoid consensus building and violate one of our most important policies.
    Various statements (practicaly all of it) exists to highlight negative viewpoints towards Turkey and among other things. Calling Turkey the common foe of Kurds and Armenians is just only one of the many examples present at that page.
    --Cat out 18:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very good, but to be a POV fork it has to have been forked from an existing article, otherwise it can't be a POV fork. Please say which article it was forked from. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm a long list. It touches a particular view point on Armenian Genocide (helping the Turkish army eliminate Armenians?), Various historical events such as the spread of Islam (invasion? come on), Kurdistan/kurdish independence movement (dashed any hope of a Kurdish state? come on!), arival of Turkic tribes to anatolia (in expense of the local populations? come on!)... etc etc. A jungle of articles basicaly and beyond recovery. --Cat out 19:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep appears to be a valid topic and, as explained above, not in fact a POV fork. Not WP:OR as gbooks shows writings which address the subject and gnews shows some reporting relevant to the subject from a current perspective. Article requires references and less colourful language, etc, per WP:NPOV, WP:V et al. As WP:DP says, AFD "not a way to complain or remove material that is personally disliked, whose perspective is against ones beliefs, or which is not yet presented neutrally." Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article doesn't seem properly sourced or POV to me, but that's a reason to clean it up, not delete it. The topic itself is valid, and does not have any characteristics making it suitable for deletion. Saying that the article is a POV fork or contains original research is baseless. As stated, "deletion is based upon policy and not personal likes and dislikes." -- Augustgrahl
  • Keep Keep or merge. Wikipedia should probably have an article on the topic, although not necessarily this one. Rewrite it so it's NPOV, sure, but deletion doesn't solve the POV problem, it solves different problems.–♥ «Charles A. L.» 17:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Alternatively, merge into ... History of Armenia, I suppose.–♥ «Charles A. L.» 17:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the article should be merged into any others, it's a distinct topic on its own. The text needs to be more on topic, though. Augustgrahl 22:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) 10:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Megan Osdoby

edit

Does not appear to meet Wikipedia:Notability (athletes) Kerowyn Leave a note 00:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Whoever feels like it would be better to merge can do it. - Bobet 18:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inanimate Carbon Rod

edit

No sources cited, the only sources that could be cited are not substantial. It's just not notable--of the almost 400 episodes of The Simpsons, this features prominently in.... 1., and it isn't a "character" at all--it just gets a worker of the week award and helps save Homer in space. If we're going to do this, we have to take other inanimate objects from The Simpsons that feature prominently in all of the episodes, like the pattern on the curtains in the kitchen. Not notable all the way to the bank.-Kmaguir1 00:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have been an avid readed of wikipedia for over one year. Never before have I been motivated to edit any page before I noticed the 'inanimate carbon rod' was subject to deletion. The reason why I believe the inanimate carbon rod deserves its own article is that characters in the episode (e.g. Lenny and Carl, as well as the whole town for its parade) personify the inanimate object, and speak and refer to it as if it was an actual person. This is why I believe the inanimate carbon rod can be distinguished from other prominent inanimate objects (as suggested, the corn curtains as well as things like perhaps Bart's lucky red hat), because of the way the charachters praise and rever the rod's bravery and courage (personification) as if it were a real person. This obviously goes to the root of the joke, which is to essentially demonstrate the incompetence of Homer.Supermegaman 13:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But see, it's funny on the Simpsons, as a one-time gag with little shelf life. It wasn't brought back as prominent, it had the "Deep Space Homer" thing, and then the chart of the nuclear power plant in C'E'D'oh, but that was about it. It doesn't deserve its own article, it should be talked about in the "Deep Space Homer" episode. Again, there are things about which there is more featuring, the corn curtains, Bart's hat, but again, it is not the job of Wikipedia to let users in on a one-episode joke--let the episode do that.-Kmaguir1 20:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETE. The raw comment total is 8-5 Delete. But two of the Keep comments are a bit fishy: one by an editor who has made two other edits, one by an editor who has made one other edit, to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Dark Enforcer. If we discount those two, we have a raw total of 8-3 Delete (counting one Redirect comment as Delete). The argument that the non-production of the film is of some notability is well taken; this is not just somebody's fever dream, but a real event (by being a non-event) in the history of the Batman film franchise. On the other hand, no real claim was advanced that the Batman film series (as opposed to the individual films) and it's backstories and financial ins-and-outs is itself sufficiently notable that a non-produced film in the series must be notable. And WP:NOTFILM does specifically discourage articles on unproduced films except in special instances which are not really met here. So I don't see a really convincing Keep argument, and in the end, with an 8-3 raw vote total, I see a general consensus to delete. Herostratus 04:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Batman Triumphant

edit

As the film never entered production and has no significant value to have its own article. This project is already mentioned in its own section in the Batman & Robin film article. --Erik 00:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep we have a category for cancelled and unfinished films; this one is part of the history of Batman in films. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 02:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Firstly, it is not a movie that would gain a good amount of attention; it is merely a sequel in a series. Sure, people would've seen it, but is it really so important and notable that even when canceled, it still deserves an article? Secondly, the two sources are merely speculation themselves - I don't think we should be basing articles on such things. WB has not released information about this canceled movie; fans have merely speculated on it. All in all, the mention at Batman & Robin (1997 film)#Sequel is quite enough, I believe. Picaroon9288•talk 03:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article needs a bit of cleanup, but is generally properly sourced, and while not of earth-shattering importance, does factually detail the failure of the Schumacher franchise, and it's demise. I found it interesting the first time I read it, because I hadn't actually found much about it before then. ThuranX 03:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable nough as an unfinished film. --Switch 11:31, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is history as an unmade Batman movie. It tells the story of what could have been had the series gone on with Joel Shumacher(sp?) continued as director and what his next film would have been.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Walks4fun (talk • contribs) .
  • Comment First of all, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. A film like this "should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place," which it never did. Furthermore, WP:NOTFILM states that unreleased films are "generally not appropriate unless the production of the film is notable in some way." Seeing that this film never even entered production, it can't even qualify for notability. It's not even "unfinished", it was never started. If this article is kept, then it will be trimmed down substantially based on the speculative bits in the article. There wasn't even a script treatment released about this supposed film -- how can anything be assumed about what takes place? If this film article is kept, we may as well create film articles for other films that never got beyond pre-production. As I've said, Batman Triumphant already has its own section in the Batman & Robin film article, and any information from this particular article should be adapted to fit that paragraph instead of having its own article. --Erik 21:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete absolutely non-notable, makes no claim of notability. AdamSmithee 07:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, completely non-notable and already mentioned in the appropriate article. Prolog 19:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I agree with all the other Delete posts. Cbrown1023 02:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, being a Batman film is its only notority, and the information is too scant to warrent its own page. Plus, as previously said, it is already covered in its appropriate place.
  • Comment, Could this article not be turned into an article about all the other cancelled films between "& Robin" and "Begins" Like Canceled Superman films? Spencer "The Belldog" Bermudez | (Complain here) 20:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Canceled Superman films article seems pretty extensive since there were various people (such as screenwriters) attached at different points, but I'm not sure how valid of an article it really is. That's a debate in itself. Batman Triumphant was one intended film (under one intended script, it seems), which does not make it very notable from that particular perspective. The Batman & Robin article seems to contain the necessary information in its sequel section, though I'm sure it could be improved. I don't know if there's been any other attempts to film a Batman movie after Batman & Robin and before Batman Begins, but that could be an article in itself if Cancelled Superman films exists. That's a discussion for another day, though. --Erik 21:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, maybe so, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a compendium of interesting film history that gives non-notable, cancelled movies their own fansite-sourced articles. To Soundblaster619 and all the other keepers, why can't this be covered right here? Picaroon9288 23:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. There just aren't any sources on this guy, at least, none that say anything. WP:V trumps; also, AED's comment has gone unanswered. Mangojuicetalk 15:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Harry MacEwen

edit

Worthy architect who founded his own firm. Fullsome article. Claim that road named after him but no supporting source for the connection. Just five ghits here. I'm not seeing compliance with WP:BIO without further evidence. BlueValour 00:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC) BlueValour 00:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rod Propps, a developer of the Oaks Club admired Harry MacEwn's talent and presented his name to the Board of Directors of the Oaks Club. Harry MacEwen was a rare architect, he not only designed most of the residences but designed all the club buildings, china, guard uniforms and even the logo used today.

Even years after his death the homes he designed are still listing him as the architect. It would be worthy to provide information about the architect behind many buildings he designed.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kferlita (talk • contribs) 04:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]

  • Delete. Not verifiably notable; article lacks reliable third-party sources. Large suspicion of copy-and-paste due to edit history and double-asterisk that appears in section regarding his employment history. -AED 05:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. REFER TO VERIFIABLE SOURCE -(www.tampatrb.com) Tampa Landmark Architect, Dead At 90, "Had Great Style'

PHILIP MORGAN; Tampa Tribune; Mar 2, 2002; pg. 4; - User:KFerlita 15:33, 5 September 2006

  • Keep -- WP:BIO is not a policy -- as WP:BIO says, in BOTH its first and second paragraphs: WP:BIO spells out:
    This guideline is not Wikipedia policy (and indeed the whole concept of notability is contentious). However, it is the opinion of many Wikipedians that these criteria are a fair test of whether a person has sufficient external notice to ensure that they can be covered from a neutral point of view based on verifiable information from reliable sources, without straying into original research (all of which are formal policies).
    • WP:BIO is merely an opinion.
    • In my opinion a nomination that simply cites WP:BIO is contrary to wikipedia policy, and I wonder whether the nominator would consider simply withdrawing their nomination. IMO, WP:BIO should be regarded as an informal shortcut to find articles that may violate WP:NPOV, WP:VER or WP:NOR.
    • Alternatively, if the nominator feels that they can present an argument that the article is in violation of one of the official policies. WP:NPOV, WP:VER, WP:NOR, then they should frame a nomination that addresses how the article does not meet the criteria of that real policy. -- Geo Swan 02:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - most everyone who is reasonably successful in their profession reaches the rank of 'Fellow' (and that includes me for what it is worth i.e. not very much). For all the words in the article, and the sources that have been pointed up, notable achievements simply don't seem to be there. I respect the work that Geo Swan is doing on the Guantanamo detainee articles but I think that he is misdirecting himself on WP:BIO; policy or not it is by custom and practice the standard against which keeping such articles is decided. BlueValour 02:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per BlueValour--Peta 06:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to 10,000 Days, nothing to merge that isn't original research. - Bobet 12:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right in Two

edit

This is not a notable song. There is no reason why it should have its own page King Bee 01:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


yes it is keep it... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.91.116.100 (talk • contribs)

No matter how small the amount of information is, it needs to be kept. Tool songs are hard enough to understand even with help from wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.28.136.12 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_September_3&oldid=1116878387"